Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

NATURAL RESOURCES

Biotic Communities

The greater emphasis on research, partnering, and visitor education would greatly enhance the opportunities for positive effects on resources within the park. The following actions would potentially have localized minor to more widespread moderate, long- term, beneficial effects on biotic communities. The intensity of the effects would likely be greater over time as more knowledge of the resources is accumulated, partnerships expanded, and resource management actions were implemented that further preserved and restored native species, communities, and processes.

Expanded opportunities for research and greater collaboration and communication between park resource staff and members of the scientific community would provide valuable information and working relationships relevant to managing and preserving the park’s resources. The quality and quantity of information would be enhanced, as would integration of research and data collection with resources management, which would contribute to more informed and better management decisions. Park management could become more proactive in determining desired resource conditions and identifying and addressing potential impacts or threats. Research and the information gained would allow for not only better management of resources within the context of the park, but within a broader regional and global ecological context as well. All these actions would indirectly contribute to improved resource conditions by enhancing the Park Service’s knowledge and capabilities for restoring and maintaining native species, communities, and processes. Some adverse impacts to resources from research activities such as vegetation and soil trampling could occur but would be localized and negligible.

Increased partnerships with the scientific community and others would provide a wider base of expertise to draw upon in making management decisions. Increased monitoring and restoration programs would also be possible through partnerships.

Enhanced visitor education opportunities could also indirectly benefit native species, communities, and processes. Improved education and interpretation would increase the public’s appreciation, understanding, and stewardship for these resources, which may reduce the potential for visitor- related impacts. This broader base of public support and advocacy would also aid in accomplishing the park’s resource protection and preservation programs and initiatives.

Conversion of the Grayback Trail to nonmotorized use would have localized longterm benefits because of reduced noise along the trail corridor that may reduce disturbance of nearby wildlife species. Beneficial effects would likely be minor because of the relatively low levels of motorized use that would be eliminated and the continued presence of hikers and bikers along the corridor. Seasonal closure of a section of the Rim Drive to motorized use would have similar effects.

Possible future implementation of alternative transportation systems would reduce or eliminate localized effects on vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat such as trampling and erosion that were described under the no action alternative. This would result in long- term, negligible to minor benefits.

Adaptive use of existing buildings is expected to result in negligible new resource impacts. These buildings are located in existing, previously disturbed developed areas. Construction and use of new facilities (i.e., picnic areas, short trails) and minor improvements of existing pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks in frontcountry zones along the Rim Drive and other park roads would result in sitespecific loss of soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. There would also be increased human disturbance to wildlife. Individuals, populations, and species vary in their sensitivity to disturbance and visitor use might disturb or displace some individual animals, particularly those species more sensitive to human disturbance. Certain wildlife may also become habituated to human presence or attracted to the increased food source visitors provide. Specific locations for new facilities have not been identified; however, siting them primarily in or adjacent to previously developed or disturbed sites within the park and avoiding sensitive resources such as wetlands or whitebark pine stands, would minimize additional loss of vegetation, soils, and habitat and disruption to wildlife. Long- term adverse impacts would be localized and minor. Mitigation measures such as topsoil salvage, erosion control, and revegetation would minimize construction impacts.

Administrative and office functions relocated from the park to nearby communities would be housed in existing structures if possible. However, if new buildings were necessary, construction activities would have short- term effects on soils and vegetation. Depending on whether of not facilities were built on previously disturbed sites, the long- term adverse effects with mitigation would be negligible to minor.

Winter recreational activities occur during the time when wildlife are stressed by cold weather and food shortages. Disturbance or harassment of wildlife during this sensitive time could have negative effects on individuals animals, and in some cases populations, particularly when populations are low. Winter recreation, such as snowmobiling and skiing, could create added energetic stress in winter when most wildlife species are already stressed (NPS 1999d). The effects of winter recreational activities in the park are unknown, although, disturbance would likely be limited because visitor use levels are expected to remain relatively low and would continue to occur within limited areas within the park. The Park Service would initiate a long- term data gathering and monitoring program to evaluate winter use and associated impacts In addition the Park Service would identify a methodology to evaluate changes and establish limits to the visitor experience. Changes in resource conditions and visitor experience would result in management actions, such as restrictions on off- trail use, specific area closures, increased patrols, visitor education, or limits on use or party sizes, would be taken as necessary to address impacts. Wildlife could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial impacts would likely be localized and minor.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on biotic communities from land uses and activities in the park and surrounding lands would be similar to those described for alternative 1 (no- action alternative). Overall cumulative impacts would be long- term, and both major adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts would be primarily because of the widespread logging and fire suppression on lands surrounding the park and beneficial impacts would be from restoration and protection programs affecting lands both within and outside of the park. The preferred alternative’s contribution to adverse cumulative impacts would be minor. However, actions under alternative 2, particularly increased research, partnering, and visitor education, would promote the further protection, maintenance, and restoration of native communities. Therefore, alternative 2 would also contribute a minor to moderate, beneficial effect to the overall cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. The greater emphasis on research, partnering, and visitor education under this alternative would indirectly contribute to improved resource conditions within the park, potentially having localized minor to more widespread moderate, long- term, beneficial effects on biotic communities. Long- term adverse impacts from construction and use of new facilities would be localized and minor. Biotic communities would not be impaired by the actions proposed under this alternative.

Cumulative impacts would be long term, major, adverse, and beneficial. Adverse impacts would occur primarily because of the widespread logging and fire suppression on lands surrounding the park, and beneficial impacts would be from restoration and protection programs affecting lands both within and outside the park. Alternative 2’s contribution to adverse impacts would be minor and its contribution to beneficial effects minor to moderate.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Similar to impacts discussed under biotic communities, greater emphasis on research, partnering, and visitor education under this alternative would also enhance the opportunities for positive effects on threatened and endangered species and their habitat within the park through increased knowledge and better informed management. Any research proposals would be reviewed on a case- by- case basis so that potential adverse effects to these species or their habitats could be avoided.

Some inconsequential changes to habitat or loss of individual sensitive plant species might occur from new development or use as described below. New facilities would be limited and small in scale. They would primarily be placed within currently developed or previously impacted areas or corridors, or where human use is already occurring, thus minimizing the potential for adverse effects. Site- specific surveys would be conducted before implementing specific actions to determine if special status species existed in any proposed project area. If any were located or if an action occurred within suitable habitat, the National Park Service would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Department of Natural Resources to determine mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the species.

As discussed under the biotic communities impact topic, the Park Service would initiate a long- term data gathering and monitoring program to evaluate winter use and associated impacts to ensure longterm protection of threatened and endangered species. Because of a number of factors, such as limited occurrence, small populations, low densities, and/or low birth rates, these species are more vulnerable to impacts than general wildlife populations. Some species (lynx, wolverine, fisher) could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial effects is unknown. Greater beneficial effects would occur if for example, den sites were located and measures were taken to protect them from disturbance.

Based on the nature of the actions being proposed along with a commitment to conduct surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Department of Natural Resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, this alternative would avoid or minimize adverse effects on threatened and endangered species. However, alternative 2 could result in some adverse effects on some threatened or endangered species. (Further rationale is provided below by individual species.)

Canada lynx, California Wolverine, and Pacific Fisher. Although the park has conducted extensive surveys for Canada lynx and wolverine in the park, none have been detected. All these species require large expanses of land relatively free from human use. Because of the extent of suitable habitat within the park, new development and associated visitor use would likely occur within or near suitable habitat, which would incrementally contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. Increased human noise and activity could disturb and displace these species. However, development would be located primarily in nonwilderness areas in or adjacent to existing developed areas and roadways. Because of the existing development and use in these areas, adjacent habitat would not be readily used and would probably be avoided by these species. Some new backcountry trail links would be established to connect into the park’s backcountry network of trails. These new trails would be zoned for low levels of use, would require only minimal clearing of vegetation and, would impact a relatively small area, potentially affecting only a small fraction of these species’ territory or the extent of suitable habitat.

Bald Eagle. There would be little if any adverse impact on the primary food sources (fish and carrion) of the bald eagle. No new development or use would occur near the existing nest site along the Crater Lake shoreline. Tour boats would continue to be restricted from areas on the lake that are near the nest site. The primary area for potential nest sites for this species would likely be within the caldera. Potential new development along the rim, such as trails and picnic areas, could affect potential nest site habitat. However, new development would affect little of the overall amount of suitable habitat along the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new development, surveys would be completed to identify suitable habitat and locate nest sites. New development would be sited and designed to avoid impacts to nesting eagles.

Northern Spotted Owl. Current management practices that would continue under alternative 2 include protecting identified nest sites from human activities. Although new development and associated use could be located within patches of old growth stands identified as suitable habitat, no development would occur near known nest sites or within associated protective buffer zones. Most development would be in or adjacent to existing developed areas and roadways, thus minimizing the likelihood of disturbance. Conversion of the Grayback Trail to nonmotorized use could reduce disturbance to a known owl nest site because of reduced noise along the trail corridor, although the nest is located over 1.2 miles away from the road.

Northern Goshawk. Development of frontcountry facilities along roadways (e.g., picnic and parking areas, trails) could result in the loss of goshawk habitat, primarily where facilities were located in forested habitats. These developments would impact a relatively small area and would potentially affect only a small fraction of any nesting pair’s much larger territory or the extent of suitable habitat. Surveys to locate nest sites would be completed prior to facility construction and those sites avoided.

Peregrine Falcon. Peregrines are known to be sensitive to disturbances such as human presence above their nest site. No new development would be located in or above the area of the one known nest site within the caldera. Tour boats would also continue to be restricted from areas on the lake that are near the nest site. New development such as trails or picnic areas along the rim could result in visitor use above some caldera cliff faces that could provide potential nest sites. However, new development would affect very little of the overall amount of suitable habitat along the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new development, surveys would be completed to identify suitable habitat and locate nest sites. New development would be sited and designed to avoid impacts to nesting falcons.

Bull Trout. Some frontcountry development could occur within the Sun and Lost Creek drainage basins near the Grayback and Rim Drive Road intersection and the Lost Creek campground. Runoff from areas disturbed by construction could lead to increased sedimentation that could affect bull trout habitat in Sun Creek. Design and location of facilities would take into consideration such parameters as soil types, slopes, and vegetative cover in order to minimize disturbance and potential runoff. A vegetative buffer would be maintained between facilities and creek headwaters. Best management practices such as erosion and sediment controls and revegetation would be implemented to eliminate or reduce both short- and longterm impacts.

Conversion of the Grayback Trail to nonmotorized use could have localized long- term benefits because the elimination of vehicles would reduce erosion that could affect bull trout habitat in Sun Creek. Beneficial effects would likely be negligible because of the relatively low levels of motorized use and associated impacts that would be eliminated. The park would continue to take actions to stabilize and minimize areas of erosion along this trail.

Pumice Grapefern, Shasta Arnica, and Crater Lake Rockcress. The location of these plants would continue to be protected and the populations monitored. Because of the limited new development and use along the rim that would occur, disturbance to populations of these plants would be negligible. For example, some small loss of habitat or individual plants might occur where new picnic areas or trails along the rim were developed. However, locations for any new development or trails would be surveyed for the presence of these species, and measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts would be implemented.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species from land uses and activities in the park and surrounding lands would be similar to those described for alternative 1 (noaction alternative). Overall cumulative impacts would be both adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts would be primarily due to land management activities in the region. Park programs would adversely affect some individuals or habitat in the short term, but would not likely adversely affect threatened and endangered species in the long term because long- term effects would be beneficial. Alternative 2 could contribute some adverse effects on threatened or endangered species but could also contribute beneficial long- term effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. Greater emphasis on research, partnering, and visitor education under this alternative would enhance the opportunities for positive effects on threatened and endangered species and their habitat within the park. New development could result in small, localized reductions in habitat. The survey, avoidance, mitigation, and consultation actions that the Park Service would take would help ensure that this alternative would avoid or minimize adverse effects on threatened and endangered species. Alternative 2 could result in some adverse effects on threatened or endangered species but would not result in impairment to these species. Alternative 2 could contribute some adverse effects on threatened or endangered species but could also contribute beneficial long- term effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

Crater Lake

Impacts to Crater Lake, as in alternative 1, would be minimized by proactive management actions to prevent contamination to the lake. Development within the caldera and lake drainage would be minimal, preventing the addition of sentiments, minerals or contaminants that could reduce water quality. Park operations such as snowplowing would continue to be managed to minimize addition of contaminants to the lake ecosystem. Current restrictions on access and boating would continue.

The Crater Lake Long- Term

Limnological Program would continue its interdisciplinary monitoring and research program. The program would continue to inform management of the lake’s status, variability, and trends. And contributes to the scientific understanding of Crater Lake and other large- lake and ocean ecosystems. This alternative expands the research and monitoring programs of the park through expanded partnerships and the establishment of the new science and learning center. Expanded research efforts would include

• modeling ecosystem components and interactions among biological, physical, and chemical processes, including food web interactions and the impacts of introduced fish

• optical studies of the lake to include the effects of abiotic and biotic particles lake clarity

• paleo- limnological studies

• studies of benthic and nearshore communities

Expanded research and monitoring would result in long- term beneficial impacts to the water quality of Crater Lake.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative actions would contribute both adverse and beneficial impacts to water quality.

As called for in the Visitor Services Plan, only essential services would be provided at the rim. Included in this plan is the proposal to relocate the cafeteria parking behind the cafeteria. This would decrease the snow blown into the caldera during snowplowing and thereby decrease possible hydro carbons and vehicle related contaminants.

Improvements in boating technology by conversion of research and tourboats to 4- stroke motor or direct fuel injection would also prevent contaminants that could reduce water quality. Personal watercraft would continue to not be allowed on the lake, and access to the lake would continue to be provided by a single access. Water quality could benefit from these increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial effects is unknown, but would likely be localized and minor.

Conclusion. The no- action alternative would have a negligible, long- term, beneficial effect on water quality within Crater Lake. In accordance with the criteria for determining impairment, there would be no major adverse impacts on water quality, and therefore no impairment of water quality.

Water Resources

The construction or rehabilitation of facilities would have the potential to impact water quality through ground disturbance, which would result in increased surface runoff and erosion. However, due to the limited extent of proposed developments and implementation of mitigation measures, such as silt fences, erosion control blankets, mulch, and revegetation to control impacts, increased sedimentation and turbidity would be temporary and negligible.

Relocation of some park administration functions outside the park would likely have little effect on water use in the park because the existing building would be used for other functions. Adaptive use of existing buildings is expected to have a negligible effect on water use within the park. New overnight use by a small number of visiting researchers, scientists, and artists would be accommodated in existing facilities. This is expected to result in a negligible, if any, increase in overall water demand. Incorporation of water saving features into facilities would be expected to offset most of the increased use.

Under this alternative, snowmobile use would be restricted to existing use levels. Similar to alternative 1 (no- action alternative), because snowmobiles raise concerns about long- term impacts from high pollution emissions, the Park Service would initiate a long- term data gathering and monitoring program to evaluate use and associated impacts as part of an overall winter recreational use study. Management actions to mitigate nonpoint source pollution would be implemented if necessary. Water quality could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial effects would likely be localized and minor.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on water resources from land uses and activities in the park and surrounding lands would be similar to those described for alternative 1 (no- action alternative). The park’s fire management program might adversely impact water quality (e.g., sedimentation, erosion) due to the effects of fires, particularly high intensity fires. Park construction and rehabilitation proposals would also contribute to adverse impacts from increased surface runoff and erosion. Best management practices such as erosion and sediment controls would be employed to minimize these impacts. Impacts would be localized, short- term, and minor. Minor beneficial cumulative actions would include ongoing trails rehabilitation and relocation within the park that would reduce localized erosion and runoff.

The replacement of the waterline from Munson Springs to Garfield would likely reduce water loss by the system. Implementation of actions within the Visitor Services Plan would also reduce water use within the park. Reductions in water use would have a minor beneficial effect on water quantity in Annie Creek.

The impacts of other actions described above in conjunction with the impacts of alternative 2 would result in localized, minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts on water quality and minor beneficial effects on water quantity in Annie Creek. Alternative 2 would contribute a negligible adverse impact on water quality and negligible decrease in water quantity in Annie Creek to the overall cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have a negligible adverse effect on water quality due to construction activities and a negligible effect on Annie Creek water quantity. Water quality could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial impacts would likely be localized and minor. Water resources would not be impaired by the actions proposed under this alternative. The cumulative actions in conjunction with alternative 2 would result in shortand long- term negligible to localized, minor adverse and beneficial impacts on water quality and quantity. Alternative 2 would contribute a negligible, adverse impact on water quality and a negligible decrease in water quantity in Annie Creek to the overall cumulative impact.

Air Quality

Seasonal closure of a portion of the Rim Drive and closure of the Grayback Trail to motorized use would benefit air quality because of reduced vehicular emissions in these areas. Beneficial effects would be localized and negligible because of the relatively low levels of motorized use that would be eliminated.

There would be some short- term, localized impacts on air quality resulting from particulates or machinery fumes generated during construction, removal, or rehabilitation of facilities under some alternatives. Mitigation measures such as watering and revegetation of disturbed areas, requiring machinery to meet emission standards, would be employed. Effects would be short term and negligible, lasting only during the construction period.

Under this alternative, snowmobile use would be restricted to existing use levels. Similar to alternative 1 (no- action alternative), because snowmobiles raise concerns about long- term impacts from high pollution emissions, the Park Service would initiate a long- term data gathering and monitoring program to evaluate use and associated impacts as part of an overall winter recreational use study. Management practices to mitigate nonpoint source pollution would be implemented as necessary. Air quality could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial impacts would likely be localized and negligible.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on air quality from actions in the park and surrounding lands would be similar to those described for the no- action alternative. The park’s air quality is very good with negligible effects from regional pollution sources outside the park. Forest fires on surrounding lands could contribute particulates for limited periods of time. Degradation of air quality from the park’s fire management program could result in moderate short- term impacts, but the program would be in conformance with the Clean Air Act, Oregon State Smoke Management Plan, and the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan. Park construction and rehabilitation proposals would cause localized increases in dust and emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, resulting in localized shortterm effects on air quality. The cumulative actions in conjunction with the no- action alternative would result in short- term, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on air quality. Alternative 2 would contribute a negligible, short- term adverse and negligible, long- term, beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Long- term, beneficial impacts to air quality within the park would be minor. Short- term construction- related impacts would be negligible. Air quality would not be impaired by the actions proposed under this alternative. The cumulative actions in conjunction with alternative 2 would result in short- term moderate adverse impacts on air quality. Alternative 2 would contribute a negligible, short- term, adverse, and negligible, long- term, beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.