Alternatives, Including
the Preferred Alternative
<<
Previous
|
Table of
Contents |
Next
>>
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The environmentally preferable alternative is
the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed
in section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. In the National Park
Service, the environmentally preferred alternative is identified by (1)
determining how each alternative would meet the criteria set forth in section
101(b) and (2) considering any inconsistencies between the alternatives analyzed
and other environmental laws and policies (DO 12, 2.7E). Section 101 states that
“… it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to …
-
fulfill the responsibilities of each generation
as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations
-
assure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings
-
attain the widest range of beneficial uses of
the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences
-
preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage, and, wherever possible, maintain
an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice
-
achieve
a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities
-
enhance the quality of renewable
resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable
resources.” (Criteria 6 was determined to be not applicable to this planning
effort.)
Taken as a whole, the preferred alternative
(alternative 2) would best satisfy the five remaining goals and is the
environmentally preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would enhance
the park’s ability to carry out its mission through developmental and
programmatic activities while limiting the amount of new environmental impacts
from development and use. Current visitor experiences would still be available
but with a greater depth and range, and there would be increased opportunities
for both recreational diversity and learning about park resources. Buildings
would be adaptively used for new functions thus maximizing visitor opportunities
without expanding the developed areas. Thus the preferred alternative would
satisfy national goals 2, 3, 4, and 5 to a high degree, ensuring for the long-
term that visitors coming to the park see an esthetically and culturally
pleasing area, providing a wide range of opportunities for visitors to learn and
enjoy the area with minimal adverse impacts, while preserving and enhancing the
understanding and preservation of the park’s important natural and cultural
resources and fulfilling the Park Service’s responsibilities as trustee of the
environment (goals 1 and 4).
Alternative 1, the no- action alternative,
would continue to preserve important cultural and natural resources (goals 1 and
4), although it would not enhance the Park Service’s ability to achieve these
goals to the same degree as under the preferred alternative. Educational,
informational, and research opportunities would remain limited by lack of
facilities and programs and would thus not fulfill goals 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well
as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 3 would provide the greatest range
and flexibility in visitor recreational opportunities, thus meeting goals 2, 3,
4, and 5. However, alternative 3 would not have the emphasis on both research
based educational opportunities and recreational diversity that the preferred
alternative would offer. Providing these opportunities and associated new
facilities would also result in more extensive and dispersed resource impacts
and a greater likelihood that resource management would become more reactive
rather than proactive in addressing issues. Thus this alternative would not
provide as great a degree of protection for resources (goals 1 and 4) compared
to the preferred alternative.
Alternative 4 would provide the highest degree
of protection for the park’s natural and cultural resources, primarily by
removing nonhistoric facilities and restoring areas to more natural conditions,
expanding resource management programs and data collection, and generally
preserving cultural resources at the highest level possible, with preservation
of historic fabric a priority. Thus goals 1 and 4 would be best served by this
alternative. Although some visitor opportunities would be enhanced, particularly
nonmotorized opportunities, overall there would be a narrower range and fewer
opportunities for all visitors to fully enjoy the park and its resources (goals
2, 3, 4, and 5) compared to the other alternatives.
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
