maps (some col.); Cover title: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon; "NPS 2180"--P. 71; Includes bibliographical references (p. 70)
SUMMARY The General Management Plan for Crater Lake National Park, approved in 1977, did not resolve the issue of lodging in the park when the existing lodge had outlived its useful life. The NPS directorate has determined that the old lodge cannot be restored for lodging in a cost-effective and safe manner. Ultimately its use as a hotel must be discontinued. The need for and location odging within the park is a significant issue requiring an amendment to the General Management Plan (GMP). Under the NPS planning process, general management plans may either be revised or amended. A revision is essentially a new plan dealing with a variety of issues that need to be addressed together. An amendment deals essentially with a single issue (in this case, the location of lodging within the park) that can be addressed without requiring a revision of those parts of the GMP dealing with other issues. Because the current GMP left the lodging issue unresolved, several statements in the GMP are subject to varied interpretation, and some components of the alternatives presented in this assessment could be interpreted as being in violation of the intent of the GMP. This assessment refines management objectives and presents alternative approaches to achieve these objectives. Upon approval, the Development Concept Plan and the management objectives stated therein will be incorporated as an amendment to the GMP. This Environmental Assessment addresses alternatives and their environmental consequences for providing lodging within the park, improving the camping experience, and implementing actions for the improvement of interpretive programs and enhancement of the Rim Village area environment. Possibilities for adaptive use of Crater Lake Lodge for purposes other than a major hotel are explored as a separate, but parallel, issue. Alternative A would remove major development from the rim area, placing all services and facilities at a lower elevation. The road to the rim would not be kept open in the winter. Alternative B is a variation on A, in which interpretive facilities would be in the Rim Village area and winter access would be maintained. Alternative C (preferred) would split lodging between lower elevation sites and the Rim Village area and would provide interpretive facilities in the Rim Village area. The three alternatives encompass a wide range of separate possible actions evaluated by the planning team. The alternatives present three philosophical concepts for park development: no major facilities on the rim; interpretive facilities on the rim; retention of traditional facilities and services on the rim. The three alternatives assume that year-round lodging could be provided if economically and operationally feasible. All provide for a major rehabilitation of the Rim Village area, with the removal of roads and parking from the edge of the caldera. Two of the alternatives would retain road access to the Rim Village area in the winter. All alternatives would enhance the visual quality of the Rim Village area and reduce the potential for lake contamination by connecting facilities to i a sewer system, eliminating the need for blowing snow over the rim when clearing Rim Village roads and parking areas, and reducing pollutants from vehicles by reducing Rim Village roads and developing a central parking area. The proposed development would occur on disturbed and undisturbed sites, with the most significant localized environmental impact occurring on undisturbed sites. Currently undisturbed areas would be affected primarily with the construction of a sewage lagoon (alternatives A & B), placement of cabins (all alternatives), and the development of a new access road to the Rim Village area (alternative C). The most significant development-related impact is expected to be the loss of some mature trees. Careful siting of facilities would minimize this impact. The design of cabin and campground facilities as walk-in, rather than drive-in, would be a mitigating measure intended to reduce vegetation loss. The net long-term increase in acreage used for development would be minimal because of the restoration of a large portion of the Rim Village area to more natural conditions. Most of the increase in developed acreage is attributable to the provision of a sewage lagoon for development in the lower Munson Valley under alternatives A and B. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would reduce the acreage dedicated to permanent development within the park, while retaining traditional services and facilities in the Rim Village area. Alternative C has the highest development and continuing operational costs but would cause the least impact on currently undeveloped land within the park. Following a preliminary analysis of alternatives for adaptive use of Crater Lake Lodge, it is recognized that the proposed actions would probably lead to the ultimate demolition of the structure. The final decision on the future of the structure will be made following further analysis of alternatives for funding restoration and adaptive use and consultations in accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). ii
SUMMARY The General Management Plan for Crater Lake National Park, approved in 1977, did not resolve the issue of lodging in the park when the existing lodge had outlived its useful life. The NPS directorate has determined that the old lodge cannot be restored for lodging in a cost-effective and safe manner. Ultimately its use as a hotel must be discontinued. The need for and location odging within the park is a significant issue requiring an amendment to the General Management Plan (GMP). Under the NPS planning process, general management plans may either be revised or amended. A revision is essentially a new plan dealing with a variety of issues that need to be addressed together. An amendment deals essentially with a single issue (in this case, the location of lodging within the park) that can be addressed without requiring a revision of those parts of the GMP dealing with other issues. Because the current GMP left the lodging issue unresolved, several statements in the GMP are subject to varied interpretation, and some components of the alternatives presented in this assessment could be interpreted as being in violation of the intent of the GMP. This assessment refines management objectives and presents alternative approaches to achieve these objectives. Upon approval, the Development Concept Plan and the management objectives stated therein will be incorporated as an amendment to the GMP. This Environmental Assessment addresses alternatives and their environmental consequences for providing lodging within the park, improving the camping experience, and implementing actions for the improvement of interpretive programs and enhancement of the Rim Village area environment. Possibilities for adaptive use of Crater Lake Lodge for purposes other than a major hotel are explored as a separate, but parallel, issue. Alternative A would remove major development from the rim area, placing all services and facilities at a lower elevation. The road to the rim would not be kept open in the winter. Alternative B is a variation on A, in which interpretive facilities would be in the Rim Village area and winter access would be maintained. Alternative C (preferred) would split lodging between lower elevation sites and the Rim Village area and would provide interpretive facilities in the Rim Village area. The three alternatives encompass a wide range of separate possible actions evaluated by the planning team. The alternatives present three philosophical concepts for park development: no major facilities on the rim; interpretive facilities on the rim; retention of traditional facilities and services on the rim. The three alternatives assume that year-round lodging could be provided if economically and operationally feasible. All provide for a major rehabilitation of the Rim Village area, with the removal of roads and parking from the edge of the caldera. Two of the alternatives would retain road access to the Rim Village area in the winter. All alternatives would enhance the visual quality of the Rim Village area and reduce the potential for lake contamination by connecting facilities to i a sewer system, eliminating the need for blowing snow over the rim when clearing Rim Village roads and parking areas, and reducing pollutants from vehicles by reducing Rim Village roads and developing a central parking area. The proposed development would occur on disturbed and undisturbed sites, with the most significant localized environmental impact occurring on undisturbed sites. Currently undisturbed areas would be affected primarily with the construction of a sewage lagoon (alternatives A & B), placement of cabins (all alternatives), and the development of a new access road to the Rim Village area (alternative C). The most significant development-related impact is expected to be the loss of some mature trees. Careful siting of facilities would minimize this impact. The design of cabin and campground facilities as walk-in, rather than drive-in, would be a mitigating measure intended to reduce vegetation loss. The net long-term increase in acreage used for development would be minimal because of the restoration of a large portion of the Rim Village area to more natural conditions. Most of the increase in developed acreage is attributable to the provision of a sewage lagoon for development in the lower Munson Valley under alternatives A and B. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would reduce the acreage dedicated to permanent development within the park, while retaining traditional services and facilities in the Rim Village area. Alternative C has the highest development and continuing operational costs but would cause the least impact on currently undeveloped land within the park. Following a preliminary analysis of alternatives for adaptive use of Crater Lake Lodge, it is recognized that the proposed actions would probably lead to the ultimate demolition of the structure. The final decision on the future of the structure will be made following further analysis of alternatives for funding restoration and adaptive use and consultations in accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). ii