Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 4

NATURAL RESOURCES

Biotic Communities

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 expand, and resource management and restoration actions are implemented that further the preservation and restoration of native species, communities, and processes.

Removing facilities and restoring areas to more natural conditions and routing trails away from sensitive areas such as wetlands would reduce impacts to biotic communities.

Expanding resource management programs, data collection, resource staff, and partnering 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.

Emphasizing visitor activities that have low environmental impact and focusing interpretive programs on resource stewardship would also indirectly contribute to improved resource conditions by reducing the potential for visitor related impacts.

Closing roads (i.e., portion of Rim Drive, Grayback Road) could reduce road kills, disturbance to wildlife, and off- road driving and associated impacts to roadside resources (e.g., soils, vegetation).

Eliminating snowmobiling along the North Entrance Road and winter plowing to the rim would seasonally reduce use and disturbance to wildlife in these areas and could enhance wildlife migration patterns. The plowed road corridor would be less of an impediment to wildlife movement (e.g., elk, deer, bear).

Although snowmobiling would no longer be allowed, other winter recreational activities can create added energetic stress in winter when most wildlife species are already stressed. 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 park resources. 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.

Adaptive use or removal of existing buildings is not expected to result in new resource impacts. These buildings are located in existing, previously disturbed developed areas. Park 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.

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 the no- action alternative. Overall cumulative impacts would be both long term, minor to 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 the park. Alternative 4’s contribution to these adverse impacts would be negligible to minor. However, actions under alternative 4, particularly reduced development and enhanced resource management programs, would promote the further protection, maintenance, and restoration of native biological communities. Therefore, alternative 4 would also contribute a minor to moderate beneficial effect to the overall cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. The greater emphasis on reduction in development and expanded resource management programs and restoration in the park along with increased visitor education under this alternative would contribute to improved resource conditions within the park, potentially having localized minor to more widespread moderate, long- term, beneficial effects on biotic communities. 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 the park. Alternative 4’s contribution to adverse impacts would be minor and its contribution to beneficial effects minor to moderate.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Alternative 4 emphasizes preservation of native species and restoration of disturbed areas. A number of actions would reduce the extent of impacts from development and human presence in the park. There would be fewer buildings and facilities in the park. Grayback Trail could be removed and a large section of Rim Drive would be closed to motorized use. Eliminating snowmobiling along the North Entrance Road and winter plowing to the rim would seasonally reduce use and disturbance to wildlife in these areas and could enhance wildlife migration patterns and habitat for winter carnivores (e.g., wolverine, fisher, lynx). A long- term data gathering and monitoring program would evaluate winter use and associated impacts to ensure long- term protection of threatened and endangered species. Overall, alternative 4 would have a beneficial effect on threatened and endangered species and their habitat.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on special status species and their habitat from land uses and activities in the park and surrounding lands would be similar to those described for alternative 1 (noaction alternative). Adverse impacts would occur primarily because of the alteration and fragmentation of forests surrounding the park due to the persisting impacts of logging and fire suppression. Restoration and protection programs affecting lands both within and outside of the park may have adverse short- term effects, but would not be likely to adversely affect special status species over the long- term. Alternative 4 would contribute beneficial long- term effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. Greater emphasis on resource evaluations, surveys, monitoring, and facility removal and restoration would enhance the opportunities for positive effects on threatened and endangered species and their habitat within the park. Thus, alternative 4 would not be likely to adversely affect and would not result in impairment to these species. Alternative 4 would contribute beneficial long- term effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

Crater Lake

Alternative 4 emphasizes the preservation of natural resources. In addition to the current preservation actions – minimizing development with the caldera and lake drainage, and restricting access and boating as in alternative 1 – the park would seek to restore the natural systems of Crater Lake. Winter plowing to the rim would stop, except for spring opening. Vehicular access to the rim would be via snowcoach. Minimizing snow plowing to the rim would begin to restore natural deposition processes and would minimize potential hydrocarbons and other vehicle caused pollutants.

Snowmobile access along North Junction Road would be stopped. Snowmobiles raise concerns about long- term impacts from high pollution emissions. Emissions from 2- stroke engine exhaust include monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter (NPS 1999e). These concerns include the possibility that accumulations of pollutants in the snow pack and resultant snow pack runoff may be having adverse impacts on water quality and associated aquatic systems, although impacts from snow pack runoff that is contaminated with snowmobile pollutants have not been found. Impacts on water quality are likely short term and localized along travel routes because of the low volume of use and because snowmobiles are restricted to the North Entrance Road, which does not follow near any streams. Although snowmobile use is not expected to appreciably increase, 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 no point source pollution would be implemented if necessary. Water quality could benefit from increased protection measures, although the extent of potential beneficial effects is unknown, but would likely be localized and minor.

The long- term program would expand to monitor a diverse array of chemical, physical, and biological properties beyond those in alternative 1. Most of the sample and data collection would continue to occur in the summer months when the lake is easily accessible. Occasional winter studies are also conducted. The program would continue to add devices capable of year- round sample and data collection to gain a better understanding of processes occurring during the winter months. Emphasis would be on ensuring that all research is as non- manipulative as possible. Sample and data processing, along with data analysis and trend monitoring, would occur on a regular basis. Results of the monitoring studies are documented on an annual basis with special emphasis on long- term trend analysis. Increased monitoring would result in long- term beneficial impacts on water quality.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative actions would contribute both adverse and beneficial impacts to water quality. 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 removal or adaptive use 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 potential ground disturbance 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.

Reduction in the extent of facilities and use in the park would reduce water use in the park. This would likely have a minor beneficial effect on water quantity in Annie Creek because although overall development would be reduced, the major developed areas in the park would remain. Closure of the Grayback Trail and a section of the Rim Drive to traffic and elimination of winter access to the rim via private vehicles, including snowmobiles, could benefit water quality because vehicular emissions or deposition of petroleum products would be eliminated, at least seasonally, in these areas. Beneficial effects would 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 4 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 4 would contribute a localized, negligible, adverse, and minor, beneficial impact on water quality, and a minor increase in water quantity in Annie Creek to the overall cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have a negligible adverse effect on water quality due to construction activities and a minor beneficial effect on Annie Creek water quantity. Water quality could benefit from reduced vehicle use in some areas of the park, 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 4 would result in short- and long- term, negligible to minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts on water quality and quantity. Alternative 4 would contribute a localized, negligible, adverse, and minor, beneficial impact on water quality, and a minor increase in water quantity in Annie Creek to the overall cumulative impact.

Air Quality

Possible closure and restoration of the Grayback Trail would benefit air quality because of vehicular emissions would be eliminated in this area. Closure of a section of the Rim Drive to traffic and elimination of winter access to the rim via private vehicles, including snowmobiles, would have similar seasonal effects. Beneficial effects would be localized and negligible because air stagnation that would allow concentration of pollutants is rare and/or relatively low levels of use that would be eliminated.

There would be some short- term, localized impacts on air quality resulting from particulates or machinery fumes generated during removal or rehabilitation of facilities. The elevation and geography make the park susceptible to winds that tend to disperse particulates and other pollutants. 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.

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 4 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 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 4 would result in short- term, moderate, adverse impacts on air quality. Alternative 4 would contribute a negligible, short- term, adverse, and negligible, long- term, beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.