Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3

NATURAL RESOURCES

Biotic Communities

Construction and use of new facilities (i.e., picnic areas, short trails) in frontcountry zones along the Rim Drive and other park roads would result in site- specific loss of soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. There would also be increased human disturbance to wildlife. Individuals, populations, and species that 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. Increased monitoring and restoration programs would be implemented to ensure that impacts from additional frontcountry development and more dispersed visitor use would be minimized and sensitive resources such as whitebark pine stands protected.

Increased contact with visitors could indirectly benefit native species, communities, and processes. There would be greater opportunity to enhance 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. Beneficial effects would likely be localized and minor.

Winter recreational activities occur when wildlife are stressed by cold weather and food shortages. Disturbance or harassment of wildlife during this sensitive time can have negative effects on individual animals, and in some cases populations, particularly when populations are low. Winter recreation such as snowmobiling and skiing can 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 very limited areas within the park. However, some increase in snowmachine use could occur due to grooming of the North Entrance Road. The Park Service would initiate a longterm 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 changes in resource conditions and the visitor experience. Changes in resource conditions and the 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. Consequently, long- term impacts from continuing or increasing winter activities would be offset by increased protection measures that would benefit wildlife, although the extent of potential beneficial effects 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. Alternative 3’s contribution to both adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts would be localized and minor.

Conclusion. Long- term adverse impacts from construction and use of new facilities would be localized and minor. Increased contact and education of visitors and possible implementation of protection measures to mitigate winter use impacts could have minor benefits to resources. Biotic communities would not be impaired by the actions proposed under this alternative.

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. Alternative 3’s contribution to both adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts would be localized and minor.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Similar to impacts discussed under biotic communities, increased monitoring and restoration programs and increased contact with visitors would enhance the opportunities for positive effects on threatened and endangered species. Some inconsequential changes to habitat or loss of individuals might occur from new development or use as described below. New frontcountry facilities would be relatively small in scale, but would be constructed in more locations under this alternative. They would primarily be placed within currently developed or previously impacted areas or road corridors, 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.

Similar to alternative 2, development proposed under alternative 3 may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect special status species for the following reasons:

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. New frontcountry development and trails would result in more dispersed use. This increased human noise and activity could disturb and displace these species. However, development and trails would be located in nonwilderness areas, primarily in or adjacent to existing developed areas and road corridors. 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. New development and use would affect only a very small portion of suitable habitat within the park.

Bald Eagle. There would have 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 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 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 located in or adjacent to existing developed areas and roadways, thus minimizing the likelihood of disturbance.

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 be 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 Creek drainage basin along Grayback Trail and Rim Drive. 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. Use of the Grayback Trail would not change and 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 greater potential for new development and use along the rim under this alternative, loss of habitat or individual plants could occur. These plants exist in distinct locations and 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 3 could contribute some adverse effects on threatened or endangered species but could also contribute beneficial long- term effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. New development and more dispersed use could result in small, localized reductions in habitat and disturbance to individuals. 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 3 could result in some adverse effects on threatened or endangered species but would not result in impairment to these species. Alternative 3 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

Alternative 3 seeks to allow a greater range of visitor opportunities to the extent that resources continue to be protected. Impacts on Crater Lake would generally be the same as those listed under alternative 1 (no- action alternative). Minimizing development within the caldera and lake drainage would prevent addition of sentiments, minerals, or contaminants that could reduce water quality. Current restrictions on access and boating would continue to minimize contaminants that could reduce water quality.

The long- term research and monitoring program would continue. Continued monitoring would result in long- term beneficial impacts on water quality.

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same cumulative effects on Crater Lake as those listed under alternative 1.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on Crater Lake as those listed under alternative 1. This 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 and more dispersed visitor use 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 measures, designated trails, and revegetation to control impacts, increased sedimentation and turbidity would be temporary and negligible.

Under this alternative, grooming the North Entrance Road to accommodate snowcoaches could increase use of both snowcoaches and snowmobiles, although, use volumes would not be expected to increase appreciably. 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. Additional impacts from some increased use would be mitigated by increased protection measures. 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 may 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 3 would result in localized, minor adverse and beneficial impacts on water quality and minor to moderate beneficial effects on water quantity in Annie Creek. Alternative 3 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 3 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 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 3 would result in shortand long- term negligible to minor adverse and beneficial impacts on water quality and quantity. Alternative 3 would contribute a negligible adverse impact on water quality and negligible decrease in water quantity in Annie Creek to the overall cumulative impact.

Air Quality

Implementation of a shuttle system would result in an incremental reduction in traffic and thus emissions along the Rim Drive and the roadway between the rim and Mazama. This would likely result in localized, negligible beneficial effects on air quality.

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, grooming the North Entrance Road to accommodate snowcoaches could increase use of both snowcoaches and snowmobiles, although, use volumes would not be expected to increase appreciably. 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. Additional impacts from some increased use would be mitigated by increased protection measures. Air quality could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial 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 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, moderate, adverse impacts on air quality. Alternative 3 would contribute a negligible short- term, adverse, and negligible, longterm, beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Long- term beneficial impacts to air quality within the park under this alternative would be negligible. 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 3 would result in short- term moderate adverse impacts on air quality. Alternative 3 would contribute a negligible, short- term, adverse, and negligible, long- term, beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.