Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Implementation of alternative 3 on archeological resources would generally be the same as those listed under alternative 1, although the additional construction of trails to introduce visitors to a diverse range of ecosystems and terrain, could have some additional impacts on archeological sites. If known archeological resources could not be avoided, the range of potential adverse effects to archeological resources would be negligible to moderate depending upon the extent to which the resources were affected.

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same cumulative effects on archeological resources as those listed under alternative 1.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on archeological resources as those listed under alternative 1, although the additional construction of trails could have some additional impacts on archeological sites. If known archeological resources could not be avoided, the range of potential adverse effects to archeological resources would be negligible to moderate depending upon the extent to which the resources were affected.

There would be no adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national park, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with archeological resources.

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect of actions under this alternative on archeological resources would be no adverse effect.

Historic Structures/Buildings

Implementation of this alternative would have the same impacts on historic structures/buildings as those listed under alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of this alternative would have the same cumulative effects on historic structures/buildings as those listed under alternative 1.

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 3 would have the same impacts on historic structures/buildings as those listed under alternative 1.

There would be no adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national park, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with historic structures/ buildings.

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect of actions under this alternative on historic structures/buildings would be no adverse effect.

Cultural Landscapes

Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on cultural landscapes as those listed under alternative 1, although provision for dispersed and expanded recreational opportunities and development of new trails to introduce visitors to a diverse range of ecosystems could result in additional impacts on the park’s cultural landscapes. If known resources could not be avoided, the range of potential adverse impacts to cultural landscapes would be negligible to moderate depending upon the extent to which the resources were affected.

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same cumulative effects on cultural landscapes as those listed under alternative 1, although provision for decentralized recreational opportunities and development of new trails could result in additional cumulative effects on the park’s cultural landscapes.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on cultural landscapes as those listed under alternative 1, although provision for decentralized recreational opportunities and development of new trails to introduce visitors to a diverse range of ecosystems could result in additional impacts on the park’s cultural landscapes. If known resources could not be avoided, the range of potential adverse impacts to cultural landscapes would be negligible to moderate depending upon the extent to which the resources were affected.

There would be no adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national park, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes.

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect of actions under this alternative on cultural landscapes would be no adverse effect.

Ethnographic Resources

Implementation of alternative 3 would generally have the same impacts on ethnographic resources as those listed under alternative 1, although emphasis on visitor enjoyment of the diverse and unique natural environment of the national park could have some barely perceptible or measurable, and hence negligible, impacts on such resources. Provision for a wider range of visitor experiences could result in some intrusion on sacred sites or landscapes and important traditional use activity areas and thus have minor adverse impacts on ethnographic resources., because the impacts would be noticeable but would neither appreciably alter resource conditions nor alter the relationship between the resource and the affiliated group’s body of practices and beliefs.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects to ethnographic resources resulting from implementation of this alternative would be similar to those described for alternative 1, with the addition of minor adverse impacts associated with provisions for wider ranges of visitor experience. However, the minor adverse impacts associated with such provisions would represent a very small incremental increase in any overall adverse cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative generally have the same impacts on ethnographic resources as those listed under alternative 1, although emphasis on a wider range of visitor experiences to enjoy the diverse and unique natural environment of the national park could have some minor adverse impacts on such resources.

Section 106 Summary. No traditional cultural properties are affected by actions under this alternative. Thus, Section 106 determinations are unnecessary.

Museum Collections

Implementation of this alternative would have beneficial minor to moderate longterm impacts on the park’s museum collections because adequate staffing and space would be provided for their curation and storage and they would be stored in an on- site facility that met professional and NPS museum standards. Although adequate storage and workspace would be provided to improve curation and protection of the collections, and staffing would be upgraded to reduce the cataloging backlog, park- related collection materials not currently owned or managed by the National Park Service would generally not be acquired. Access to the collections, both for NPS and non- NPS researchers, would be limited by availability of museum staff to assist in use of the collections.

Cumulative Effects. Since the national park was established the combination of limited staffing and lack of storage and workspace meeting professional and NPS museum standards have hindered endeavors to improve care of and access to the museum collections and address the everincreasing cataloging backlog. Thus, the park’s museum collections have been subjected to minor to moderate long- term adverse impacts. Actions under this alternative, such as provision of adequate space to curate and store the park’s museum collections in an on- site facility that met professional and NPS museum standards and adequate staffing to reduce the cataloging backlog, would contribute beneficial minor to moderate long- term effects to any overall cumulative impacts on the park’s museum collections.

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 3 would have beneficial minor to moderate long- term impacts on the curation and protection of the park’s museum collections because adequate space would be provided for their curation and storage in an on- site facility that met professional and NPS museum standards.

There would be no adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national park, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with museum collections.