Draft General Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

2004·13.4 MB·English

by  National Park Service

29.79/3:C 85/3/DRAFTi
[
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Environmental Impact Statement
Crater Lake National Park
May 2004
Oregon
ClemsonUniversii
3 1604 016 745 632
I
r
\
®
Printed on recycled paper
Draft
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement
Crater Lake National Park
Klamath,Jackson, and Douglas Counties, Oregon
Crater Lake National Parkwas authorized by an act ofCongress on May 22, 1902 (Public
Law 32 Stat. 20). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in
—
1977. Much has changed since 1977 visitor use patterns and demographics have changed,
there are new demands forvarious recreational experiences and activities, and 22,400 acres
were added to the park. Each ofthese changes has implications for howvisitors access and
use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are
managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A newplan is needed.
This document examines fouralternatives for managingthe national park forthe next 15 to
20 years. It also analyzes the impacts ofimplementing each ofthe alternatives. The "no-
action" alternative, alternative 1 describes the existingconditions and trends ofpark
management and serves as abasis for comparison in evaluatingthe other alternatives. The
emphasis ofalternative 2 would be on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and
resource education. Under alternative 3 visitors would experience agreaterrange ofnatural
and cultural resources through recreational opportunities and education. The focus of
alternative 4 would be on preservation and restoration ofnatural processes. Alternative 2 is
the National Park Service's preferred alternative.
Impacts resulting from the no-action alternative would be negligible to minor on natural
resources, park operations, and concession operations, with no adverse impact on most
cultural resources. Under alternative 2 there would generallybe moderate to majorbeneficial
impacts. Impacts from alternative 3 would be beneficial, except forpossible adverse impacts
on concession operations. Alternative 4would offer moderate beneficial impacts to natural
and cultural resources,with a moderate, adverse impact onvisitoruse.
This Draft GeneralManagementPlan /EnvironmentalImpactStatementhas been distributed
to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment.
The public comment period forthis documentwill last for 60 days afterthe EPA's notice of
availability has been published in the FederalRegister.
m
B, iru6 U60UMLUi?" 1 c„m
Depository item
O
AUG 9 2004
i
o
CLEMSON
o
ERArTY..
CN
HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN
Ifyou wish to respond to the material in this documentyou may submityour comments, with
your name and address, by any one ofseveral methods. You may mail written comments to:
Terri Urbanowski
National Park Service
Denver Service center
P.O. Box 25287
CO
Denver, 80226
You may also email comments to the followingaddress: [email protected]. Include your
name and return address inyour Internet message, and ifpossible, request a return receipt.
You may also email directly to [email protected].
You may hand-deliver comments to Crater Lake National Park headquarters in the park.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses ofrespondents, available
forpublic review during regularbusiness hours. Individual respondents may request thatwe
withhold their address from the planning record, which we will honorto the extent allowable
by law. There also maybe circumstances in whichwe will withhold from the record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. Ifyouwish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning ofyour comment. We will make all
submissions from organizations orbusinesses, and from individuals identifyingthemselves as
representative or officials oforganizations or business, available forpublic inspection in their
entirety.
This method forpublic comment submittal listed above stems from court rulings concerning
the release ofpublic comments, and it is included as recommended by the Office ofthe
Solicitor, Department ofthe Interior (DOI).
11
SUMMARY
The purpose ofthis Draft General Under the no-action alternative,
ManagementPlan IEnvironmentalImpact archeological and ethnographic resources
Statement for Crater Lake National Park is in the park would continue to be surveyed,
to present a direction for resource inventoried, and evaluated as National
preservation and visitor use and abasic Park Service staffand fundingpermitted.
foundation for decision making forthe Natural resource management protection,
park forthe next 15 to 20 years. The preservation, and restoration activities
general managementplan provides a would also continue as staffingand
comprehensive direction for managing fundingallowed.
resource activities,visitoractivities, and
development thatwould be appropriate at Existingbuildings and facilities in the park
the park in the future. would remain; some historic structures
would be adaptivelyused. Munson Valley
An important element in determiningthe would continue to serve as the center of
desired resource and visitor experience NPS administration, maintenance, and
conditions forthe park has been public housing.
participation. Many issues and concerns
were identified by the general public and The existing road access and circulation
NPS staffas part ofthe initial planning system within the parkwould continue,
efforts, and comments were solicited at and visitor recreational opportunities and
public meetings, in planning newsletters, interpretive programs in the parkwould
and on the internet. continue.
Once public inputwas received the Impacts
planningteam identified four alternatives
—
for managingthe park a no-action and Impacts resultingfrom the no-action
three action alternatives, includingthe alternative would be negligible to minor
preferred alternative. The plan also on natural resources, park operations, and
analyzes and presents the environmental concession operations. Most cultural
and socioeconomic impacts or resources, archeological sites, cultural
consequences ofimplementingeach of landscapes, ethnographic resources, or
—
those alternatives the environmental museum collections would have no
impact statement part ofthis document. A adverse impacts. Rehabilitation ofthe
summary ofthe alternatives and the superintendent's residence would result in
important impacts is given below. minor adverse impacts due to some loss of
historic fabric. However, adaptive use of
ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO ACTION the structure as a science and learning
centerwould ensure its long-term
Description preservation and therefore provide a
moderate beneficial impact.
The no-action alternative represents
continuation ofthe current management Visitor access, recreational and educa-
direction and approach at the park. It is a tional opportunities, and visitor facilities
way ofevaluatingthe proposed actions of and serviceswould remain relatively
the other three alternatives. unchanged, and the park would continue
in
SUMMARY
to be an important visitor attraction, disseminated throughout the park to
contributingto the tourism industry in the rangers, interpretive staff, and visitors. As
region. However, potential increases in a result, special in-depth tours would be
visitation over the life ofthe plan could available to interestgroups such as
impact the ability to access some areas of birdwatchers orgeology clubs.
the park and enjoy those areas in relative
solitude and tranquility. As described under the no-action
alternative, existingbuildings and facilities
ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED) - in the park would remain, but some
EMPHASIS ON INCREASED structures would be adaptivelyused.
OPPORTUNITIES
Current and future needs for office and
Description administrative space would be
accommodated without additional
Management ofthe park would emphasize construction. Administrative and other
increased opportunities for recreational organizational functions, which are not by
diversity and research and education. necessity park-based,would be moved to
Most recreational opportunitieswould surrounding communities as demand for
remain, but new opportunities along Rim space within the park increased.
Drive would allowvisitors to directly
experience the primary resource ofCrater Parkingand road congestion at the park
Lake in ways other than driving. Any new would be managed by improving existing
uses around the rim would be nonmotor- pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. If,
ized and low impact. Opportunities to in the future, crowding conditions devel-
experience the lake by hikingand biking in oped, shuttles and other alternative trans-
a quieter settingwould be explored by portation systemswould be used to solve
experiemental seasonal road closures of the problems, rather than expanding road
East Rim Drive. Other frontcountry and parking capacities.
opportunities, such as short trails and
picnic areas, would be alongthe roadways. Impacts
These new opportunities would provide
transitional experiences between the This alternative increases visitor
developed areas (ortransportations opportunities for recreation, education
corridors) and the backcountry and also and interpretation, and access to park
provide for enhanced interpretation, new facilities and services, creatingmajor
research, and access the backcountry. beneficial impacts on the visitor
Winter snowmobile and snowcoach access experience.
would remain alongNorthJunction to the
rim. Impacts on cultural resources, including
the superintendent's house, would be the
Research and educational opportunities same as the no-action alternative, with the
would be enhanced. A new science and exception ofmuseum collections, which
learning centerwould form the core ofthe would have minor to moderate, long-term
new research. The park would expand and benefits.
encourage partnerships with universities,
scientists, and educational groups. The Greater emphasis on research, partnering,
informationgathered would be and visitor education would also indirectly
IV
Summary
promote moderate beneficial effects on improved bygroomingalong North
biotic communities and could result in Junction Road. Duringthe summer season
some adverse impacts on some threatened use ofa shuttle bus system would be
and endangered species. explored.
As in alternative 1, some benefitswould Use ofmost current facilities would
result from reconfiguration ofRim Village continue. Treatment ofhistoric structures
and adaptive reuse ofexistingbuildings. and cultural landscapeswould be similar
However, under alternative 2, increasing to the no-action alternative, although such
staffingand movingsome functions out of resources could be affected by
the park to nearby communities would construction ofadditional trails,
result in beneficial impacts on park installation ofnew interpretive signs and
operations and on the local economy. other media, and expanded tour programs
Although the impact regionallywould be under alternative 3.
negligible, the park would continue to be
an importantvisitor attraction and Adequate space in an onsite facilitywould
contribute to the tourism industryin the be provided forthe curation and storage
three-county region. Alternative 2 is the ofthe park's museum collections .
environmentally preferred alternative as
evaluated accordingto the National Impacts
Environmental PolicyAct.
This alternative's emphasis on increasing
ALTERNATIVE 3 -EMPHASIS ON the diversity ofvisitor experience would
ENJOYMENT OFTHE NATURAL create majorbeneficial impacts on the
ENVIRONMENT visitor experience. The shift toward a
diverse visitorprogram also would
Description decrease the range ofinterpretive
programs, resultingin a moderate adverse
The emphasis ofthis alternative would be impact on those preferringinterpretive
to allowvisitors to experience agreater programs over experience.
range ofnatural and cultural resources
significant and unique to the park through Impacts on cultural resources would be
recreational opportunities and education. the same as alternative 2.
Awider range ofvisitor experienceswould
reach outto greater diversity ofvisitor Actions resultingfrom this alternative
groups. Recreational programs,which would result in some adverse impacts on
would focus on minimizingimpact,would some threatened and endangered species
provide the focus for interpretation and orbiotic communities.
education.
As described under alternative 2, the
Resources would be managed to permit reconfiguration ofRim Village, adaptive
recreation while protectingthe resources. reuse ofexistingbuildings, increased
Opportunities for recreation would be staffing, and moving some functions
viewed ina regional context, where the outside the park would result in beneficial
park could serve as a source ofinforma- impacts. The park also would continue to
tion for regional recreational oppor- be an important visitor attraction and
tunities. Winter access would be
SUMMARY
contribute to the tourism industry in the Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch. Winter
three-county region. use ofthe parkwould change to allow
natural processes to proceed with less
ALTERNATIVE 4- EMPHASIS ON disturbance than current management
PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION practices allow. Winter plowing ofthe
OF NATURAL RESOURCES road to the rim would stop, except for
spring opening. Snowmobilingalong
Description NorthJunction Road would no longer be
allowed.
Park managementwould be focused on
the preservation ofnative species and Facilities that are not historic and not
natural processes and the restoration of essential to park functions would be
biodiversity and natural processes where removed and the area rehabilitated.
altered. The park would be an active Functions that are, by necessity park-
partner in a regional conservation strategy based, would be retained in the park.
thatwould include other agencies and
environmental groups. Most park Impacts
operations and visitor contact facilities
would be outside the park and shared with Impacts resultingfrom this alternative
other agencies and communities. would include overall beneficial impacts to
natural and cultural resources. The
Resource preservation and restoration decrease in diversity ofopportunities,
would be the overriding consideration in accessibility, and number ofinterpretive
the park. Areas that have been altered programs would have a moderate adverse
would be restored to their natural impact on the visitor experience.
conditions. Cultural resources would be
preserved at the highest level possible. A decrease in buildings and facilities in the
Museum collections would be increased park, alongwith reduced winter opera-
but would be stored in an offsite facility tions, would have moderate beneficial
that met professional and National Park impacts on park operations. The addition
Service museum standards. ofa shuttle and snowcoachwould result in
moderate, long- term, adverse impacts on
The visitor experience would stress concession operations.
activities that have low environmental
impacts on and are harmonious with the Moving operations out ofthe park would
resources. More emphasiswould be place have a beneficial impact on the local
on self-guided and discover y education, economy. Although the impact regionally
and interpretive programs would focus on would be negligible, the park would
stewardship. continue to be an important visitor
attraction and contribute to the tourism
Vehicular transportation would be altered industry in the three-county region.
to reinforce the visitor experience. The
Rim Road would be closed between
VI
1 7
CONTENTS
PURPOSEOFAND NEED FORTHEPLAN
1
Purpose, Need, and Scoping 3
Introduction 3
BriefDescription ofthe Park 3
Purpose and Need 7
The ScopingProcess 8
PlanningDirectionand Guidance 9
Purpose,Significance,Mission,and InterpretiveThemes 9
Servicewide Laws and Policies 1
Special MandatesandAdministrative Commitments 1
PlanningIssues 21
ImpactTopics-ResourcesAnd Valuesat Stake inthe Planning Process 23
ImpactsTopics 23
ImpactTopics Eliminated from FurtherEvaluation 24
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDINGTHE PREFERREDALTERNATIVE 31
TheAlternatives 33
ActionsCommontoAllAlternatives 33
DevelopmentoftheAlterantives 34
ManagementZones 34
Alternative 1 -NoAction 39
—
Alternative 2: PreferredAlternative Emphasis onIncreased Opportunities 43
Alternative 3: Emphasison Enjoyment ofthe Natural Environment 51
Alternative 4: Emphasis on Preservationand Restoration ofNatural Processes 57
MitigatingMeaures 63
Alternatives orActions Considered but Eliminated from FurtherStudy 67
Identificationofthe PreferredAlternative 68
Environmentally PreferredAlternative 70
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 79
Cultural Resources 81
Natural Resources 89
Visitors andthe Park 95
Operations 101
Socioeconomic Environment 105
ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES
109
Introduction 111
MethodologyforAnalyzingImpacts 112
Impactsto Cultural Resourcesand Section 106 ofthe
National Historic PreservationAct 112
Cultural Resources 113
Natural Resources 116
VisitorUse 118
Parkand Concession Operations 119
Socioeconomic Environment 119
Cumulative Impacts 121
ImpairmentofPark Resources orValues 123
vn
CONTENTS
Impacts ofImplementingAlternative 1 -NoAction 124
Cultural Resources 124
Natural Resources 129
Visitor Use 135
Operations 138
Socioeconomic Environment 139
UnavoidableAdverse Effects 140
Relationship ofShort-Term Uses ofthe Environmentand the Maintenance
and EnhancementofLong-Term Productivity 140
Irreversible orIrretrievable CommitmentofResources 141
Impacts ofImplementingAlternative 2-PreferredAlternative 142
Cultural Resources 142
Natural Resources 145
VisitorUse 153
Operations 157
Socioeconomic Environment 158
UnavoidableAdverse Effects 160
Relationship ofShort-Term Uses ofthe Environmentand the Maintenance
and EnhancementofLong-Term Productivity 160
Irreversible orIrretrievable Commitment ofResources 160
Impacts ofImplementingAlternative 3 161
Cultural Resources 161
Natural Resources 164
VisitorUse 170
Operations 173
Socioeconomic Environment 174
UnavoidableAdverse Effects 176
Relationship ofShort-Term Uses ofthe Environmentand the Maintenance
and Enhancement ofLong-Term Productivity 176
Irreversible orIrretrievable Commitment ofResources 176
Impacts ofImplementingAlternative 4 177
Cultural Resources 177
Natural Resources 180
VisitorUse 185
Operations 188
Socioeconomic Environment 189
UnavoidableAdverse Effects 191
Relationship ofShort-Term Uses ofthe Environmentand the Maintenance
and Enhancement ofLong-Term Productivity 191
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment ofResources 191
CONSULTATIONAND COORDINATION
193
APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX 199
vm