Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 4

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on archeological resources as those listed under alternative 1. Although the resource preservation emphasis of this alternative could be expected to have some negligible to minor, long- term, beneficial impacts on archeological sites, removal of nonessential buildings could have some negligible to minor, long- term and permanent, adverse impacts on such resources.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects to archeological resources would be similar to those described for alternative 1, with the addition of minor beneficial impacts resulting from the resource preservation emphasis of this alternative and some negligible to minor, long- term and permanent, adverse impacts on such resources resulting from removal of nonessential buildings. The minor beneficial impacts, as well as the negligible to minor, long- term and permanent adverse impacts associated with implementation of this alternative would, however, be a small component of any overall cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on archeological resources as those listed under alternative 1, although resource preservation emphasis could be expected to have some negligible to minor long- term beneficial impacts on archeological sites.

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 impacts on historic structures/buildings that are similar to those listed under alternative 1. Alternative 4 would have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on historic structures/buildings because they would be subjected to less wear and tear as a result of reduced adaptive use, modifications, and winter use and appropriate preservation treatments would be determined for all historic structures in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards in consultation with the Oregon state historic preservation officer and the historic preservation community.

Cumulative Effects. In the past, documented values of some historic structures/buildings in the park have been subjected to cumulative adverse, minor to moderate, long- term, and permanent impacts. Actions under this alternative would have impacts on historic structures/buildings that are similar to those listed under alternative 1 (including, among other things, application of appropriate preservation treatments for all historic structures, would contribute beneficial, minor to moderate, long- term effects to any overall cumulative impact on historic structures/buildings.

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 4 would have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on historic structures/buildings.

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 have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes in the park because the Munson Valley, Rim Village, and Rim Drive cultural landscapes would be managed as cultural heritage zones to maximize preservation of their significant documented values and features. Although this alternative would have a minor to moderate, long- term, adverse effect on Rim Drive, because a portion of the road would be closed to vehicular traffic and thus alter historic use of the road, rehabilitation of most pulloffs, parking areas, and overlooks along the roadway to their original designed appearance would have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on the Rim Drive cultural landscape. Removal of nonhistoric structures and facilities throughout the park would generally have minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes in the park.

Cumulative Effects. In the past lack of concern for the preservation of cultural landscapes in the park has resulted in minor to moderate long- term adverse impacts on such resources because decisions about site development and resource management have compromised some of the character- defining patterns and features as well as the documented values of cultural landscapes. Actions under alternative 4, such as management of the Munson Valley, Rim Village, and Rim Drive cultural landscapes as cultural heritage zones, and removal of nonhistoric structures and features, would contribute beneficial minor to moderate long- term effects to any overall cumulative effect on cultural landscapes.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes in the park because the Munson Valley, Rim Village, and Rim Drive cultural landscapes would be managed as cultural heritage zones to preserve their documented values, and nonhistoric structures and facilities would be removed throughout the park.

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 this alternative would generally have the same impacts on ethnographic resources as those listed under alternative 1. However, emphasis on natural resource preservation and restoration and reduction of human presence on the natural landscape could be expected to have negligible to minor, beneficial, long- term impacts on such resources. Emphasis on natural resource preservation/restoration and reduction of human presence on the natural landscape could be expected to reduce intrusion on sacred sites or landscapes and important traditional use activity areas, thus resulting in some negligible to minor, beneficial, long- term improvement in ethnographic resource conditions and access to and/or accommodation of various groups’ traditional practices or beliefs relating to such sites.

Cumulative Effects. National Park Service development and administrative/maintenance operations, as well as increasing visitor use of the national park since its establishment, have had and are continuing to have cumulative adverse, negligible to minor effects on ethnographic resources. As sacred sites in south- central Oregon have been lost over time, those remaining in the park have become more significant to the Klamath Tribes and other affiliated Native American groups. Actions under this alternative such as natural resource preservation and restoration and reduction of human presence on the natural landscape would contribute negligible to minor long- term beneficial effects to any overall cumulative effect on ethnographic resources.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on ethnographic resources as those listed under alternative 1. However, emphasis on natural resource preservation/restoration and reduction of human presence on the natural landscape could be expected have negligible to minor beneficial long- term impacts on such resources.

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 ethnographic 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 the increased volume of the collections that would result from expanded park research activities, as well as acquisition of pertinent park- related collection materials not currently owned or managed by the National Park Service, would be stored in an offsite facility that met professional and NPS museum standards. Thus, provision for adequate storage and workspace would be provided to improve curation, protection, and access to the collections, and staffing would be increased to reduce the cataloging backlog.

Cumulative Effects. Since the national park was established, the combination of limited staffing and lack of storage and workspace that meets professional and NPS museum standards have hindered endeavors to improve care of and access to the museum collections and address the ever- increasing cataloging backlog, thus having minor to moderate long- term adverse effects on such resources. Actions under this alternative such as expansion of the collections and their storage in an offsite facility that meets professional and NPS museum standards and provision for adequate storage, workspace, and staffing to improve curation, protection, and access to the collections would contribute to beneficial, minor to moderate, longterm effects to any overall cumulative effect on the park’s museum collections.

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 4 would have beneficial, minor to moderate, long- term impacts on the park’s museum collections. 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 the park’s museum collections.