[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32845-32846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan,
Crater Lake National Park, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath Counties, OR;
Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a final general
management plan (GMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for
Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. The final EIS identifies and
analyzes four GMP alternatives which respond to both NPS planning
requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping
process. The ``no-action'' alternative (Alternative 1) describes the
existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a
baseline for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The three
``action'' alternatives variously address visitor use, natural and
cultural resource management, and park development. Alternative 2, the
preferred alternative, emphasizes increased opportunities in
recreational diversity, resource preservation, research and resource
education. Under Alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater
range of natural and cultural resources through recreational
opportunities and education. The focus of Alternative 4 would be on
preservation and restoration of natural processes.
Background: Public meetings and newsletters have been used to keep
the public informed and involved in the conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process for the GMP. A mailing list was
compiled that consisted of members of government agencies,
nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local governments, and
interested citizens. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued
January 2001 introduced the GMP planning process (a total of 72 written
comments were received in response). Public meetings were held during
April 2001 in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem and were
attended by 96 people. A second newsletter issued in July 2001
summarized all comments received in the meetings and in response to
newsletter 1. These comments were used to complete the park purpose and
significance statements that serve as the foundation for the rest of
the GMP planning (and were referred to throughout development of the
GMP).
A third newsletter distributed in the spring of 2002 described the
draft alternative concepts and management zoning proposed for managing
the park (a total of 95 comments were received in response). In
general, opinions were fairly divided in support of individual
alternatives and potential ways to address issues. A number of letters
favored continued snowmobile use, while other people favored
eliminating snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were also divided
regarding ways to manage traffic congestion on Rim Drive--maintaining
current two-way traffic, converting part of the road to one-way
traffic, using shuttles, or closure of the road to traffic. Most
respondents favored use of shuttles. A number of people who opposed
partnering with private industry were concerned with potential for
large-scale commercialization within the park.
The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS and GMP was printed
August 3, 2004. The public comment period was open until October 6,
2004. A total of 646 comments were received. Forty-seven letters and e-
mails were sent in by individuals. Four agencies responded. Three
different form letters accounted for the remaining 599 comments. The
most common comment issues were snowmobiles (24 letters/e-mails and all
3 form letters), road closure (15 letters/e-mails and 2 of 3 form
letters), shuttles (7 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters), and
snow coachers (4 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters). Comments and
representative letters received on the Draft document have been
incorporated into the Final EIS and GMP.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative 1 is the ``no action''
alternative and represents continuation of the current management
direction and approach at the park. It is a way of evaluating the
proposed actions of the other three alternatives. Existing buildings
and facilities in the park would remain; some historic structures would
be adaptively used. Munson Valley would continue to serve as the center
of NPS administration, maintenance, and housing. The existing road
access and circulation system within the park would continue, and
visitor recreational opportunities and interpretive programs in the
park would continue.
Alternative 2 is the ``agency preferred'' alternative and has also
been determined to be the ``environmentally
[[Page 32846]]
preferred'' alternative. Management of the park would emphasize
increased opportunities for recreational diversity and research and
education. Most recreational opportunities would remain, but new
opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly
experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than
driving. Any new uses around the rim would be non-motorized and low
impact. Research and educational opportunities would be enhanced. A new
science and learning center would form the core of the new research.
The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities,
scientists, and educational groups. The information gathered would be
disseminated throughout the park to rangers, interpretive staff, and
visitors.
Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment of the natural environment. This
alternative would allow visitors to experience a greater range of
natural and cultural resources significant and unique to the park
through recreational opportunities and education. A wider range of
visitor experiences would reach out to greater diversity of visitor
groups. Recreational programs, which would focus on minimizing impact,
would provide the focus for interpretation and education. Resources
would be managed to permit recreation while protecting the resources.
Opportunities for recreation would be viewed in a regional context,
where the park could serve as a source of information for regional
recreational opportunities. Use of most current facilities would
continue. News trails, new interpretive signs and other media, and
expanded tour programs would be possible in Alternative 3.
In Alternative 4, park management would be focused on resource
preservation and restoration. The park would be an active partner in a
regional conservation strategy that would include other agencies and
environmental groups. Most park operations and visitor contact
facilities would be outside the park and shared with other agencies and
communities. Areas that have been altered would be restored to their
natural conditions. Cultural resources would be preserved at the
highest level possible. The visitor experience would stress activities
that have low environmental impacts on and are harmonious with the
resources. More emphasis would be placed on self-guided and discovery
education, and interpretive programs would focus on stewardship.
Vehicular transportation would be altered to reinforce the visitor
experience. The Rim Road would be closed between Cleetwood Cove and
Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park would change to allow natural
processes to proceed with fewer disturbances than current management
practices allow. Winter plowing of the road to the rim would stop,
except for spring opening. Snowmobiling along North Junction Road would
no longer be allowed. Facilities that are not historic and not
essential to park functions would be removed and the area
rehabilitated. Functions that are, by necessity park-based, would be
retained in the park.
Public Review: The Final EIS/GMP is now available. Interested
persons and organizations wishing to express any concerns or provide
relevant information are encouraged to obtain the document from the
Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Highway 62,
Crater Lake, Oregon, or via telephone at (541) 594-3001. The document
may also be viewed at area libraries, or obtained electronically via
the park's Web site at http://www.planning.nps.gov. Please note that
names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public
record. If individuals commenting request that their name
or[bs]and address be withheld from public disclosure,
it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must
be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may
be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: The NPS will
make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations
or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and,
anonymous comments may not be considered.
Decision: Following release of the Final EIS/GMP, a Record of
Decision (ROD) will be prepared and approved not sooner than 30 days
after the EPA has published its notice of filing of the document in the
Federal Register. A notice of the approved ROD would be similarly
published, as well as announced through local and regional press media.
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service;
subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved GMP
is the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park.
Dated: April 4, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-11144 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P