![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.625in" height="0.75in"}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="7.5in" height="6.392361111111111in"}

## 

## **Crater Lake National Park**

## *Fire Management Plan -- Environmental Assessment*

##### 

**National Park Service**

###### U.S. Department of the Interior

### Crater Lake National Park

**Crater Lake, Oregon 97604**

**Document Prepared by:**

**Mangi Environmental Group**

**701 West Broad St., Suite 205**

###### Falls Church, VA 22046 

### 

### Project Manager:

###### Webb Smith

**Environmental Analysts:**

**Sarah Nardotti**

**Rachel Shaw**

**Geogrpahic Information Systems Analyst:**

###### Rebecca Whitney

###### Compilation date: June 2002

##### Table of Contents

### **Item Page**

**Chapter 1 Purpose and Need** 1-1

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need 1-2

1.3 Background 1-3

1.4 Fire Management Objectives 1-3

1.5 Scoping Issues and Impact Topics 1-7

1.5.1 Significant Issues 1-8

1.5.2 Impact Topics Evaluated in this Environmental Assessment 1-8

1.5.3 Impact Topics Considered but not Evaluated in this Environmental
Assessment 1-10

**Chapter 2 Alternatives** 2-1

2.1 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed Further

in this Environmental Assessment 2-1

2.1.1 Suppression of All Fires 2-1

2.1.2 No Suppression of Wildland Fires 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in this Environmental
Assessment 2-1

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) -- Implement the 1999 Fire Management
Plan 2-1

2.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Alternative 2 - Ecology Based Program Excluding

Wildland Fire Use 2-3

2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology Based Program Including

Wildland Fire Use 2-6

2.2.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 2-10

2.3 Impact Definitions 2-10

2.4 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 2-12

2.4.1 Fire Management Activities 2-13

2.4.2 Soils and Water Resources (Including Wetlands) 2-14

2.4.3 Visitor Experience and Use 2-14

2.4.4 Wildlife and Plants 2-14

2.4.5 Cultural Resources 2-15

2.4.6 Wilderness Resources 2-16

2.4.7 Research Natural Areas 2-16

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 2-16

**Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis** 3-1

3.1 Soils 3-1

3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3-2

3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 -- No Action 3-2

3.1.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-2

3.1.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-3 3.2.4.7 Reputation/Trust in the FS/BLM 3-8

3.2 Water Resources (Including Wetlands) 3-3

3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-3

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3-7

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-7

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-8

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-8 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-6

3.3 Vegetation 3-9

3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-9

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3-17

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-17

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-19

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-20

3.4 Ecologically Critical Areas 3-20

3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-20

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3-21

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-21

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-22

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-23

3.5 Wildlife 3-23

3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-23

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3-25

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-25

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-28

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-29

3.6 Noise 3-29

3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-31

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3-31

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-31

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-31

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-32

3.7 Air Quality 3-33

3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-33

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3-33

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-33

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-35

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-35

3.8 Recreation 3-35

3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-35

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3-36

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-36

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-37

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-38

3.9 Visual Resources 3-38

3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-38

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 3-38

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-39

3.9.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-39

3.9.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-40

3.10 Human Health and Safety 3-40

3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-40

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3-41

3.10.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-41

3.10.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-42

3.10.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-42

3.11 Socioeconomics 3-42

3.11.1 Affected Environment 3-42

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3-44

3.11.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-44

3.11.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-44

3.11.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-45

3.12 Cultural Resources 3-45

3.12.1 Affected Environment 3-45

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 3-46

3.12.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-46

3.12.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-47

3.12.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-47

3.13 Wilderness 3-47

3.13.1 Affected Environment 3-47

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 3-49

3.13.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-49

3.13.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use 3-49

3.13.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use 3-50

3.14 Cumulative Effects 3-50

Coordination and Consultation

References Cited

List of Tables

**Table Page**

1-1 Impact Topics for Crater Lake National Park Fire Management Plan

> Environmental
> Assessment\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\......................\...1-11

2-1 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alt.
1)..........\...\........................2-3

2-2 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alt.
2)\...\..................................2-4

2-3 Proposed Treatment Activity by Calendar Year and FMU (Alt.
2)\..........................2-4

2-4 Crater Lake National Park Treatment Units and Descriptions (Alt.
2).........\.........\.....2-5

2-5 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alt.
3)...............................\.....2-7

2-6 Proposed Treatment Activity by Calendar Year and FMU (Alt. 3)
\...\.......................2-8

2-7 Crater Lake National Park Treatment Units and Descriptions (Alt.
3).........\.........\.....2-8

2-8 Impact
Definitions..............................................................\...............\.....2-10

2-9 Comparison of Fire Management Activities by
Alternative..............\...............\.....2-17

2-6 Comparison of Alternatives' Responses to Project Need, Objectives,

> Significant Issues and Impact
> Topics....................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....2-20

3-1 Estimated Historic Fire Regime Characteristics Found at Crater Lake
National Park..3-12

3-2 Forest Tree Series of Crater Lake National
Park\...\......................\...\...\...\..........\...\.....3-12

3-3 Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive Plant
Species\...\..........................................\....3-16

3-4 Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive Wildlife
Species.....................................\...\....3-24

3-5 Common Noise Levels and Their Effects on the Human
Ear\...\.............................3-30

3-6 Recommended Land Use Noise
Levels.....................\.................................\...3-30

3-7 Affected Impact Topics and Activities/Land Uses Contributing

to Fire Management Plan Implementation Cumulative
Effects...............\..............3-51

3-8 Cumulative
Effects...............................................................................3-52

List of Figures

**Figure Page**

1-1 Crater Lake National Park
Vicinity\...\...\...\...\...\....................\...\...\...\.........................1-13

2-1 Fire Management Units for Alternatives 2 and
3..................................\............2-18

2-2 Mechanical Treatment Units for Alternatives 2 and
3............................\............2-19

3-1 Water Resources in Crater Lake National
Park\.....................................\...\.......\....3-6

3-2 Forest Communities in Crater Lake National
Park................................\............3-11

**Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need**

**[1.1 Introduction]{.smallcaps}**

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the results of a study of
the potential environmental impacts of an action proposed by the
National Park Service to amend the Crater Lake National Park Fire
Management Plan.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with:

-   The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United
    States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental
    analysis for major Federal Actions having the potential to impact
    the quality of the human environment;

-   Council of Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 Code of Federal
    Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, which implement the requirements of
    NEPA;

-   National Park Service Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
    Analysis, and Decision Making; Director's Order #12 and Handbook.

Key objectives of NEPA are to help Federal agency officials make
well-informed decisions about agency actions and to provide a role for
the general public in the decision-making process. The study and
documentation mechanisms associated with NEPA seek to provide
decision-makers with sound knowledge of the comparative environmental
consequences of the several courses of action available to them. NEPA
studies, and the documents recording their results, such as this EA,
focus on providing input to the particular decisions faced by the
relevant officials. In this case, the Superintendent of the Crater Lake
National Park is faced with a decision to amend the park's Fire
Management Plan as described below. This decision will be made within
the overall management framework already established in the Crater Lake
National Park General Management Plan. The alternative courses of action
to be considered at this time are, unless otherwise noted, crafted to be
consistent with the concepts established in the General Management Plan
(copies of the General Management Plan can be obtained from NPS
personnel at the park).

In making decisions about National Park Service administered resources,
the Park Service is guided by the requirements of the 1916 Organic Act
and other laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Endangered Species Act. The authority for the conservation and
management of the National Park Service is clearly stated in the Organic
Act, which states the agency's purpose: " to promote and regulate the
use of national parks in conformance with their fundamental purpose
which is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects
and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations." This authority was further clarified
in the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978: "Congress declares
that\...these areas, though distinct in character, are united\...into
one national park system\.... The authorization of activities shall be
construed and the protection, management, and administration of these
areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity
of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of
the values and purposes for which these various areas have been
established, except as may have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress."

The mission of Crater Lake National Park is \"to forever preserve the
beauty of Crater Lake National Park, its unique ecological and cultural
heritage, and to foster understanding and appreciation through
enjoyment, education, and inspiration.\" The Act of Congress which
established Crater Lake National Park (32 Stat. 202) on May 22, 1902,
recognized the significance of the area's cultural and natural resources
by stating that the Park is: "\...dedicated and set apart forever as a
public (park) or pleasure ground for the benefit of the
people\...and\...for the preservation of the natural objects within said
park\...." This act, like the 1916 Organic Act, did not specify any one
feature or ecosystem of Crater Lake National Park as being the most
important. Rather, it recognized that all these resources are of value.
Therefore, the purpose of Crater Lake National Park is to preserve all
aspects of its history and ecological environment, including natural
processes, i.e. fire, and to provide for visitor use, unimpaired for
future generations.

The requirements placed on the National Park Service by these laws,
especially the Organic Act and, in this specific case, Crater Lake
National Park's enabling legislation, mandate that resources are passed
on to future generations "unimpaired" (DOI, 2001a). This EA addresses
whether the actions of the various alternatives proposed by Crater Lake
National Park significantly impact, and possibly impair, resources or
values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and
(3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
National Park Service planning documents (see *Chapter 3 --
Environmental Consequences*).

**[1.2 Purpose and Need]{.smallcaps}**

Fire regimes at Crater Lake National Park are similar to other areas in
the southern portion of the Cascade Range with comparable plant
communities and topography. Effective fire suppression at Crater Lake
National Park over a period of more than 90 years has increased live and
dead woody fuel accumulation on the forest floor and within the forest
stands. Fire exclusion has unnaturally altered the landscape in some
forest ecosystems. In the absence of fire, many forest communities have
advanced successionally. This advancement has lead to greater stand
densities, more insect/disease infestations, and greater tree mortality.
In some cases, multi-storied conditions have formed continuous vertical
fuel ladders. When combined with increased woody fuel, vertical fuel
ladders increase the likelihood of extensive, and possibly
uncontrollable crown fires.

National Park Service Wildland Fire Management Guidelines (DO-18) states
that "all parks with vegetation that can sustain fire must have a fire
management plan." The purpose of this federal action is to develop a
fire management plan and program that utilizes the benefits of fire to
achieve desired natural and cultural resource conditions while
minimizing the fire danger to the public, park resources, and adjacent
lands from hazardous fuel accumulations.

**1.3 Background**

Crater Lake National Park was established on May 22, 1902 and is the
nation's fifth oldest national park. The park was created to insure the
preservation of Crater Lake and its natural surroundings. The area is
characterized by a long history of volcanic and glacial activity, and
Crater Lake itself lies within the 6 mile-wide caldera created by the
eruption and collapse of Mt. Mazama more than 7,000 years ago.

It is located in the Southern Cascade Mountains and contains 183,224
acres. The park proposed that 179,737 of these acres be designated as
wilderness in its 1994 Wilderness Designation proposal. Pending
Congressional approval of that proposal, the park manages that acreage
as wilderness.

The Park is bounded on the north by Umpqua National Forest, on the
northeast, east, and south by Winema National Forest, on the southwest,
west, and northwest by Rogue River National Forest and Sky Lakes
Wilderness Area. In addition, the Park adjoins Sun Pass State Forest and
an 80-acre block of private land on the southeastern corner (See Figure
1-1). These lands are managed for a variety of uses, including timber,
grazing, watershed protection, recreation and wilderness.

**[1.4 Fire Management Objectives]{.smallcaps}**

National Park Service Wildland Fire Management Guidelines (DO-18)
requires that all parks with vegetation capable of sustaining fire
develop a wildland fire management plan that will meet the specific
resource management objectives for that park and to ensure that
firefighter and public safety are not compromised. This guideline
identifies fire as the most aggressive natural resource management tool
employed by the National Park Service. The guideline further states that
all fires are classified as either wildland or prescribed fires.
Prescribed fires and wildland fire use may be authorized by an approved
wildland fire management plan and contribute to a park's resource
management objectives. Human-caused wildfires are unplanned events and
may not be used to achieve resource management objectives.

DO-18 identifies three paramount considerations for each Park's fire
management program. They are:

-   protect human life and property both within and adjacent to Park
    areas;

-   perpetuate, restore, replace, or replicate natural processes to the
    greatest extent practicable; and

-   protect natural and cultural resources and intrinsic values from
    unacceptable impacts attributable to fire and fire management
    activities

In the on-going effort to improve its fire management policy, Crater
Lake National Park proposes to manage fire based on ecosystem
boundaries, not administrative ones. This approach relies extensively on
communication and coordination with its neighbors, particularly the
Forest Service. The park also proposes to restore natural fire regimes
in the park while protecting human life and property with prescribed
fires, wildland fire use, and manual and mechanical fuel treatments to
help meet its fire management goals and objectives.

The overall objectives of the Crater Lake Fire Management Plan are the
following:

-   prevent fire spread onto adjacent public and private lands by
    containing all fires within the park boundary; however, wildland
    fire use may be permitted to spread outside or inside of the park
    from adjacent, compatible fire management areas within the
    jurisdiction of involved agencies as allowed by Interagency
    Agreements;

-   take special precautions to preserve historical and cultural
    resources;

-   expand the prescribed burning program to all ecosystems where fire
    exclusion has created unnatural fuel loadings;

-   quantify fire behavior and efforts through monitoring and
    evaluations of all fires in order to refine prescriptions to achieve
    objectives;

-   continue to research the role of fire in various Crater Lake
    ecosystems. This effort will include monitoring of ecological
    effects of wildland fire use and prescribed fires, as well as
    acquisition of information on fuel accumulations, forest insects and
    diseases, vegetation dynamics and other topics important to fire
    management and planning;

-   implement a public information program that includes prevention,
    education, and interpretation, and ensures that socioeconomic
    considerations are included with ecological concerns when informing
    the visitor;

-   comply with air pollution control regulations and smoke management
    concerns as required by the Clean Air Act and in cooperation with
    the Oregon Smoke Management Plan;

-   maintain an active fire prevention program to reduce the incidence
    of human caused wild fires;

-   identify and protect values at risk through appropriate management
    responses to fire events;

-   take special precautions to preserve and perpetuate sensitive, rare,
    threatened, or endangered plant/animal species.

Specific goals and objectives in relation to the fire management program
include the following:

-   Protect human life, property and designated resources.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Ensure all fire management activities sustain
> no injuries to the public and ensure that the number of fire mgmt.
> staff lost time injuries does not exceed 60% of the 1995-99 5-year
> average.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Within 80% of the park's developed zones,
> change fuel conditions so that predicted flame lengths under extreme
> weather conditions will be less than four feet, by 2008.

[Objective]{.underline}: Complete a risk analysis for properties
adjacent to the park by 2004.

-   Reduce fuel loadings, which have accumulated as a result of past
    fire exclusion, for the purpose of minimizing the chances of
    catastrophic wildfire.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Identify areas having increased fuel loadings
> as a result of fire exclusion, and reduce fuels on at least 15% of
> those areas to levels within the range of natural variation, by 2008.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Restore a normal distribution of historical
> forest structures and compositions (i.e. target conditions) to at
> least 10% of park areas identified by low or moderate-severity fire
> regimes, by 2008.

-   Recognize fire as a natural disturbance agent within the park and
    manage this ecosystem process through appropriate prescribed and
    wildland fire use.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Use prescribed and wildland fire to restore
> historical fire regime characteristics to at least 10% of park areas
> identified by a low or moderate severity fire regime, by 2008
> (historical fire characteristics are described in Section 3.3.1 -
> Vegetation).
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Every five years, identify and evaluate the
> changes in landscape patterns in and adjacent to the park that are the
> result of fires.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Complete a burn severity analysis of every
> wildfire that exceeds 100 acres, within one year of the fire event.

-   Mitigate unacceptable environmental impacts on biotic communities
    and historical and cultural resources due to fire management
    operations.

> [Objective]{.underline}: For every wildland fire and wildfire event,
> identify and implement appropriate management responses and strategies
> that address site-specific resource management concerns as described
> in the park's Resource Advisor's Guide.

-   Minimize impacts to cultural resources as a result of fire
    management actions.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Consult and coordinate with American Indian
> groups to ensure protection of cultural resources. Develop
> project-specific protocols that minimize impacts to cultural
> resources. Monitor cultural resources for condition before, during,
> and after fire management actions.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Utilize fire and other treatments to restore
> and maintain the setting at historic sites and reduce the possibility
> of extreme fire behavior. Maintain light fuel loads on and adjacent to
> cultural resources.

-   Provide for the safe, aggressive, and appropriate management
    response to all fires that do not meet resource management
    objectives by defining suppression responsibilities, organization
    levels, and decision-making processes.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Maintain a fire management organization
> during fire season that will contain 95% of all unwanted fires in the
> park within one operational period.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Develop branch organization chart with roles
> and responsibilities for each position. Review and update document
> annually to ensure efficient distribution of workload.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: For every wildland fire, conduct a "Wildland
> Fire Implementation Plan, Phase 1" within 2 hours of detection and
> size-up.

-   Promote an interagency approach to managing fires and minimizing
    costs of fire management activities.

> [Objective]{.underline}: On an annual basis, review, update and
> initiate cooperative agreements to assure that interagency approaches
> to managing wildland fires are implemented.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: On an annual basis, review treatment projects
> with adjacent agencies to facilitate cooperative, cross-boundary
> treatments where possible.

[Objective]{.underline}: Annually review and revise as necessary the FMP
with adjacent agencies.

-   Promote public understanding of fire management programs and
    objectives.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Revise and implement the "Public Fire
> Information Plan" and "Prevention Plan" annually.

-   Provide assertive and effective monitoring of all wildland fires.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Record significant fire behavior and
> decisions, determine whether specific objectives are being met and
> assess fire effects of every wildland fire event.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Update fire management program objectives
> and/or actions, based on the evaluations and results of fire effects
> monitoring information, annually.

-   Identify information gaps that hamper science-based decision-making
    and solicit fire research to help fill these gaps.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Identify and prioritize fire research needs
> and develop at least one funding proposal, annually.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Consult and coordinate with American Indian
> groups to gather additional information regarding aboriginal burning
> and ethnobotanical resource use within the park.

-   Park staff and visitors are protected from unhealthy levels of air
    pollution from prescribed fires. Average visibility within Crater
    Lake National Park is not impaired to levels worse than the dirtiest
    20^th^ percentile as a result of prescribed or wildland use fires.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Ambient concentrations of particulate matter
> (PM-10 and PM-2.5), as measured at critical receptor sites, will not
> exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards as established by the
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Visibility will not be allowed to degrade to
> levels within the worst 20^th^ percentile for more than four
> consecutive days.

-   Provide a positive work environment for employees through an
    integrated program of mutual respect, recruitment and retention of
    high-quality employees, and opportunities for training and career
    development.

> [Objective]{.underline}: Create and implement plans for each employee
> in which 100% of performance standards are linked to appropriate goals
> from the park's strategic plan and annual performance plan.
>
> [Objective]{.underline}: Create and implement annual training and
> development plans for each employee

**[1.5 Scoping Issues and Impact Topics]{.smallcaps}**

The National Park Service held two public meetings to discuss proposed
amendments to the Fire Management Plan and gather the public's concerns
or issues with the proposal. The first meeting took place on April 30,
2001 in Medford, Oregon and the second meeting took place on\
May 1, 2001 in Klamath Falls. The major issues and concerns that came
from the open house and other public input (e.g. email, written
correspondence) were evaluated and sorted. Issues determined to be
significant were those related to the effects of the proposed action,
and those not already adequately addressed by laws, regulations, and
policies. Significant issues were considered in developing and
evaluating the alternatives to the Proposed Action discussed in this EA.

1.5.1 *Significant Issues*

Issue: [The threat to human health and safety from catastrophic fires
that occur near developed areas.]{.underline} There was particular
concern regarding evacuation preparations.

1.5.2 *Impact Topics Evaluated in this Environmental Assessment*

Impact topics are derived from issues raised during internal and
external scoping. Not every conceivable impact of a proposed action is
substantive enough to warrant analysis. The following topics, however,
do merit consideration in this environmental assessment:

**Soils**: Soils can potentially be adversely affected by intense fires
as well as by suppression activities, therefore, impacts to soils are
analyzed in this analysis.

**Water Resources**: NPS policies require protection of water resources
consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act. Both wildfires and fire
suppression efforts can affect water resources by exposing soils, which
leads to erosion during storm events and subsequent suspended solids and
turbidity in downstream surface waters. Therefore, impacts to water
resources are analyzed in this analysis.

**Wetlands**: Presidential Executive Orders mandate the protection of
wetlands. Fire suppression activities can influence wetlands, and
therefore impacts are analyzed in this analysis.

**Vegetation**: Since the plant associations in the park are heavily
influenced by fire regimes, this environmental assessment considers the
impacts of the proposed FMP alternatives on the park's vegetation.

**Ecologically Critical Areas**: The Council on Environmental Quality
regulations require consideration of the severity of impact on unique
characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to ecologically
critical areas (e.g. biosphere reserve, world heritage site, wild &
scenic rivers). In 1995, four Research Natural Areas (RNA) were
designated in the park: Llao Rock, Desert Creek, Sphagnum Bog, and
Pumice Desert. These are ecologically critical areas. The park has
establishment records on file that describe each RNA's unique features
(see *Chapter 3, section 3 -- Vegetation* for descriptions of each RNA).

**Wildlife**: There are resident populations of various species of
reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, and invertebrates in the park,
therefore, impacts of the FMP alternatives on wildlife are evaluated in
this analysis.

**Threatened and Endangered Species**: The Federal Endangered Species
Act prohibits harm to any species of fauna or flora listed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as being either threatened or
endangered. Such harm includes not only direct injury or mortality, but
also disrupting the habitat on which these species depend. There are
several threatened or endangered species that reside within Crater Lake
National Park, including the northern spotted owl. Therefore, this
impact topic is included in this analysis.

**Noise**: Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Fuels reduction,
prescribed burns and fire suppression efforts can all involve the use of
noise-generating mechanical tools and devices with engines, such as
chain saws, trucks, helicopters, and airplanes. Each of these devices,
in particular helicopters and chain saws at close range, are quite loud.
Therefore, this impact topic is included in this analysis.

**Air Quality**: The Federal 1970 Clean Air Act stipulates that Federal
agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect a park's air
quality from adverse air pollution impacts. Moreover, Crater Lake
National Park is designated as a Class I area. All types of fires
generate smoke and particulate matter, which can impact air quality
within the park and surrounding region to some extent. All of these
considerations warrant the inclusion of impacts to air quality in this
analysis.

**Visitor Use and Experience (Recreation and Visual Resources)**: The
1916 NPS Organic Act directs the Service to provide for public enjoyment
of the scenery, wildlife and natural and historic resources of national
parks "in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations." Fire management activities can
result in the temporary closure of certain areas and/or result in visual
impacts that may affect the visitor use and experience of the park.
Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed FMP on visitor use and
experience are addressed in this analysis.

**Human Health and Safety**: Fires can be extremely hazardous, even
life-threatening, to humans, and current federal fire management
policies emphasize that firefighter and public safety is the first
priority; all FMP's must reflect this commitment (NIFC, 1998).
Therefore, impacts to human health and safety are addressed in this
analysis.

**Cultural Resources**: Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 provides the framework for Federal review and
protection of cultural resources, and ensures that they are considered
during Federal project planning and execution. The park contains many
cultural resource sites. These cultural resources can be affected both
by fire itself and fire suppression activities, thus potential impacts
to cultural resources are addressed in this analysis.

**Socio-economics**: NEPA requires an analysis of impacts to the "human
environment" which includes economic, social and demographic elements in
the affected area. Therefore, this impact topic is included for further
analysis in this analysis.

**Environmental Justice**: Presidential Executive Order 12898 requires
Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionate impacts of
their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income
populations. Therefore, this topic is addressed in this analysis.

**Park Operations**: Severe fires can potentially affect operations at
national parks, especially in more developed sites like visitor centers,
campgrounds, administrative and maintenance facilities. These impacts
can occur directly from the threat to facilities of an approaching fire,
and more indirectly from smoke and the diversion of personnel to
firefighting. Fires have caused closures of facilities in parks around
the country. Thus, the potential effects of the FMP alternatives on park
operations will be considered in this analysis.

**Wilderness**: According to National Park Service Management Policies
(2001), proposals having the potential to impact wilderness resources
must be evaluated in accordance with National Park Service procedures
for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Because Crater
Lake National Park has proposed wilderness, this impact topic is
evaluated in this environmental assessment.

1.5.3 *Impact Topics Considered but not Evaluated in this Environmental
Assessment*

NEPA and the CEQ Regulations direct agencies to "avoid useless
bulk...and concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR
1502.15). Certain impact topics that are sometimes addressed in NEPA
documents on other kinds of proposed actions or projects have been
judged to not be substantively affected by any of the FMP alternatives
considered in this environmental assessment. These topics are listed and
briefly described below, and the rationale provided for considering
them, but dropping them from further analysis.

**Waste Management**: None of the FMP alternatives would generate
noteworthy quantities of either hazardous or solid wastes that need to
be disposed of in hazardous waste or general sanitary landfills.
Therefore this impact topic is dropped from additional consideration.

**Transportation**: None of the FMP alternatives would substantively
affect road, railroad, water-based, or aerial transportation in and
around the park. One exception to this general rule would be the
temporary closure of nearby roads during fire suppression activities or
from heavy smoke emanating from wildland fires or prescribed burns. Over
the long term, such closures would be very infrequent and would not
significantly impinge on local transportation. Therefore, this topic is
dismissed from any further analysis.

**Utilities**: Generally, some kinds of projects, especially those
involving construction, may temporarily impact above and below-ground
telephone, electrical, natural gas, water, and sewer lines and cables,
potentially disrupting service to customers. Other proposed actions may
exert a substantial, long-term demand on telephone, electrical, natural
gas, water, and sewage infrastructure, sources, and service, thereby
compromising existing service levels or causing a need for new
facilities to be constructed. None of the FMP alternatives will cause
any of these effects to any extent, and therefore utilities are
eliminated from any additional analysis.

**Land Use**: Fire management activities would not affect land uses
within the park or in areas adjacent to it. Therefore, this impact topic
is not included for further analysis in this environmental assessment.

**Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands**: Prime farmland has the best
combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food,
fed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Unique land is land other than
prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food
and fiber crops. Both categories require that the land is available for
farming uses. Lands within Crater Lake National Park are not available
for farming and, therefore, do not meet these definitions. This impact
topic is not evaluated further in this environmental assessment.

**Indian Trust Resources**: Indian trust assets are owned by Native
Americans but held in trust by the United States. Indian trust assets do
not occur within Crater Lake National Park and, therefore, are not
evaluated further in this environmental assessment.

**Resource Conservation, Including Energy, and Pollution Prevention**:
The National Park Service's *Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design*
provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and
design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages
responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates principles to be used
such as resource conservation and recycling. Proposed project actions
would not minimize or add to resource conservation or pollution
prevention within Crater Lake National Park and, therefore, this impact
topic is not evaluated further in this environmental assessment.

Table 1-1 Impact Topics for Crater Lake National Park

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Impact Topic**          **Retained or        **Relevant Regulations or
                            Dismissed from       Policies**
                            Further Evaluation** 
  ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------
                                                 

  Soils                     Retained             NPS *Management Policies
                                                 2001*

  Water Resources           Retained             Clean Water Act;
                                                 Executive Order 12088;
                                                 NPS *Management Policies*

  Wetlands                  Retained             Executive Order 11988;
                                                 Executive Order 11990;
                                                 Rivers and Harbors Act;
                                                 Clean Water Act; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Vegetation                Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Ecologically Critical     Retained             Wild and Scenic Rivers
  Areas                                          Act; 36 CFR 62 criteria
                                                 for national natural
                                                 landmarks; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Wildlife                  Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Threatened and Endangered Retained             Endangered Species Act;
  Species and their                              NPS *Management Policies*
  Habitats                                       

  Noise                     Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Air Quality               Retained             Federal Clean Air Act
                                                 (CAA); CAA Amendments of
                                                 1990; NPS *Management
                                                 Policies*

  Visitor Use and           Retained             NPS *Management Policies*
  Experience (Recreation                         
  and Visual Resources)                          

  Human Health & Safety     Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Cultural Resources        Retained             Section 106; National
                                                 Historic Preservation
                                                 Act; 36 CFR 800; NEPA;
                                                 Executive Order 13007;
                                                 Director's Order #28; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Park Operations           Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Socioeconomics            Retained             40 CFR Regulations for
                                                 Implementing NEPA; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Environmental Justice     Retained             Executive Order 12898

  Wilderness                Retained             The Wilderness Act;
                                                 Director's Order #41; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Waste Management          Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Transportation            Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Utilities                 Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Land Use                  Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Prime and Unique          Dismissed            Council on Environmental
  Agricultural Lands                             Quality 1980 memorandum
                                                 on prime and unique
                                                 farmlands

  Indian Trust Resources    Dismissed            Department of the
                                                 Interior Secretarial
                                                 Orders No. 3206 and No.
                                                 3175

  Resource Conservation,    Dismissed            NEPA; NPS *Guiding
  Including Energy, and                          Principles of Sustainable
  Pollution Prevention                           Design*; NPS *Management
                                                 Policies*
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.365277777777778in"
height="8.438194444444445in"}**Figure 1-1 Crater Lake National Park
Vicinity**

**Chapter 2 - Alternatives**

This Chapter describes the range of alternatives, including the Proposed
Action and No Action Alternatives, formulated to address the purpose of
and need for the proposed project. These alternatives were developed
through evaluation of the comments provided by individuals,
organizations, governmental agencies, and the park's fire management
planning interdisciplinary team (IDT).

**[2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed Further in This
Environmental Assessment]{.smallcaps}**

2.1.1 *Suppression of All Fires*

Under this alternative, the FMP would be amended to require that all
fires within Crater Lake National Park be suppressed with available
resources. In addition, prescribed fires would not be permitted. This
alternative reflects the fire management strategy of the Crater Lake
National Park prior to 1976. The park did not consider this alternative
because current National Park Service policy 1) recognizes the necessary
and beneficial role that fire plays in many ecosystems, and 2) promotes
the use of fire as one of many tools to meet management objectives.

2.1.2 *No Suppression of Wildland Fires*

Under this alternative, the FMP would be amended to require that all
wildland fires be allowed to burn unchecked. In addition, prescribed
fire would be permitted. This alternative recognizes the beneficial role
that fire can play in ecosystems.

The park did not consider this alternative for several reasons. Failure
to suppress wildland fires would conflict with the DO-18 Wildland Fire
Management Guidelines and the Crater Lake National Park Resource
Management Plan. Both documents identify the protection of human life,
property, and designated resources from unacceptable impacts
attributable to fire and fire management activities as a key objective.
Unchecked wildland fires could pose a threat to human health and safety,
property, cultural resources, air quality, and other environmental
resources. In addition, wildland fires left to burn could result in
stand replacement fires within the park, and could cross administrative
boundaries into neighboring land management areas. Wildland fires that
burn into neighboring areas may be unwanted, and could also pose a
threat to human health and safety and property.

**[2.2 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in This Environmental
Assessment]{.smallcaps}**

2.2.1 *Alternative 1 (No Action) - Implement the 1999 Fire Management
Plan*

### This alternative meets the purpose and need by continuing the fire program according to the Fire Management Plan approved in 1999. The No Action Alternative, as defined by Fire Management Areas based largely on administrative boundaries, would include the suppression of wildland fires, provide for prescribed fires, and allow for management of wildland fire (wildland fire use).

Under this alternative, Crater Lake National Park is divided into three
Fire Management Areas (FMAs), each of which follows a set of management
strategies. The FMAs include the Crater Lake Fire Management Area
(115,107 acres), the Boundary Fire Management Area (51,032 acres), and
the Exclusion Fire Management Area (2,972 acres). The FMAs were
primarily based on administrative boundaries.

A majority of the park is designated as the Crater Lake FMA. Unwanted
fires are suppressed in a manner that minimizes negative environmental
impacts of suppression activities. Prescribed fires and wildland fire
use may be implemented within this FMA.

The Boundary FMA exists because the administrative boundary of Crater
Lake National Park does not coincide with natural barriers to fire.
Fires originating in the park could cross administrative boundaries if
left unchecked, and vice versa. Depending on the management objectives
of the park's neighbors for particular areas, such an occurrence could
complicate or jeopardize the neighbor's ability to meet its objectives.
Accordingly, in some cases, fires are suppressed before they jump
administrative boundaries. In other cases where management objectives
for the park and its neighbor complement one another, prescribed and
wildland fires would be allowed to cross the administrative boundary.
Such an act would require that Interagency Agreements be in place
between the park and the neighboring land management agencies.

The Exclusion FMA includes scattered clusters of human developments in
the Park. These include:

-   Mazama Village

-   Munson Valley

-   Rim Village

-   Lost Creek Campground

-   Governors Bay developed area

-   Cleetwood Cove developed area

Most of these regions contain structures of high monetary and cultural
value. For these reasons, all wildland fires are suppressed in these
areas. Normal suppression considerations, as well as sensitivity to the
particular areas that are threatened, will dictate the exact location of
control lines and the choice of appropriate techniques during the
suppression of a wildland fire.

The Fire Management Plan targets a total of 2,181 acres for prescribed
fire, however, since some treatment units will be burned more than once,
the total number of acres burned would be 3,437 acres over a 5-year
period (see Table 2-1). While specifically allowed for the in the FMP,
there are no acreages assigned for wildland fire use. Although the 1999
plan allows for manual thinning treatments within the Exclusion FMA (to
reduce hazardous fuels in order to protect life and property), no
specific thinning projects are described.

Table 2-1 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alternative
1)

+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| FMA           | Total     | Mean Fire   | Annual       | Target     |
|               | Acres     |             | Prescribed   | Acres to   |
|               |           | Return      |              | be Treated |
|               | in FMA    | Interval    | Fire Targets | over 5     |
|               |           |             |              | Years      |
|               |           |             | (acres)      |            |
+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| Crater Lake   | 115,107   | N/A         | N/A          | N/A        |
+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| Boundary      | 51,032    | 10-15 years | 687          | 3,437      |
+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| Exclusion     | 2,972     | N/A         | N/A          | N/A        |
+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| **Total**     | **        |             | **687**      | **3,437**  |
|               | 169,111** |             |              |            |
+---------------+-----------+-------------+--------------+------------+

2.2.2 *Alternative 2 - Ecology Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use*

This alternative meets the purpose and need through the designation of
fire management units determined by wildland fire regimes and resource
values at risk. This approach recognizes the ecological role of fire and
provides a framework for developing fire management objectives, similar
to those contained in the 1999 FMP, across agency boundaries. This
alternative would include suppression of wildland fires, provide for
prescribed fires, and allow for manual and mechanical fuel treatments as
fire surrogates. The particular mix of strategies implemented would be
based on ecological needs and resource values at risk. In response to
concerns by the public regarding the potential for catastrophic fire,
the park does not propose wildland fire use in this alternative.

Under this alternative, the FMP would be amended to include the
following four fire management units within Crater Lake National Park:
Low Severity, Moderate Severity, High Severity, and Developed (see
Figure 2-1). All FMUs, with the exception of Developed, are based upon
fire regimes, which describe the character of the fire as well as the
effects of fire on the dominant vegetation. The following are
descriptions of each FMU and its associated fire regime (Agee 1993,
Brown and Smith 2000):

-   *Low Severity* -- Fires are generally non-lethal to the dominant
    vegetation and do not substantially change the structure of the
    dominant vegetation. Approximately 80% or more of the aboveground
    dominant vegetation survives fire. This FMU applies to the ponderosa
    pine and white fir series;

-   *Moderate Severity* -- Fire severity either causes selective
    mortality in dominant vegetation, depending on different tree
    species' susceptibility to fire, or varies between understory and
    stand replacement fires. This FMU applies to the Shasta red fir and
    whitebark pine series;

-   *High Severity* -- Fires kill aboveground parts of the dominant
    vegetation, changing the aboveground structure substantially.
    Approximately 80% or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is
    either consumed or dies as a result of fires. This FMU applies to
    the mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine series;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Developed* -- This FMU includes the developed areas identified
    under the No Action Alternative. All the developed areas share
    similar/identical needs and treatment objectives.

Table 2-2 summarizes the total number of acres in each FMU, mean fire
return intervals, and the approximate number of acres targeted for
treatment in each FMU using prescribed fire and manual and mechanical
thinning. Table 2-3 illustrates the proposed treatment activity by
calendar year and FMU. Within the Fire Management Units, the park has
identified 16 treatment units where it would conduct prescribed fire,
manual, and/or mechanical fuel treatments (See Figure 2-2). Table 2-4
identifies the treatments units within their respective FMU, depicts the
proposed acreages and timing of treatments, and provides descriptions of
the various treatment units.

Table 2-2 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alternative
2)

+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| FMU    | Total | Mean   | Annual | Target  | Bre    |        |       |
|        | Acres | Fire   | Tre    | Acres   | akdown |        |       |
|        | in    | Return | atment | to be   | of     |        |       |
|        | FMU   | In     | T      | Treated | 5-year |        |       |
|        |       | terval | argets | over 5  | Target |        |       |
|        |       |        | (      | Years   | Acres  |        |       |
|        |       |        | acres) |         | to be  |        |       |
|        |       |        | ^2^    |         | T      |        |       |
|        |       |        |        |         | reated |        |       |
|        |       |        |        |         | by     |        |       |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
|        |       |        |        |         | Pres   | Manual | Mech. |
|        |       |        |        |         | cribed | Th     |       |
|        |       |        |        |         | Fire   | inning | Thi   |
|        |       |        |        |         |        |        | nning |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| Low    | 1     | 10-15  | 1,350  | 6,750   | 6,750  | 4,     |       |
|        | 9,539 | years  |        |         |        | 250^3^ |       |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| Mo     | 2     | 40-60  | 383    | 1,915   | 1,915  | 190^   |       |
| derate | 2,957 | years  |        |         |        | 3,\ 4^ |       |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| High   | 10    | 80-100 | 500    | 2,500   | 2,500  | 2,     |       |
|        | 5,224 | years  |        |         |        | 350^3^ |       |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| Dev    | 3,487 | N/A    | 310    | 1,550   |        | 910^5^ | 6     |
| eloped |       |        |        |         |        |        | 40^5^ |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+
| **T    | **15  |        | **2    | **1     | **11   | **7    | **    |
| otal** | 1,207 |        | ,543** | 2,715** | ,165** | ,700** | 640** |
|        | ^1^** |        |        |         |        |        |       |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------+

^1^ The remaining 32,017 acres in the park contain non-forest vegetation
(meadows) and non-combustible vegetation, i.e. Crater Lake, and are not
included as a separate fire management unit.

^2^ Yearly amounts may vary according to fire weather and other planning
and implementation considerations.

^3^ Manual thinning target acres are captured under those acres to be
treated by prescribed fire (e.g. after 4,250 acres of manual treatments
are conducted in the Low-Severity FMU, those same acres and up to
another 2,500 acres would be treated with prescribed fire, for a total
treatment in that FMU of 6,750 acres).

^4^ Manual thinning in the moderate severity FMU would be very minor,
would only be employed to help prepare sites for prescribed fire. It
would not be conducted solely to modify forest structure as is
contemplated in the other FMUs.

^5^ Manual and mechanical thinning treatments would be employed as fire
surrogates.

**Table 2-3 Proposed Treatment Activity by Calendar Year and Fire
Management Unit**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----------
  **FMU**     **2002**   **2003**   **2004**   **2005**   **2006**       **2007**

  Low         1,500      0          1,500      1,500      750            1,500

  Moderate    0          0          0          615        600            700

  High        0          1,500      1,000      0          0              0

  Developed   0          270        640        260        380            0

  Total       1,500      1,770      3,140      2,375      1,730          2,200
  Acres^1^                                                               
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----------

^1^ Total acres include those acres to be treated by prescribed fire and
mechanical thinning. Manual thinning is already captured in those acres
targeted for prescribed fire treatments since hand thinning will often
be followed up with prescribed fire.

Table 2-4 Crater Lake National Park Treatment Units and Descriptions

+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **        | **Treatment   | **T      | **Treatment Area             |
| Treatment | Acres &       | reatment | Description**                |
| Area**    | Treatment     | M        |                              |
|           | Year(s)**     | ethods** |                              |
+===========+===============+==========+==============================+
| # Low Sev |               |          |                              |
| erity FMU |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Panhandle | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of mixed patches of mature   |
|           | 2002-2003     | pr       | ponderosa pine with younger  |
|           |               | escribed | white fir and lodgepole pine |
|           |               | fire     | and scattered mature sugar   |
|           |               |          | pine along Hwy 62. Portions  |
|           |               |          | of the area were treated     |
|           |               |          | with prescribed fire in the  |
|           |               |          | mid '70s and '80's.          |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Upper Pan | 500 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
|           |               | thin,    | mature ponderosa pine and    |
|           | 2002-2003     | pr       | white fir with minor amounts |
|           |               | escribed | of Shasta red fir and aspen  |
|           |               | fire     | located between highway 62   |
|           |               |          | and the south park boundary  |
|           |               |          | above the panhandle.         |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Sun Creek | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit consists of   |
|           |               | thin,    | mixed-conifer stands of      |
|           | 2004          | pr       | ponderosa pine, white fir    |
|           |               | escribed | and sugar pine in the Sun    |
|           |               | fire     | Creek drainage near the      |
|           |               |          | park's south boundary.       |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Sharp     | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
| Desert    |               | thin,    | of ponderosa pine forests    |
|           | 2005          | pr       | along the NE park boundary   |
|           |               | escribed | between Desert Creek and     |
|           |               | fire     | Sharps Peak.                 |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| TC South  | 500 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of ponderosa pine forests    |
|           | 2005          | pr       | along the NE park boundary   |
|           |               | escribed | north and west of Desert     |
|           |               | fire     | Creek.                       |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Red       | 750 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
| Blanket   |               | thin,    | mixed conifer forests with a |
|           | 2006          | pr       | Douglas fir component on the |
|           |               | escribed | south facing slopes of upper |
|           |               | fire     | Red Blanket canyon.          |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Crater    | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit consists of   |
| Creek     |               | thin,    | mixed conifer forests above  |
| Ridge     | 2007          | pr       | Crater Creek along the west  |
|           |               | escribed | park boundary.               |
|           |               | fire     |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| *         |               |          |                              |
| *Moderate |               |          |                              |
| Severity  |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| PIAL      | 200 acres     | Pr       | Treatment unit consists of   |
| Research  |               | escribed | pure stands of whitebark     |
|           | 2007          | fire     | pine (both upright and       |
|           |               |          | krummholtz forms) with less  |
|           |               |          | than 5% lodgepole pine and   |
|           |               |          | mountain hemlock present on  |
|           |               |          | the flanks of Mt. Scott.     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| West 62   | 1,215 acres   | Pr       | Treatment unit contains      |
|           |               | escribed | mixed conifer forest with    |
|           | 2005-2006     | fire     | patches of variable          |
|           |               |          | age-classes found between    |
|           |               |          | the west park boundary and   |
|           |               |          | hwy 62 west.                 |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Crater    | 500 acres     | Pr       | Treatment unit is composed   |
| Peak      |               | escribed | of mostly Shasta red fir     |
|           | 2007          | fire     | with some mountain hemlock   |
|           |               |          | and minor amounts of         |
|           |               |          | lodgepole pine along the SW, |
|           |               |          | S, and SE flanks of Crater   |
|           |               |          | Peak.                        |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **High    |               |          |                              |
| Severity  |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Phoenix   | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit borders the   |
|           |               | thin,    | NE park boundary, containing |
|           | 2003          | pr       | mixed-conifer forest stands  |
|           |               | escribed | with a heavy lodgepole       |
|           |               | fire     | component.                   |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Co        | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit borders the   |
| rnerstone |               | thin,    | NE park boundary, containing |
|           | 2004          | pr       | mixed-conifer forest stands  |
|           |               | escribed | with a heavy lodgepole       |
|           |               | fire     | component                    |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **        |               |          |                              |
| Developed |               |          |                              |
| Zone      |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Mazama    | 270 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of mountain hemlock,         |
|           | 2003          | pile     | lodgepole and Shasta red fir |
|           |               | burn     | forests in the Mazama        |
|           |               |          | Village Area including       |
|           |               |          | campground, dormitory, and   |
|           |               |          | sewage treatment facilities  |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Munson    | 640 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
| V         |               | thin,    | mountain hemlock, Shasta red |
| alley-Rim | 2004          | pile     | fir and lodgepole pine       |
| Village   |               | burn     | forests and sedge meadows    |
|           |               |          | associated with Park         |
|           |               |          | Headquarters, Munson Valley  |
|           |               |          | residential area, and        |
|           |               |          | visitor facilities at Rim    |
|           |               |          | Village.                     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Hwy 62    | 260 acres     | Me       | Treatment unit is centered   |
| Fuel      |               | chanical | along the highway 62 road    |
| break     | 2006          | thin     | corridor from park's west    |
|           |               |          | boundary to the intersection |
|           |               |          | with Munson Valley road.     |
|           |               |          | Mixed conifer stands near    |
|           |               |          | the west boundary grade into |
|           |               |          | pure stands of mountain      |
|           |               |          | hemlock and lodgepole pine   |
|           |               |          | above 5500 ft elevation.     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Grayback- | 380 acres     | Me       | Treatment unit includes a    |
| Pinnacles |               | chanical | mixed mosaic of mountain     |
| Fuel      | 2005          | thin     | hemlock and lodgepole pine   |
| break     |               |          | forests with dispersed sedge |
|           |               |          | meadows along Grayback       |
|           |               |          | Motor-Nature Road and        |
|           |               |          | Pinnacles Valley Road,       |
|           |               |          | including Lost Creek         |
|           |               |          | Campground and facilities.   |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+

Under this alternative, areas previously treated by manual thinning
would be subject to prescribed fire at a later date. This would
eliminate the ground fuels accumulation (slash) as a result of the
thinning process and begin to restore the natural fire regime to the
treated stands. Manual thinning would involve the use of chainsaws. For
mechanical fuel treatments, the park envisions the use of tracked/tired
vehicles, such as harvesters, forwarders or feller-bunchers. Following
the mechanical treatment, slash would be piled and burned, scattered,
scattered and burned, or simply removed from the area.

As part of this alternative, the park would investigate the possibility
of granting people "fuel wood collection permits." The permit would
allow a person to access stockpiles and remove limited amounts of
pre-cut wood for non-commercial purposes. The feasibility of contracting
for the removal of hazardous fuels would also be explored, and in some
cases the trees removed might be part of the compensation for the
services provided by the contractor.

Park management would increase efforts to secure Memorandums of
Understanding with neighboring land management agencies, including the
National Forest Service, in order to manage wildland fires and
prescribed fire across administrative boundaries. This approach reflects
the understanding of the ecological role of fire in Crater Lake National
Park and surrounding areas by the National Park Service, and its intent
to replace the existing administrative boundaries of fire management
with ecosystem-related boundaries.

2.2.3 *Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) -- Ecology Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use*

This alternative meets the purpose and need through the designation of
fire management units determined by broad wildland fire regimes and
resource values at risk. This approach recognizes the ecological role of
fire and provides a framework for developing fire management objectives,
similar to those contained in the 1999 FMP, across agency boundaries.
This alternative would include suppression of wildland fires, provide
for prescribed fires and wildland fire use, and allow for manual and
mechanical fuel treatments as fire surrogates. The particular mix of
strategies implemented would be based on ecological needs and resource
values at risk.

Fire management activities and FMUs would be similar to those described
under Alternative 2. In addition, the park would allow for wildland fire
use to help meet its fire management goals and objectives. Earth moving
equipment such as tractors, graders, bulldozers or other tracked
vehicles will generally not be used for fire management activities. The
Superintendent can authorize the use of heavy equipment in extreme
circumstances in the face of loss of human life and/or property.

Table 2-5 summarizes the total number of acres in each FMU, mean fire
return intervals, and the approximate number of acres targeted for
treatment in each FMU using prescribed fire, manual and mechanical
thinning, and wildland fire use. Table 2-6 illustrates the proposed
treatment activity by calendar year and FMU. Within the Fire Management
Units, the park has identified 16 treatment units where it would conduct
prescribed fire, manual, and/or mechanical fuel treatments. Table 2-7
identifies the treatments units within their respective FMU, depicts the
proposed acreages and timing of treatments, and provides descriptions of
the various treatment units.

Table 2-5 Crater Lake National Park 5-Year Treatment Plan (Alternative 3
-- Proposed Action)

+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| FMU   | Total | Mean | A     | T     | B    |       |      |      |
|       | Acres | Fire | nnual | arget | reak |       |      |      |
|       | in    | Re   | Trea  | Acres | down |       |      |      |
|       | FMU   | turn | tment | to be | of   |       |      |      |
|       |       | Inte | Ta    | Tr    | 5-   |       |      |      |
|       |       | rval | rgets | eated | year |       |      |      |
|       |       |      | (a    | over  | Ta   |       |      |      |
|       |       |      | cres) | 5     | rget |       |      |      |
|       |       |      | ^2^   | Years | A    |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | cres |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | to   |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | be   |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | Tre  |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | ated |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | by   |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
|       |       |      |       |       | Fire | Presc | Ma   | M    |
|       |       |      |       |       | Us   | ribed | nual | ech. |
|       |       |      |       |       | e^3^ | Fire  | Thin |      |
|       |       |      |       |       |      |       | ning | Thin |
|       |       |      |       |       | (per |       |      | ning |
|       |       |      |       |       | ev   |       |      |      |
|       |       |      |       |       | ent) |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| Low   | 1     | 1    | 1     | 6     | 0-3  | 6,750 | 4,25 |      |
|       | 9,539 | 0-15 | ,350- | ,750- | ,200 |       | 0^4^ |      |
|       |       | y    | 1,990 | 9,950 |      |       |      |      |
|       |       | ears |       |       |      |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| Mod   | 2     | 4    | 38    | 1     | 0    | 1,915 | 19   |      |
| erate | 2,957 | 0-60 | 3-563 | ,915- | -900 |       | 0^4^ |      |
|       |       | y    |       | 2,815 |      |       |      |      |
|       |       | ears |       |       |      |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| High  | 10    | 80   | 500-  | 2     | 0-   | 2,500 | 2,35 |      |
|       | 5,224 | -100 | 1,300 | ,500- | 4000 |       | 0^4^ |      |
|       |       | y    |       | 6,500 |      |       |      |      |
|       |       | ears |       |       |      |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| Deve  | 3,487 | n/a  | 310   | 1,550 | n/a  |       | 91   | 64   |
| loped |       |      |       |       |      |       | 0^5^ | 0^5^ |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+
| **To  | **15  |      | **2,5 | **    | **0  | **11, | *    | **6  |
| tal** | 1,207 |      | 43-4, | 12,71 | -8,1 | 165** | *7,7 | 40** |
|       | ^1^** |      | 163** | 5-20, | 00** |       | 00** |      |
|       |       |      |       | 815** |      |       |      |      |
+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+------+

^1^ The remaining 32,017 acres in the park contain non-forest
vegetation, such as meadows, and non-combustible vegetation, e.g. Crater
Lake, and are not included in fire management units. The acreages
associated with non-forest vegetation and non-combustible vegetation are
21,111 acres and 13,293 acres respectively.

^2^ Yearly amounts may vary according to weather and other
planning/implementation considerations.

^3^ The acres to be treated annually and under the 5-year treatment plan
are equal to or greater than those displayed in Alternative 2 since
wildland fire use is contemplated.

^4^ Manual thinning target acres are captured under those acres to be
treated by prescribed fire (e.g. after 4,250 acres of manual treatments
are conducted in the Low-Severity FMU, those same acres and up to
another 2,500 acres would be treated with prescribed fire, for a total
treatment in that FMU of 6,750 acres, at a minimum).

^5^ Manual and mechanical thinning treatments would be employed as fire
surrogates.

Table 2-6 Proposed Treatment Activity by Calendar Year and Fire
Management Unit

**(Alternative 3 -- Proposed Action)**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----------
  **FMU**     **2002**   **2003**   **2004**   **2005**   **2006**       **2007**

  Low         1,500      0          1,500      1,500      750            1,500

  Moderate    0          0          0          615        600            700

  High        0          1,500      1,000      0          0              0

  Developed   0          270        640        260        380            0

  Total       1,500      1,770      3,140      2,375      1,730          2,200
  Acres^1^                                                               
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----------

^1^ Total acres include those acres to be treated by prescribed fire and
mechanical thinning. Manual thinning is already captured in those acres
targeted for prescribed fire treatments since hand thinning will often
be followed up with prescribed fire.

Table 2-7 Crater Lake National Park Treatment Units and Descriptions

(Alternative 3 -- Proposed Action)

+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **        | **Treatment   | **T      | **Treatment Area             |
| Treatment | Acres &       | reatment | Description**                |
| Area**    | Treatment     | M        |                              |
|           | Year(s)**     | ethods** |                              |
+===========+===============+==========+==============================+
| # Low Sev |               |          |                              |
| erity FMU |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Panhandle | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of mixed patches of mature   |
|           | 2002-2003     | pr       | ponderosa pine with younger  |
|           |               | escribed | white fir and lodgepole pine |
|           |               | fire     | and scattered mature sugar   |
|           |               |          | pine along Hwy 62. Portions  |
|           |               |          | of the area were treated     |
|           |               |          | with prescribed fire in the  |
|           |               |          | mid '70s and '80's.          |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Upper Pan | 500 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
|           |               | thin,    | mature ponderosa pine and    |
|           | 2002-2003     | pr       | white fir with minor amounts |
|           |               | escribed | of Shasta red fir and aspen  |
|           |               | fire     | located between highway 62   |
|           |               |          | and the south park boundary  |
|           |               |          | above the panhandle.         |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Sun Creek | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit consists of   |
|           |               | thin,    | mixed-conifer stands of      |
|           | 2004          | pr       | ponderosa pine, white fir    |
|           |               | escribed | and sugar pine in the Sun    |
|           |               | fire     | Creek drainage near the      |
|           |               |          | park's south boundary.       |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Sharp     | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
| Desert    |               | thin,    | of ponderosa pine forests    |
|           | 2005          | pr       | along the NE park boundary   |
|           |               | escribed | between Desert Creek and     |
|           |               | fire     | Sharps Peak.                 |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| TC South  | 500 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of ponderosa pine forests    |
|           | 2005          | pr       | along the NE park boundary   |
|           |               | escribed | north and west of Desert     |
|           |               | fire     | Creek.                       |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Red       | 750 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
| Blanket   |               | thin,    | mixed conifer forests with a |
|           | 2006          | pr       | Douglas fir component on the |
|           |               | escribed | south facing slopes of upper |
|           |               | fire     | Red Blanket canyon.          |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Crater    | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit consists of   |
| Creek     |               | thin,    | mixed conifer forests above  |
| Ridge     | 2007          | pr       | Crater Creek along the west  |
|           |               | escribed | park boundary.               |
|           |               | fire     |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| *         |               |          |                              |
| *Moderate |               |          |                              |
| Severity  |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| PIAL      | 200 acres     | Pr       | Treatment unit consists of   |
| Research  |               | escribed | pure stands of whitebark     |
|           | 2007          | fire     | pine (both upright and       |
|           |               |          | krummholtz forms) with less  |
|           |               |          | than 5% lodgepole pine and   |
|           |               |          | mountain hemlock present on  |
|           |               |          | the flanks of Mt. Scott.     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| West 62   | 1,215 acres   | Pr       | Treatment unit contains      |
|           |               | escribed | mixed conifer forest with    |
|           | 2005-2006     | fire     | patches of variable          |
|           |               |          | age-classes found between    |
|           |               |          | the west park boundary and   |
|           |               |          | hwy 62 west.                 |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Crater    | 500 acres     | Pr       | Treatment unit is composed   |
| Peak      |               | escribed | of mostly Shasta red fir     |
|           | 2007          | fire     | with some mountain hemlock   |
|           |               |          | and minor amounts of         |
|           |               |          | lodgepole pine along the SW, |
|           |               |          | S, and SE flanks of Crater   |
|           |               |          | Peak.                        |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **High    |               |          |                              |
| Severity  |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Phoenix   | 1,500 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit borders the   |
|           |               | thin,    | NE park boundary, containing |
|           | 2003          | pr       | mixed-conifer forest stands  |
|           |               | escribed | with a heavy lodgepole       |
|           |               | fire     | component.                   |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Co        | 1,000 acres   | Manual   | Treatment unit borders the   |
| rnerstone |               | thin,    | NE park boundary, containing |
|           | 2004          | pr       | mixed-conifer forest stands  |
|           |               | escribed | with a heavy lodgepole       |
|           |               | fire     | component                    |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| **        |               |          |                              |
| Developed |               |          |                              |
| Zone      |               |          |                              |
| FMU**     |               |          |                              |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Mazama    | 270 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit is composed   |
|           |               | thin,    | of mountain hemlock,         |
|           | 2003          | pile     | lodgepole and Shasta red fir |
|           |               | burn     | forests in the Mazama        |
|           |               |          | Village Area including       |
|           |               |          | campground, dormitory, and   |
|           |               |          | sewage treatment facilities  |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Munson    | 640 acres     | Manual   | Treatment unit includes      |
| V         |               | thin,    | mountain hemlock, Shasta red |
| alley-Rim | 2004          | pile     | fir and lodgepole pine       |
| Village   |               | burn     | forests and sedge meadows    |
|           |               |          | associated with Park         |
|           |               |          | Headquarters, Munson Valley  |
|           |               |          | residential area, and        |
|           |               |          | visitor facilities at Rim    |
|           |               |          | Village.                     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Hwy 62    | 260 acres     | Me       | Treatment unit is centered   |
| Fuel      |               | chanical | along the highway 62 road    |
| break     | 2006          | thin     | corridor from park's west    |
|           |               |          | boundary to the intersection |
|           |               |          | with Munson Valley road.     |
|           |               |          | Mixed conifer stands near    |
|           |               |          | the west boundary grade into |
|           |               |          | pure stands of mountain      |
|           |               |          | hemlock and lodgepole pine   |
|           |               |          | above 5500 ft elevation.     |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| Grayback- | 380 acres     | Me       | Treatment unit includes a    |
| Pinnacles |               | chanical | mixed mosaic of mountain     |
| Fuel      | 2005          | thin     | hemlock and lodgepole pine   |
| break     |               |          | forests with dispersed sedge |
|           |               |          | meadows along Grayback       |
|           |               |          | Motor-Nature Road and        |
|           |               |          | Pinnacles Valley Road,       |
|           |               |          | including Lost Creek         |
|           |               |          | Campground and facilities.   |
+-----------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+

2.2.4 *Environmentally Preferred Alternative*

The National Park Service is required to identify the environmentally
preferred alternative(s) for any of its proposed projects. That
alternative is the alternative that will promote the national
environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101 (b)). This includes
alternatives that:

> 1\) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
> environment for succeeding generations;
>
> 2\) ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
> esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
>
> 3\) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
> without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
> and unintended consequences;
>
> 4\) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
> national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that
> supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
>
> 5\) achieve a balance between population and resource use that will
> permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
> amenities; and
>
> 6\) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
> maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

In essence, the environmentally preferred alternative would be the
one(s) that "causes the least damage to the biological and physical
environment; it also means the alternative which best protects,
preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (DOI,
2001a).

In this case, Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) is the environmentally
preferred alternative for Crater Lake National Park since it meets goals
1, 2, 3, and 4 described above. Under these alternatives, fire
management activities would reduce hazardous fuel loadings in the park,
and help restore natural ecological processes, including native
vegetation function and structure. In addition, the alternative helps
protect park resources and adjacent lands from the threat of future
wildfires. Finally, the alternative best protects and helps preserve the
historic, cultural, and natural resources in the park for current and
future generations.

**[2.3 Impact Definitions]{.smallcaps}**

Table 2-8 depicts the impact definitions used in this Environmental
Assessment. Significant impact thresholds for the various key resources
were determined in light of compliance with existing state and federal
laws, and with existing Crater Lake National Park planning documents.

Table 2-8 Impact Definitions

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **"Minor" Impact**    | **"Significant"       |
|                       |                       | Impact**              |
+=======================+=======================+=======================+
| **Key Resources**     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Soils                 | Minor damage to or    | Damage to or loss of  |
|                       | loss of the           | the litter/ humus     |
|                       | litter/humus layers   | layers that would     |
|                       | that causes minor     | increase soil loss    |
|                       | localized increases   | from erosion on a     |
|                       | in soil loss from     | substantial portion   |
|                       | erosion; fire severe  | of the burn area;     |
|                       | enough to cause minor | fire severe enough to |
|                       | harm to soil          | damage soil           |
|                       | community; minor,     | community;            |
|                       | temporary surface     | substantial surface   |
|                       | sterilization of      | sterilization of      |
|                       | soils that does not   | soils that may cause  |
|                       | cause long term loss  | long term loss of     |
|                       | of soil productivity  | soil productivity and |
|                       | that would alter or   | that may alter or     |
|                       | destroy vegetation    | destroy a portion of  |
|                       | community; short-term | the vegetation        |
|                       | and localized         | community; long-term  |
|                       | compaction of soils   | and                   |
|                       | that does not         |                       |
|                       | prohibit              | widespread soil       |
|                       | re-vegetation         | compaction that       |
|                       |                       | affects a large       |
|                       |                       | number of acres and   |
|                       |                       | prohibits             |
|                       |                       | re-vegetation         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Water Resources       | Minor damage to or    | Damage to or loss of  |
|                       | loss of the           | the litter/ humus     |
| (Including Wetlands)  | litter/humus layers   | layers that increases |
|                       | that increases        | sedimentation on      |
|                       | sedimentation on no   | greater than 0.1% of  |
|                       | more than 0.1% of a   | a subwatershed;       |
|                       | subwatershed;         | localized and         |
|                       | localized and         | indirect riparian     |
|                       | indirect riparian     | impact that may       |
|                       | impact that does not  | substantively         |
|                       | substantively         | increase stream       |
|                       | increase stream       | temperatures or       |
|                       | temperatures or       | affect stream         |
|                       | affect stream         | habitats; alteration  |
|                       | habitats; no          | of natural hydrology  |
|                       | alteration of natural | of the wetlands       |
|                       | hydrology of the      |                       |
|                       | wetlands              |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Vegetation            | Short-term changes in | Violation of the      |
|                       | plant species         | Endangered Species    |
|                       | composition and/or    | Act of 1973; removal  |
|                       | structure, consistent | of numerous large     |
|                       | with expected         | diameter or old       |
|                       | successional pathways | growth trees greater  |
|                       | of a given plant      | than 80cm at breast   |
|                       | community from a      | height;               |
|                       | natural disturbance   |                       |
|                       | event; thinning of    |                       |
|                       | small diameter        |                       |
|                       | understory trees      |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ecologically Critical | Short-term and local  | Long-term and         |
| Areas                 | impacts that do not   | area-wide impacts     |
|                       | threaten the unique   | that threaten the     |
|                       | resources for which   | unique resources for  |
|                       | the Research Natural  | which the Research    |
|                       | Areas were            | Natural Areas were    |
|                       | established           | established           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wildlife              | Temporary             | Violation of the      |
|                       | displacement of       | Endangered Species    |
|                       | localized individuals | Act of 1973;          |
|                       | or groups of animals; | mortality of species  |
|                       | isolated mortality of | that jeopardize the   |
|                       | individuals not       | resident population   |
|                       | afforded special      |                       |
|                       | protection by state   |                       |
|                       | and/or federal law    |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Noise                 | \<65 dBA at sensitive | \>65 dBA noise level  |
|                       | receptors; temporary  | at occupied sensitive |
|                       | noise levels \<90 dBA | receptors             |
|                       |                       | (campgrounds,         |
|                       |                       | wilderness areas,     |
|                       |                       | hiking trails,        |
|                       |                       | Threatened &          |
|                       |                       | Endangered species);  |
|                       |                       | continued exposure to |
|                       |                       | noise levels \> 90    |
|                       |                       | dBA for               |
|                       |                       | workers/general       |
|                       |                       | public                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Key Resources**     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Air Quality           | Minimal to negligible | Violation of state    |
|                       | air emissions and     | and federal air       |
|                       | temporary smoke       | quality standards;    |
|                       | accumulation;         | violation of Class I  |
|                       | temporary and limited | air quality           |
|                       | smoke exposure to     | standards; prolonged  |
|                       | sensitive resources   | smoke exposure to     |
|                       |                       | sensitive receptors   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Visitor Use &         | Temporary             | Permanent closure of  |
| Experience            | displacement of       | trails and recreation |
|                       | recreationists or     | areas; conflict with  |
| (Including            | closure of trails,    | peak recreation use;  |
| Recreation, Visual    | and recreation areas  | long-term change in   |
| Resources, and Park   | during off-peak       | scenic integrity of   |
| Operations)           | recreation use;       | the vista;            |
|                       | temporary or          | substantive smoke     |
|                       | short-term alteration | accumulation during   |
|                       | of the vista, or      | peak recreation use   |
|                       | temporary presence of |                       |
|                       | equipment/structures  |                       |
|                       | in localized area;    |                       |
|                       | smoke accumulation    |                       |
|                       | during off-peak       |                       |
|                       | recreation use        |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Human Health & Safety | Minor injuries to any | Serious injury to any |
|                       | worker; limited       | worker or member of   |
|                       | exposure to hazardous | the public; exposure  |
|                       | compounds or smoke    | to hazardous          |
|                       | particulates at       | compounds or smoke    |
|                       | concentrations below  | particulates at       |
|                       | health-based levels   | concentrations above  |
|                       |                       | health-based levels.  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Cultural Resources    | Temporary,            | Long-term adverse     |
|                       | non-adverse effects   | impacts to registered |
|                       | to registered         | heritage sites,       |
|                       | heritage sites,       | eligible heritage     |
|                       | eligible heritage     | sites, sites with an  |
|                       | sites, sites with an  | undetermined          |
|                       | undetermined          | eligibility, and      |
|                       | eligibility, and      | traditional cultural  |
|                       | traditional cultural  | properties            |
|                       | properties            |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Park Operations       | Temporary suspension  | Prolonged suspension  |
|                       | of non-critical park  | of all park           |
|                       | operations;           | operations; adverse   |
|                       | negligible impact to  | impacts to park       |
|                       | park buildings and    | buildings and         |
|                       | structures            | structures            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Socio-economics       | Minimal to no short   | A change in local or  |
|                       | or long-term economic | regional economy      |
|                       | impact on local or    | greater than 2%;      |
|                       | regional economy      | disproportionately    |
|                       | (\>2%); proportionate | high and adverse      |
|                       | impact on poor or     | impact on poor or     |
|                       | minority communities  | minority communities  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wilderness            | Short-term and local  | Long-term and         |
|                       | impacts that conflict | regional impacts that |
|                       | with wilderness       | conflict with         |
|                       | values but are of     | wilderness values or  |
|                       | limited duration and  | are of unlimited      |
|                       | scope                 | duration or scope     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**[2.4 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring]{.smallcaps}**

Crater Lake National Park follows the methods outlined in the NPS
National Fire Monitoring Handbook (DOI, 2001l) to acquire standardized
information on fire behavior and the effects of fire on park resources,
especially vegetation. This allows the park to document basic
information, to detect trends, and to ensure that fire and resource
management objectives are being met in areas that are subject to burning
by wildland or prescribed fire. This monitoring program is reviewed
annually by the regional fire monitoring coordinator and the park's fire
ecology program staff.

Every fire event within Crater Lake National Park will be monitored, and
each mitigation measure listed below will be evaluated to determine 1)
if it was implemented as stated, and 2) to evaluate if it was effective
at mitigating the impact to the resource it was designed to protect.
Monitoring reports will become part of the permanent record of each fire
event.

Mitigation measures are prescribed to prevent and/or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts that may occur from fire management activities.
The following mitigation measures are common to all three alternatives.

2.4.1 *Fire Management Activities*

-   Whenever consistent with safe, effective suppression techniques, the
    use of natural barriers will be used as extensively as possible;

-   Fire retardant agents must be on an approved list for use by the
    Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management;

-   Heavy earth-moving equipment such as tractors, graders, bulldozers
    or other tracked vehicles will generally not be used for fire
    suppression. The Superintendent can authorize the use of heavy
    earth-moving equipment in extreme circumstances in the face of loss
    of human life and/or property;

-   When handline construction is required, construction standards will
    be issued requiring the handlines to be built with minimum impact.
    No handlines exposing mineral soil will be allowed through cultural
    sites, and all handlines will be rehabilitated. Erosion control
    methods will be used on slopes exceeding 10% where handline
    construction took place;

-   All sites where improvements are made or obstructions removed will
    be rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions, to the extent practicable;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Heavy earth-moving equipment will use multiple entry and exit points
    within a treated area;

-   Heavy earth-moving equipment will be prohibited in all Research
    Natural Areas;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Helispots or camps are prohibited within the boundaries of all
    Research Natural Areas;

-   If fire needs to be stopped in the Desert Creek RNA, water and
    appropriate foams will be recommended over fire line construction at
    the meadow edge. Phosphorus/clay based retardants will be banned
    within the RNA boundaries. If fire line construction is necessary,
    it will be best achieved at the forest-meadow edge rather than
    through the middle of the meadow;

-   Fire suppression activities, including the use of foams and
    retardants, will be barred from Llao Rock RNA;

-   Educational/informational materials will be developed and
    distributed to the wilderness visitor on what to expect during fire
    management activities including potential noise from chainsaws
    during line construction, smoke dispersion, safety, helicopter and
    airplane use, and information on where and when these activities
    would occur;

-   A rehabilitation plan as required by NPS-18, with the use of a
    Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Team, will be formulated
    and implemented in advance of demobilization from major fire events.

2.4.2 *Soil and* *Water Resources (Including Wetlands)*

-   Creek or river crossings will be limited to set and existing
    locations;

-   Except for spot maintenance to remove obstructions, no improvements
    will be made to intermittent/perennial waterways, springs or seeps,
    trails, or clearings in forested areas;

-   Riparian areas, which have been burned, may be seeded with native
    seed from native genotypes, as specified in a Burned Area Emergency
    Rehabilitation (BAER) plan;

-   Fire lines will be located outside of highly erosive areas, steep
    slopes, and other sensitive areas;

-   Fire control strategies will be sensitive to wetland values, and
    firelines will not \"tie\" into wetland or bog margins except when
    relying on those areas to naturally retard the fire without
    constructed line;

-   Foams and retardants will not be used in the Sphagnum Bog RNA or
    within 200 feet of the upstream surface waters.

-   Heavy earth-moving equipment will not be used in the Sphagnum Bog
    RNA or in any "fragile environment";

-   Mechanical fuel treatments will not be conducted within 200 feet of
    any surface water resource;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Crews will implement Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques (MIST)
    fire suppression guidelines to minimize and/or eliminate adverse
    soil impacts resulting from ground crew activities;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Heavy equipment associated with mechanical fuel treatments will
    scatter the slash generated from its operation on site to provide a
    buffer between the soils and equipment;

-   Mechanical equipment will use multiple entry and exit points within
    a treated area to minimize concentrated soil compaction or soil
    disturbance impacts resulting from continued use of a single
    entrance and/or exit;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Crews will implementation MIST fire suppression guidelines to
    minimize and/or eliminate adverse impacts to surface water
    resources. These include:

    -   Preferred use of water for aerial drops

    -   Prohibition of fire retardant use in the Sun Creek Drainage,
        Lost Creek Drainage, and the caldera

    -   Prohibition of Crater Lake, Sun Creek, and Lost Creek as water
        sources

    -   Restriction of camps and toilet facilities from being located
        within 200 feet of surface water resources;

2.4.3 *Visitor Experience and Use*

-   Fire management activities (excluding fire suppression) will not be
    conducted near developed areas and trails during holidays;

2.4.4 *Wildlife and Plants*

-   All fires located within 100 acres of a known spotted owl nest or
    activity center, will be suppressed;

-   Repetitive understory burning in spotted owl habitat will be limited
    to one occurrence per decade;

-   No direct overflights of known T&E species nest sites will be
    allowed below 1500 Above Ground Level (AGL) from March 15 to August
    30 each year;

-   During the spotted owl breeding season (March 15 to August 30),
    manual thinning and prescribed fire treatments will not be conducted
    in those portions of treatment units that are within 0.7 mile of
    spotted owl nest sites or activity centers;

-   Mechanical fuel treatments will be prohibited within 100 acres of a
    known spotted owl nest or activity center;

-   Prescribed fire and manual thinning treatments will be very limited
    in nature within 100 acres of a known spotted owl nest or activity
    center;

-   Within 0.7 miles of any known spotted owl nest site or activity
    center, 40% of the area will be protected from extensive prescribed
    fire and manual thinning treatments, while 60% will be subject to
    such treatments;

-   Within 1.2 miles of each known spotted owl nest site or activity
    center, at least 40% of the area will be protected from fire, and up
    to 60% will be subject to prescribed fire;

-   To protect bull trout habitat, no more than one-half of the upper
    Sun Creek and Lost Creek watersheds will be allowed to burn in any
    20 year period;

-   If threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species are found in a
    treatment unit, a buffer surrounding the plants will be imposed that
    prohibits physical damage to the identified population. The assigned
    Resource Advisor will be consulted when determining the appropriate
    buffer;

-   Prior to prescribed fires in the Panhandle Treatment Unit, park
    staff will treat the area adjacent to the highway using appropriate
    hand control methods to reduce chances of spreading known
    populations of non-native spotted knapweed and St. Johnswort. Park
    staff will monitor the area after prescribed fires for their
    occurrence and employ appropriate hand control methods to remove the
    noxious weeds if they are present;

-   Park staff will clean fire management equipment prior to its use to
    prevent the spread of noxious weeds;

-   Park staff will stage fire management operations away from known
    noxious weed infestations, and will construct fire lines away from
    known patches;

-   Park staff will survey for noxious weeds in treatment units prior to
    ignition of prescribed fires;

-   Any fires occurring in the area of the Sphagnum Bog, Thousand
    Springs, upper Castle Creek, Copeland Creek, and Trapper Creek would
    be monitored for post-fire impacts to *Collomia mazama*.

2.4.5 *Cultural Resources*

-   No handlines exposing mineral soil will be allowed through cultural
    sites;

-   Prior to all prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, cultural
    resources in treatments areas will be surveyed, identified and
    avoided;

-   Prior to all wildfire and wildland fire use activities, cultural
    resources in affected areas will be identified and avoided;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fire retardant use will be prohibited in the vicinity of any
    historic structure, unless there is imminent threat from wildfire to
    the historic structure;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The park Historian or a designated representative will conduct an
    inspection and develop a plan to protect any existing or new
    cultural resources identified before and after prescribed fires.

2.4.6 *Wilderness Resources*

-   Wildland fire operations within the proposed Wilderness Area will
    adhere to the requirements of the Wilderness Act, NPS Management
    Policies, and the NPS Director's Orders 18 and 41 Wilderness
    Preservation and Management;

-   All fire management activities within the proposed Wilderness Area
    will employ minimum actions and tools necessary based upon the
    Minimum Requirement and Minimum Tool Determination;

-   All fire management activities within the proposed Wilderness Area
    will follow established MIST implementation guidelines;

-   All fire management activities within the proposed Wilderness Area
    will follow established Rehabilitation Guidelines for Wilderness
    Fire Suppression Activities;

-   A Resource Advisor should be available for advice and support with
    the crew(s) as well as for quality control;

-   When Wilderness campsites or travel routes are closed during fire
    management activities, visitors will be rerouted to alternative
    travel routes or campsites;

-   Mechanical thinning will be restricted to areas of the park that are
    not proposed for wilderness designation.

2.4.7 *Research Natural Areas*

-   Heavy earth-moving equipment is prohibited within all Research
    Natural Areas;

-   Helispots or camps are prohibited within the boundaries of all
    Research Natural Areas;

-   If fire needs to be stopped in the Desert Creek RNA, water and
    appropriate foams will be recommended over fire line construction at
    the meadow edge. Phosphorous/clay based retardants will be banned
    within the RNA boundaries. If fire line construction is necessary,
    it will be best achieved at the forest-meadow edge rather than
    through the middle of the meadow;

-   Fire suppression activities, including the use of foams and
    retardants, are prohibited within the Llao Rock RNA;

-   Foams and retardants will not be used in the Sphagnum Bog RNA or
    within 200 feet of the upstream surface waters.

**[2.5 Comparison of Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**

Table 2-9 compares the fire management activities employed under the
three alternatives, while Table 2-10 briefly summarizes the
environmental effects of the various alternatives. It provides a quick
comparison of how well the alternatives respond to the project need,
objectives and key resources. Chapter 3 discusses the environmental
consequences of the proposed alternatives in detail.

Table 2-9 Comparison of Fire Management Activities by Alternative

  -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
           Fire          Wildland   Prescribed   Manual     Mechanical   Fire Effects Research
           Suppression   Fire Use   Fire         Thinning   Thinning     Monitoring   

  Alt. 1   X             X          X                                    X            X

  Alt. 2   X                        X            X          X            X            X

  Alt. 3   X             X          X            X          X            X            X
  -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.446527777777778in"
height="8.397916666666667in"}

**Figure 2-1 Fire Management Units for Alternatives 2 & 3**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.444444444444445in"
height="8.516666666666667in"}Figure 2-2 Proposed Treatment Units for
Alternatives 2 & 3

+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
|           | **Alternative    | **Alternative 2   | **Alternative 3 |
|           | 1 - No Action    | -- Ecology-Based  | --              |
|           | Alternative**    | Program**         | Ecology-Based   |
|           |                  |                   | Program**       |
|           |                  | **(Excluding      |                 |
|           |                  | Wildland Fire     | **(Including    |
|           |                  | Use)**            | Wildland Fire   |
|           |                  |                   | Use)**          |
+===========+==================+===================+=================+
| # Pro     |                  |                   |                 |
| ject Need |                  |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Reduces   | Yes, hazardous   | Yes, hazardous    | Yes, hazardous  |
| hazardous | fuels reduction  | fuels reduction   | fuels reduction |
| fuels     | over time on     | over time on      | over time on    |
|           | 2,181 acres of   | 12,715 acres of   | 12,715-20,815   |
|           | the park         | the park          | acres of the    |
|           |                  |                   | park            |
|           | This alternative | This alternative  |                 |
|           | provides **the   | provides **less** | This            |
|           | least hazardous  | **hazardous fuels | alternative     |
|           | fuels            | reduction** than  | provides the    |
|           | reduction**      | Alternative 3 in  | **greatest      |
|           |                  | the absence of    | hazardous fuels |
|           |                  | wildland fire use | reduction**     |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Re        | Yes, natural     | Yes, natural fire | Yes, natural    |
| storation | fire regimes     | regimes favoring  | fire regimes    |
| of fire   | favoring         | fire-adapted      | favoring        |
| regime,   | fire-adapted     | plant and animal  | fire-adapted    |
| plant and | plant and animal | species would     | plant and       |
| wildlife  | species would    | result on 12,715  | animal species  |
| habitat   | result on 2,181  | acres of the park | would result    |
| diversity | acres of the     |                   | 12,715-20,815   |
|           | park             | This alternative  | acres of the    |
|           |                  | would aid in the  | park            |
|           | This alternative | restoration of    |                 |
|           | would aid in the | natural fire      | With the        |
|           | restoration of   | regimes and plant | additional      |
|           | natural fire     | and wildlife      | acreage to be   |
|           | regimes and      | habitat           | treated with    |
|           | plant and        | diversity;        | wildland fire   |
|           | wildlife habitat | however, the      | use, this       |
|           | diversity;       | **degree of       | alternative     |
|           | however, the     | restoration would | would **best    |
|           | **degree of      | be less than that | contribute to   |
|           | restoration      | achieved under    | the restoration |
|           | would be less    | Alternative 3 in  | of historic     |
|           | than that        | the absence of    | fire regimes    |
|           | achieved under   | wildland fire     | and best        |
|           | Alternatives 2   | use**             | contribute to   |
|           | and 3**          |                   | plant and       |
|           |                  |                   | wildlife        |
|           |                  |                   | habitat         |
|           |                  |                   | diversity**     |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Project |                  |                   |                 |
| Obj       |                  |                   |                 |
| ectives** |                  |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Reduces   | Yes, fire        | Yes, fire         | Yes, fire       |
| the       | management       | management        | management      |
| l         | activities would | activities would  | activities      |
| ikelihood | help prevent     | help prevent      | would help      |
| of        | unwanted         | unwanted          | prevent         |
| unwanted  | wildfires from   | wildfires from    | unwanted        |
| wildfires | crossing         | crossing          | wildfires from  |
| crossing  | jurisdictional   | jurisdictional    | crossing        |
| juris     | boundaries       | boundaries        | jurisdictional  |
| dictional |                  |                   | boundaries      |
| b         | This alternative | This alternative  |                 |
| oundaries | provides a       | provides a        | This            |
|           | **lesser degree  | **lesser degree   | alternative     |
|           | of reduction in  | of reduction in   | provides the    |
|           | likelihood than  | likelihood than   | **greatest      |
|           | that provided by | that provided by  | degree of       |
|           | Alternatives 2   | Alternative 3 in  | reduction in    |
|           | and 3**          | the absence of    | likelihood**    |
|           |                  | wildland fire     |                 |
|           |                  | use**             |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Protect   | Yes, fire        | Yes, fire         | Yes, fire       |
| human     | management       | management        | management      |
| life and  | activities would | activities would  | activities      |
| property  | protect human    | protect human     | would protect   |
| within    | life and         | life and property | human life and  |
| and       | property within  | within and        | property within |
| adjacent  | and adjacent to  | adjacent to the   | and adjacent to |
| to the    | the park         | park              | the park        |
| park      |                  |                   |                 |
|           | This alternative | This alternative  | This            |
|           | provides **less  | provides **less   | alternative     |
|           | protection than  | protection than   | provides the    |
|           | that provided by | that provided by  | **greatest      |
|           | Alternatives 2   | Alternative 3 in  | degree of       |
|           | and 3**          | the absence of    | protection**    |
|           |                  | wildland fire     |                 |
|           |                  | use**             |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Si      |                  |                   |                 |
| gnificant |                  |                   |                 |
| Issues**  |                  |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Human     | This alternative | This alternative  | This            |
| health    | reduces          | reduces hazardous | alternative     |
| and       | hazardous fuel   | fuel loadings and | reduces         |
| safety    | loadings and     | promotes the      | hazardous fuel  |
| concerns  | promotes the     | restoration of    | loadings and    |
| from      | restoration of   | natural fire      | promotes the    |
| cat       | natural fire     | regimes in the    | restoration of  |
| astrophic | regimes in the   | park, which would | natural fire    |
| fire      | park, which      | lessen the chance | regimes in the  |
|           | would lessen the | that a wildfire   | park, which     |
|           | chance that a    | would damage park | would lessen    |
|           | wildfire would   | structures and    | the chance that |
|           | damage park      | threaten human    | a wildfire      |
|           | structures and   | health and safety | would damage    |
|           | threaten human   |                   | park structures |
|           | health and       | This alternative  | and threaten    |
|           | safety           | provides **less   | human health    |
|           |                  | protection than   | and safety      |
|           | This alternative | that provided by  |                 |
|           | provides **less  | Alternative 3 in  | This            |
|           | protection than  | the absence of    | alternative     |
|           | that provided by | wildland fire     | provides the    |
|           | Alternatives 2   | use**             | **greatest      |
|           | and 3**          |                   | protection**    |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Impact  |                  |                   |                 |
| Topics**  |                  |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Soils     | Minor short-term | Minor short-term  | Minor           |
|           | soil erosion     | soil erosion      | short-term soil |
|           | impacts          | impacts resulting | erosion and     |
|           | resulting from   | from manual and   | compaction      |
|           | prescribed fire  | mechanical        | impacts         |
|           | activities and   | thinning and      | resulting from  |
|           | wildland fire    | prescribed fire   | manual and      |
|           | use; benefits to | activities;       | mechanical      |
|           | soil development | benefits to soil  | thinning and    |
|           | and soil         | development and   | prescribed fire |
|           | nutrification    | soil              | activities;     |
|           | from prescribed  | nutrification     | benefits to     |
|           | fire and         | from prescribed   | soil            |
|           | wildland fire    | fire              | development and |
|           | use              |                   | soil            |
|           |                  |                   | nutrification   |
|           |                  |                   | from prescribed |
|           |                  |                   | fire and        |
|           |                  |                   | wildland fire   |
|           |                  |                   | use             |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Water     | Minor short-term | Minor short-term  | Minor           |
| Resources | indirect surface | indirect surface  | short-term      |
| (         | water resource   | water resource    | indirect        |
| including | impacts          | impacts (creeks); | surface water   |
| wetlands  | (creeks); no     | no impact on      | resource        |
| and       | impact on        | wetlands or       | impacts         |
| fragile   | wetlands or      | fragile           | (creeks); no    |
| envi      | fragile          | environments      | impact on       |
| ronments) | environments     |                   | wetlands or     |
|           |                  |                   | fragile         |
|           |                  |                   | environments    |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| V         | Plant habitat    | Plant habitat and | Plant habitat   |
| egetation | and diversity    | diversity         | and diversity   |
|           | improved; native | improved; native  | improved;       |
|           | plant and        | plant and         | native plant    |
|           | fire-tolerant    | fire-tolerant     | and             |
|           | species favored; | species favored;  | fire-tolerant   |
|           | noxious weed     | noxious weed      | species         |
|           | species reduced; | species reduced;  | favored;        |
|           | fuel loadings    | fuel loadings     | noxious weed    |
|           | reduced on 2,181 | reduced on 12,715 | species         |
|           | acres; promotes  | acres; promotes   | reduced; fuel   |
|           | the restoration  | the restoration   | loadings        |
|           | of natural fire  | of natural fire   | reduced on      |
|           | regimes in all   | regimes in all    | 12,715-20,815   |
|           | six major forest | six major forest  | acres; promotes |
|           | series in the    | series in the     | the restoration |
|           | park             | park              | of natural fire |
|           |                  |                   | regimes in all  |
|           |                  |                   | six major       |
|           |                  |                   | forest series   |
|           |                  |                   | in the park     |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Eco       | Minor impacts to | Minor impacts to  | Minor impacts   |
| logically | Llao Rock and    | Llao Rock, Desert | to Llao Rock    |
| Critical  | Desert Creek     | Creek, and        | and Desert      |
| Areas     | RNAs from        | Sphagnum Bog RNAs | Creek RNAs from |
|           | wildland fire    | during wildfire   | wildland fire   |
|           | use; minor       | suppression       | use; minor      |
|           | impacts to Llao  | efforts           | impacts to Llao |
|           | Rock, Desert     |                   | Rock, Desert    |
|           | Creek, and       |                   | Creek, and      |
|           | Sphagnum Bog     |                   | Sphagnum Bog    |
|           | RNAs during      |                   | RNAs during     |
|           | wildfire         |                   | wildfire        |
|           | suppression      |                   | suppression     |
|           | efforts          |                   | efforts         |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Wildlife  | Prescribed fire  | Thinning and      | Thinning,       |
|           | and wildland     | prescribed fire   | prescribed      |
|           | fire use         | activities would  | fire, and       |
|           | activities would | temporary         | wildland fire   |
|           | temporary        | displace some     | use activities  |
|           | displace some    | wildlife species; | would temporary |
|           | wildlife         | isolated          | displace some   |
|           | species;         | mortality of      | wildlife        |
|           | isolated         | individuals       | species;        |
|           | mortality of     | likely; very      | isolated        |
|           | individuals      | minor short-term  | mortality of    |
|           | likely; very     | impact on T&E or  | individuals     |
|           | minor short-term | Sensitive species | likely; very    |
|           | impact on T&E or | habitat; general  | minor           |
|           | Sensitive        | wildlife habitat  | short-term      |
|           | species habitat; | and T&E habitat   | impact on T&E   |
|           | general wildlife | improved in the   | or Sensitive    |
|           | habitat and T&E  | long-term with    | species         |
|           | habitat improved | restoration of    | habitat;        |
|           | in the long-term | natural fire      | general         |
|           | with restoration | regimes and       | wildlife        |
|           | of natural fire  | suppression of    | habitat and T&E |
|           | regimes and      | unwanted          | habitat         |
|           | suppression of   | wildfires         | improved in the |
|           | unwanted         |                   | long-term with  |
|           | wildfires        |                   | restoration of  |
|           |                  |                   | natural fire    |
|           |                  |                   | regimes and     |
|           |                  |                   | suppression of  |
|           |                  |                   | unwanted        |
|           |                  |                   | wildfires       |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Air       | Minor and        | Minor and         | Minor and       |
| Quality   | temporary        | temporary effects | temporary       |
|           | effects          | resulting from    | effects         |
|           | resulting from   | prescribed fires, | resulting from  |
|           | prescribed       | slash pile        | prescribed      |
|           | fires, wildland  | burning; minor    | fires, wildland |
|           | fire use, and    | smoke impacts on  | fire use, and   |
|           | slash pile       | sensitive         | slash pile      |
|           | burning; minor   | wildlife          | burning; minor  |
|           | smoke impacts on | receptors         | smoke impacts   |
|           | sensitive        |                   | on sensitive    |
|           | wildlife         |                   | wildlife        |
|           | receptors        |                   | receptors       |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Noise     | Minor noise      | Minor noise       | Minor noise     |
|           | impacts to fire  | impacts to        | impacts to      |
|           | crews, as well   | thinning crews    | thinning crews  |
|           | as the public;   | and fire crews,   | and fire crews, |
|           | minor noise      | as well as the    | as well as the  |
|           | impacts to       | public; minor     | public; minor   |
|           | sensitive        | noise impacts to  | noise impacts   |
|           | wildlife         | sensitive         | to sensitive    |
|           | receptors and    | wildlife          | wildlife        |
|           | wilderness       | receptors and     | receptors and   |
|           | during wildfire  | wilderness        | wilderness      |
|           | suppression      |                   |                 |
|           | efforts          |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Visitor   | Minor and        | Minor and         | Minor and       |
| Use and   | short-term       | short-term        | short-term      |
| E         | impacts during   | impacts during    | impacts during  |
| xperience | wildfire         | manual thinning,  | manual and      |
| (         | suppression and  | wildfire          | mechanical      |
| including | prescribed fire  | suppression, and  | thinning,       |
| Re        | activities (e.g. | prescribed fire   | wildfire        |
| creation, | trail or road    | activities (e.g.  | suppression and |
| Visual    | closures,        | trail or road     | prescribed fire |
| R         | presence of work | closures,         | activities      |
| esources, | crews in the     | presence of work  | (e.g. trail or  |
| and Park  | vista); no       | crews in the      | road closures,  |
| Op        | effect on park   | vista); no effect | presence of     |
| erations) | operations;      | on park           | work crews in   |
|           | wildland fire    | operations        | the vista); no  |
|           | use would result |                   | effect on park  |
|           | in minor and     |                   | operations;     |
|           | longer-term      |                   | wildland fire   |
|           | visual impacts   |                   | use would       |
|           | from smoke       |                   | result in minor |
|           | emissions        |                   | and longer-term |
|           |                  |                   | visual impacts  |
|           |                  |                   | from smoke      |
|           |                  |                   | emissions       |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Human     | Human health and | Human health and  | Human health    |
| Health &  | safety improved  | safety improved   | and safety      |
| Safety    | by reducing fire | by reducing fire  | improved by     |
|           | danger to the    | danger to the     | reducing fire   |
|           | park and         | park and adjacent | danger to the   |
|           | adjacent lands;  | lands; potential  | park and        |
|           | potential for    | for injury from   | adjacent lands; |
|           | injury from      | thinning          | potential for   |
|           | prescribed fire  | activities; minor | injury from     |
|           | and wildfire     | exposure to smoke | thinning        |
|           | suppression      | by workers and    | activities;     |
|           | activities;      | the public during | minor exposure  |
|           | minor exposure   | prescribed fires  | to smoke by     |
|           | to smoke by      | and wildland      | workers and the |
|           | workers and the  | fires             | public during   |
|           | public during    |                   | prescribed      |
|           | prescribed fires |                   | fires and       |
|           | and wildland     |                   | wildland fires  |
|           | fires            |                   |                 |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Socio-    | Very minor       | Very minor        | Very minor      |
| economics | effects on local | effects on local  | effects on      |
|           | and regional     | and regional      | local and       |
|           | economy; no      | economy; no       | regional        |
|           | adverse impact   | adverse impact to | economy; no     |
|           | to poor and/or   | poor and/or       | adverse impact  |
|           | minority         | minority          | to poor and/or  |
|           | populations      | populations       | minority        |
|           |                  |                   | populations     |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Cultural  | No impact to     | No impact to      | No impact to    |
| Resources | known cultural   | known cultural    | known cultural  |
|           | resources;       | resources;        | resources;      |
|           | potential for    | potential for     | potential for   |
|           | impacts to       | impacts to        | impacts to      |
|           | un-recorded      | un-recorded       | un-recorded     |
|           | sites; minor     | sites; minor      | sites; minor    |
|           | impact to        | impact to         | impact to       |
|           | ethnobotanicals  | ethnobotanicals   | ethnobotanicals |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| W         | Minor impact to  | Minor impact to   | Minor impact to |
| ilderness | wilderness       | wilderness        | wilderness      |
|           | resources and    | resources and     | resources and   |
|           | values           | values            | values          |
|           | (noise-related)  | (noise-related)   | (noise-related) |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+-----------------+

**Chapter 3 - Environmental Analysis**

This chapter summarizes the existing environmental conditions and the
probable environmental consequences (effects) of implementing the action
and No Action alternatives. This chapter also provides the scientific
and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. The probable
environmental effects are quantified where possible; where not possible,
qualitative descriptions are provided.

**[3.1 Soils]{.smallcaps}**

3.1.1 *Affected Environment*

There are five major soil series found within Crater Lake National Park:
Timbercrater, Umak, Llaorock, Castlecrest, and Cleetwood. Timbercrater
and Umak soils are composed of pumice fragments and volcanic ash and are
typically over 60 inches in depth. The surface layer of these soils is a
brown, very paragravelly, ashy, loamy sand, while the subsurface layer
is a lightbrown, extremely paragravelly, ashy, loamy sand or ashy sand.
They generally occur in the East and Northeast portions of the park, as
well as in the Panhandle in the Southeast corner (Weinheimer, 2001).

Llaorock soil is composed of volcanic ash and bedrock fragments and is
typically over 60 inches in depth. The surface layer of this soil type
is a dark brown, cobbly, ashy sandy loam, while the subsurface is a
brown, very stony, ashy sandy loam. It primarily occurs around the
crater rim and in the Southwest area of the park (Weinheimer, 2001).

Castlecrest and Cleetwood soils are composed of volcanic ash with minor
components of cinders and bedrock fragments, and are typically over 60
inches in depth. The surface layer of these soils is a gray, ashy, loamy
sand, while the subsurface is a light gray, ashy, loamy sand or ashy
sand. Castlecrest is typically found in the valleys throughout the park,
including those areas that contain the campgrounds, park headquarters,
and Rim Village. Cleetwood is located in the open desert areas of the
park (Weinheimer, 2001).

The above soil types range from medium to slightly acidic throughout the
park. With a few exceptions (glacial soils in the western portions of
the park), the majority of the soils in the park are young soils that
are not well-developed or highly productive. Soil permeability is rapid
for all the major soils and runoff is slow, resulting in little, if any,
erosion where the soils are protected by forest cover (Weinheimer, 2001;
DOI, 1999a).

3.1.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Soil impacts were qualitatively assessed using soil characteristics,
literature reviews, and mitigation measures.

3.1.2.1 [Alternative 1 - No Action]{.underline}

Implementation of the current Fire Management Plan would have minor
effects on soils (soil erosion and compaction). The low fire intensities
from prescribed burns would not significantly increase soil erosion
since most of the targeted areas are low gradient and contain very
coarse-textured soils. Direct soil impacts are more likely to occur from
ground crew activities during fire suppression activities. In
particular, the creation of fire lines and removal of vegetation in high
gradient areas could result in soil erosion. Minimum Impact Suppression
Tactics (MIST) fire suppression guidelines outlined would minimize
and/or eliminate any adverse soil impacts resulting from ground crew
activities.

Prescribed fire would release nutrients into the soil and the
fertilization effects of ash would provide an important source of
nutrition for vegetation in the area. In addition to increasing
nitrification of the soils and increasing minerals and salt amounts in
the soil, the ash and charcoal residue resulting from incomplete
combustion would aid in soil buildup and soil enrichment by being added
as organic matter to the soil profile. The added material works in
combination with dead and dying root systems to make the soil more
porous, better able to retain water, and less compact while increasing
needed sites and surface areas for essential microorganisms, mycorrhiza,
and roots (Vogl, 1979; Wright and Bailey, 1980).

Following the suppression of a very large or catastrophic fire
(including ones that may have begun as prescribed fire or wildland fire
use), the potential for direct soil impacts rises with the increased
number of fire lines constructed to suppress it. In addition, the
extensive loss of vegetation could also lead to increased soil erosion.
While most natural fires or moderate severity fires are likely to
enhance soil development and fertility over the long term due to
periodic release of nutrients, extremely severe fires are likely to be
detrimental to soils. Soil organic matter can be removed or
destructively altered, nutrients volatized, water capacity decreased,
and living plants and microorganisms killed (Brown et.al, 2001).

In the aftermath of a large or catastrophic fire, rehabilitation
efforts, such as reseeding and filling in fire lines, would minimize
soil impacts.

3.1.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

The use of mechanical fuel treatments could lead to soil impacts in
addition to those general soil impacts already described under the No
Action Alternative. The most likely impact would be soil compaction.
Defined as an increase in bulk density and a decrease in porosity
resulting from the application of mechanical forces, soil compaction can
reduce the productivity of land and increase the potential for soil
runoff (USDA, 1998). Under this alternative, tracked/tired vehicles
would perform the mechanical fuel treatments up to 200 feet away from
several park roads (see Figure 2-2).

Castlecrest and the pumice soils are susceptible to soil compaction, and
the use of mechanical equipment would result in soil compaction. A study
in the Plumas National Forest in California found that multiple passes
from logging vehicles in unburned forest stands produced an average of
about 20% reduction in soil porosity in the top 10cm (about 4 inches)
during logging operations on 18 parcels (Brown et.al., 2001). In light
of the soil characteristics at Crater Lake National Park, the compaction
would not result in significant erosion unless the mechanical treatments
were performed on steep slopes. Rather, compaction would retard the
re-vegetation of some understory areas. Natural frost heave and the
herbaceous vegetation response would help compensate for surface
compaction within 5-10 years (Weinheimer, 2001).

While the track design of the equipment helps distribute its weight and
reduce the degree of soil compaction, it can cut into soils (rutting)
while maneuvering. To reduce soil disturbance, the Park will require
that the mechanical equipment scatter the slash generated from its
operations on site. This effort would effectively provide a vegetative
buffer between the soils and the equipment and minimize direct
disturbance to the soils from the operation of the mechanical equipment
and help reduce soil compaction by distributing the weight of the
equipment. In addition, the park will require that the mechanical
equipment use multiple entry and exit points within a treated area to
minimize concentrated compaction or soil disturbance impacts resulting
from the continued use of a single entrance and/or exit.

High temperatures resulting from pile burning to remove downed woody
debris can also result in localized soil impacts underneath the pile.
Soil organic matter can be removed or destructively altered, nutrients
volatized, water capacity decreased, and living plants and
microorganisms killed (Brown et al., 2001).

3.1.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

Soil impacts under the Proposed Action would be similar to those
described under Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative. In
addition, the inclusion of wildland fire use would increase the number
of acres in the park whose soils would benefit from low and moderate
severity fires.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair geologic
and soil resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to
the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for
enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's
general management plan or other National Park Service planning
documents.

**[3.2 Water Resources]{.smallcaps}**

3.2.1 *Affected Environment*

The following surface water resource descriptions were detailed in the
park's Revised Fire Management Plan (1999) and are still applicable for
this environmental assessment.

[Surface Water Resources]{.underline}

Waters from the slopes of Mt. Mazama flow into the Klamath, Rogue, and
Umpqua River systems. Runoff channels are broad and poorly defined with
rounded contours since surface runoff in the park from rain and melting
snow is negligible. Water sinks almost immediately into the porous
volcanic soils and glacial debris and is released only slowly through
evaporation, plant use, seeps, and a few springs, some of which emerge
within the caldera and flow directly into the lake.

At 1,943 feet, Crater Lake is the seventh deepest lake in the world and
the deepest in the United States. It is noted for its extreme water
clarity and deep blue color. The lake has no surface outflows and only
minor surface ground water inflows as springs along the caldera walls.
The main source of water for the lake is precipitation, averaging 70
inches per year.

[Wetlands and Riparian Areas]{.underline}

The term "wetlands" includes wet environments such as marshes, swamps
and bogs. Wetlands provide critical habitats for fish and wildlife,
purify water, and help check the destructive power of floods, storms,
and fires. Nutrients and plant material flushed from some wetland
systems during storms provide essential food for plants, fish, and
wildlife in downstream ecosystems.

Crater Lake National Park wetlands include Sphagnum Bog, Thousand
Springs, Boundary Springs, seeps, and creeks (see Figure 3-1). Permanent
streambeds in the Park generally have steep-sided channels and
relatively undeveloped riparian areas associated with the streams.

In the park, riparian areas along creeks, springs, and seeps represent
specialized plant communities. These plant communities provide
opportunities for increased biodiversity, as they are interfaces between
wetlands and drier upland habitats. These communities provide increased
cover and food resources to a greater variety of animal species than are
found in the drier upland or wetlands habitats. Riparian communities act
as filters for down-slope soil and nutrient movement for aquatic
resources, and are considered important habitat components.

[Fragile Environments]{.underline}

Several areas within the park contain important wetland communities.
These include the following areas:

1\. *Boundary Springs*: located in the northwest corner of the park,
approximately ½ mile from the north boundary. This is one of the
headwater sources of the Rogue River. The spring produces a reliable,
year-round flow in an otherwise arid area, resulting in a lush moss and
herb flora.

2\. *The Sand Creek/Pinnacles Area*: located near the southeast corner
of the park. The entire site is of unique geological importance, with
Sand Creek passing through a wide canyon with sloping walls of scoria
and pumice. Along those walls are numerous pinnacle formations, many 50
feet or more in height.

3\. *Thousand Springs*: located approximately 1-1/2 miles south of the
west entrance (HWY 62) of Crater Lake National Park. The Thousand
Springs site is a complex of freshwater springs that flow west into
Union Creek and eventually into the Rogue River.

4 *Sphagnum Bog*: located along the west-central boundary of the park,
this 180-acre wetland is a designated Research Natural Area. It
encompasses a broad basin at the head of Crater Creek where two large
springs emerge. The springs flow through a shallow gradient stream reach
between expanses of mire and open forest. The site consists of a series
of interconnected openings containing bog communities ranging from
*Carex rostrata* sedge wetlands to *Vaccinium occidentale* bog
huckleberry thickets to *Salix barclayi* willow carrs.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.444444444444445in"
height="8.49236111111111in"}

**Figure 3-1 Water Resources in Crater Lake National Park**

3.2.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Water resource impacts were qualitatively assessed using
presence/absence, literature reviews, and mitigation measures.

3.2.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Implementation of the current Fire Management Plan would result in minor
impacts to surface water resources.

Increased soil erosion, resulting from ground crew activities, and loss
of vegetation from fire could lead to sediment loading in surface water
resources in the park. Sediment loading can alter the hydrologic regime
of surface waters and adversely impact aquatic habitats and wildlife.
Adherence to MIST fire suppression guidelines would minimize the
potential for impacts resulting from soil erosion. These guidelines
include the backfilling and scarification of deep and/or wide fire
lines, as well as the installation of water bars and construction of
drain dips. The soil characteristics of the park also greatly reduce the
potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of the surface waters.
After a very large or catastrophic fire, the implementation of
rehabilitative efforts contained in the BAER plan would further minimize
the potential for soil erosion and subsequent sediment loading of water
resources.

The use of fire retardants or foams could potentially cause significant
short and long-term impacts to water resources if misapplied or
mishandled, however adherence to MIST guidelines would minimize and/or
eliminate accidental spills or applications. Retardants contain ammonia
and phosphate or sulfate ions, which can change the chemistry of a water
body, thus making it lethal to fish and other aquatic organisms. Foams
contain detergents that can interfere with the ability of fish gills to
absorb oxygen. The degree of impact would depend on the volume of
retardant/foam dropped into the water body, the size of the water body,
and the volume of flow in the stream or river. For example, if a
800-gallon drop is made into a fast flowing river, it is likely that the
lethal effects to aquatic resources will be short-lived as dilution
below the toxic level is quickly achieved. On the other hand, a
3,000-gallon drop in a stagnant pond would likely cause toxic levels to
persist for some time (USDA, 2001).

Several MIST suppression guidelines address the potential for retardant
impacts on surface water resources. They include: 1) a preference for
water drops over fire retardant drops, 2) the prohibition of fire
retardant use in the Sun Creek Drainage, the Lost Creek Drainage, and
the caldera, and 3) the prohibition of Crater Lake, Sun Creek, and Lost
Creek as water sources. In addition, fire management officials must
evaluate the potential for adverse impacts to cultural and natural
resources prior to authorizing fire retardant drops.

There always exists the possibility of an accidental spill or aerial
delivery of fire retardant, or other hazardous material such as
gasoline. For smaller spills, the park has a spill response program that
would help contain spills and clean up sites.

Another integral component of fire suppression is the use of existing
natural barriers, rock outcroppings, trails, wetlands, and streams. Fire
suppression activities may use the Sphagnum Bog complex and other
wetlands as firebreaks since these areas rarely burn. However, the
construction of fire lines near them could adversely impact riparian
areas and near-shore habitats. For example, the forested communities
within the Sphagnum bog complex contain the rare plant *Collomia
mazama*. To mitigate this potential impact, fire control strategies will
be sensitive to wetland values, and firelines will not "tie" into
wetland or bog margins except when relying on those areas to naturally
retard the fire without constructed line. In addition, foams and
retardants will not be used in Sphagnum Bog RNA or within 200 feet of
the upstream surface waters.

Fire managers do not plan to conduct prescribed fires in the Sphagnum
bog area of the park; however, they may allow for wildland fire use in
the vicinity of the bog. Fire could have a short-term effect on the
hydrologic complex feeding the bogs. With a reduction of vegetation and,
subsequently, evapotranspiration, annual water flows through the bog
complex may increase. Unless virtually the entire drainage area was
burned, this effect would be indistinguishable from the annual
hydrologic variation due to climate variability (DOI, 1997). Wildland
fire use near wetlands would result in similar hydrologic impacts.

During fire suppression activities, fire crews would employ MIST
guidelines that restrict camps and toilet facilities from being located
within 200 feet of surface water resources.

3.2.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

The types of impacts to surface water resources would be similar to
those described under the No Action Alternative. The use of mechanical
fuel treatments would increase the potential for soil impacts and
subsequent sediment loading in surface waters. In addition, mechanical
fuel treatments near surface waters, including RNAs and "fragile
environments", could significantly impact those resources. Potential
impacts would include direct damage to riparian habitats, a change in
water temperatures from lack of shade trees and vegetation, and bank
erosion and sediment loading in surface waters.

To minimize and/or eliminate potential direct impacts to surface waters,
the park will prohibit mechanical equipment from being operated within
200 feet of surface water resources. In addition, mechanical equipment
will not be used in the Sphagnum Bog RNA or in any "fragile
environment".

The exclusion of wildland fire use in the park would not have any
significant effect on surface water resources.

3.2.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

Impacts to surface water resources under the Proposed Action would be
similar to those described under Alternative 2 and the No Action
Alternative. The addition of wildland fire use would not significantly
increase the extent or severity of those impacts.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair water
resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment
of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.3 Vegetation]{.smallcaps}**

3.3.1 *Affected Environment*

[Classification and Description of Forest Fire Regimes]{.underline}

Effective management of fire in a specific ecosystem is aided by
classification of the fire regimes of that ecosystem. Fire regimes can
be classified through the characteristics of the fire or the effects
produced on the landscape by the fire. Fire frequency, fire periodicity,
fire intensity, size of fire, pattern on the landscape, season of burn,
and depth of burn have all been used to describe such fire regimes. Each
of these factors relates to their effect(s) on the plant community of
the impact area, which varies considerably. Fire severity is another key
component to consider in fire management planning. Fire severity is a
qualitative measure of the immediate effects of fires on the ecosystem.
It relates to the extent of mortality and survival of plant and animal
life both aboveground and belowground and to loss of organic matter. It
is determined by heat released aboveground and belowground (Brown and
Smith, 2000). The following classification scheme is used for Crater
Lake National Park:

*Understory fire regime (low-severity)* - Fires of this type apply to
forests and woodlands. These fires are generally non-lethal to the
dominant vegetation and do not significantly alter the structure of the
dominant vegetation. It has been estimated that at least 80 percent of
the aboveground vegetation survives fires of this regime.

*Mixed severity fire regime (moderate-severity)* - Fires of this type
apply to forests and woodlands. These fires cause selective mortality in
dominant vegetation, depending on the species, or may vary between
understory and stand-replacement.

*Stand-replacement fire regime (high-severity)* - Fires of this type
apply to forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. These fires
kill aboveground parts of the dominant vegetation, which changes its
structure significantly. It has been estimated that at least 80 percent
of the dominant vegetation is either consumed or dies from fires.

*Nonfire regime (non-forest)* -- These regimes have little or no
occurrence of natural fire. Fires of this type apply to meadows and
other areas with little or no combustible vegetation (Agee, 1993, Brown
and Smith, 2000).

Ecosystems can be placed into categories related to the presence or
absence of fire and its influence:

*Fire independent ecosystems* **--** Those ecosystems virtually free
from fire. Species possess no adaptations to fire; when fire occurs, the
effects are long-lasting and recovery is slow.

*Fire dependent ecosystems* -- Fire is common and fuel conditions are
conducive to fire spread. Plant species are adapted to fire and require
it for survival and continuance. Post-fire recovery is immediate and
fire exclusion is unnatural.

*Fire-initiated ecosystems* -- Fire is infrequent and catastrophic. It
both terminates and initiates long-lived species. These ecosystems are
common in temperate and boreal regions, and include some pioneer species
that are shade intolerant. These pioneer species die out and are
replaced by other species if the fire interval is too long. Initial
re-vegetation is rapid but post-fire recovery period is lengthy, up to
hundreds of years.

*Fire-maintained ecosystems* -- Fire is frequent (one to 10 years),
usually as surface fires. Intensity is light and crown fires are
uncommon. Fire decreases fuel buildups and controls plant succession,
often keeping out invading species. Fire favors faster growing trees
with thicker bark while the fire intolerant species are selected out.
The exclusion of fire from these types leads to fuel buildup and
vegetative change, with fire intolerant species becoming more abundant.
Ponderosa pine is included in this ecosystem type (GBC, 2001).

Historic fire regime characteristics have been estimated for the forest
types found within Crater Lake National Park, based on local ands
regional fire history studies (Agee, 1993; Agee and Huff, 2000; and
Brown and Smith, 2000). The six forest types or forest series recognized
within Crater Lake National Park include: ponderosa pine (*Pinus
ponderosa*), white fir (*Abies concolor*), lodgepole pine (*Pinus
contorta*), red fir (*Abies magnifica var.*), mountain hemlock (*Tsuga
mertensiana*), and whitebark pine (*Pinus albicaulis*). These forest
series are identified at a coarse level by the dominant, most
shade-tolerant regenerating tree species that is present on a given site
(see Figure 3-2). At a finer level, sites can be identified by their
understory plant associations. Plant associations are described by the
presence or absence, and abundance of understory plant species (Atzet et
al., 1996). For this environmental analysis, only the coarser forest
series level of classification was used, because a complete and accurate
classification of the park's understory (e.g. plant associations) is not
available. Table 3-1 describes the estimated historic fire regime
characteristics of these forest series.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.365277777777778in"
height="8.127083333333333in"}

**Figure 3-2 Vegetation in Crater Lake National Park**

Table 3-1 Estimated historic fire regime characteristics found at Crater
Lake National Park

+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| **Series | **Fire Regime/**   | **Fire       | **Fire | **Sea      |
| Name**   |                    | Severity**   | Return | sonality** |
|          | *                  |              | Inte   |            |
|          | *Characteristics** | **(% of      | rval** | **(% of    |
|          |                    | landscape    |        | area       |
|          | **BA = basal area  | effected)**  |        | burned)**  |
|          | of trees**         |              |        |            |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| P        | Low                | Low: 60-95%  | 10 -   | May- Jun:  |
| onderosa |                    |              | 15     | 0-30%      |
| pine     | Understory/surface | Mod: 5-35%   | years  |            |
|          | fires              |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          |                    | High: 5-10%  |        | 50-70%     |
|          | \< 20 % BA removed |              |        |            |
|          |                    |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          |                    |              |        | 0-30%      |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| White    | Low                | Low: 60-90%  | 9 - 42 | May- Jun:  |
| fir      |                    |              | years  | 0-30%      |
|          | Understory/surface | Mod: 5-35%   |        |            |
|          | fires              |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          |                    | High: 5-10%  |        | 50-70%     |
|          | \< 20% BA removed  |              |        |            |
|          |                    |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          |                    |              |        | 0-30%      |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| L        | High               | Low: 0-10%   | 60 -   | May-Jun:   |
| odgepole |                    |              | 80     | 0-5%       |
| pine     | Stand              | Mod: 10-40%  | years  |            |
|          | replacing/crown    |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          | fires              | High: 60-90% |        | 90-99%     |
|          |                    |              |        |            |
|          | \> 70% BA removed  |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          |                    |              |        | 0-5%       |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| Shasta   | Moderate           | Low: 30-60%  | 40 -   | May-Jun:   |
| red fir  |                    |              | 65     | 0-20%      |
|          | Mix of             | Mod: 20-40%  | years  |            |
|          | crown/surface      |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          | fires              | High: 0-15%  |        | 70-90%     |
|          |                    |              |        |            |
|          | 20 -- 70% BA       |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          | removed            |              |        | 0-20%      |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| Mountain | High               | Low: 0-10%   | 30-115 | May-Jun:   |
| hemlock  |                    |              | years  | 0-5%       |
|          | Stand              | Mod: 10-40%  |        |            |
|          | replacing/crown    |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          | fires              | High: 60-90% |        | 90-99%     |
|          |                    |              |        |            |
|          | \> 70% BA removed  |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          |                    |              |        | 0-5%       |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+
| W        | Moderate           | Low: 60-90%  | 30-180 | May-Jun:   |
| hitebark |                    |              | years  | 0-5%       |
| pine     | Mix of             | Mod: 5-20%   |        |            |
|          | crown/surface      |              |        | Jul-Sep:   |
|          | fires              | High: 5-20%  |        | 90-99%     |
|          |                    |              |        |            |
|          | 20 -- 70% BA       |              |        | Oct-Nov:   |
|          | removed            |              |        | 0-5%       |
+----------+--------------------+--------------+--------+------------+

Table 3-2 describes the distribution of common tree species by forest
series at the park.

Table 3-2 Forest tree series of Crater Lake National Park

+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| *       | **Pon  | **White | *       | **M     | **Lo    | **Whi  |
| *Forest | derosa | fir**   | *Shasta | ountain | dgepole | tebark |
| S       | pine** |         | red     | he      | pine**  | pine** |
| eries** |        |         | fir**   | mlock** |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Tree    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
|         |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| Species |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Po      | M      | M       |         |         |         |        |
| nderosa |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| pine    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Doug    | m      | M       |         |         |         |        |
| las-fir |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Incense |        | M       |         |         |         |        |
| cedar   |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Sugar   |        | m       |         |         |         |        |
| pine    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| White   | m      | M       | m       | m       |         |        |
| fir     |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Su      |        |         |         | m       |         |        |
| balpine |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| fir     |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Western |        | m       | m       | m       |         |        |
| white   |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| pine    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Lo      |        |         | M       | M       | M       | m      |
| dgepole |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| pine    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Shasta  |        |         | M       | m       |         |        |
| red fir |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| M       |        | m       | m       | M       |         | m      |
| ountain |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| hemlock |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+
| Wh      |        |         |         | m       |         | M      |
| itebark |        |         |         |         |         |        |
| pine    |        |         |         |         |         |        |
+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+

"M" = Major species present, "m" = Minor species present

[Description of Forest Communities (Forest Series)]{.underline}

*Ponderosa Pine*

Ponderosa pine at Crater Lake is primarily found in the northeastern
corner of the park. In this forest community, ponderosa pine is the
potential (climax) vegetation and would normally be the only conifer
present. Lodgepole pine may be found in association with ponderosa pine
along the margins of ponderosa pine communities, particularly at meadow
edges.

The structure of the ponderosa community is naturally open and park-like
(i.e., grassy understory) with a stable overstory of pure ponderosa
pine. Fire normally maintains the forest as an aggregation of very
small, even-aged or even-sized clumps. As one clump ages, it is attacked
by western pine beetles and then decomposes by fire, scarifying the site
for another clump to regenerate. Because of this interaction between
fire and beetles, snags tend to be clustered on the landscape, and
coarse woody debris is likely short-lived because of frequent fires.
Consumption of coarse woody debris naturally inhibits rhizomatous
grasses and sedges and creates growing space for pine regeneration.

Elsewhere, a stable pattern of one-storied mature forest in clumps with
a grassy understory is normally maintained by frequent fires. The
clumped pattern is still very evident across most of the northeast
section of the park in this type. Each fire would naturally decrease the
chance of a subsequent fire becoming intense by consuming needle litter
and shrubs. Consequently, weak sprouting species such as bitterbrush
would not normally be as widespread through the ponderosa pine forest as
they are today due to past fire suppression activities.

Fire exclusion has allowed a major increase in white fir density in the
ponderosa pine communities. Chances of stand-replacement fire,
characteristic of high-severity fire regimes, are much greater now than
historically. The park has identified the need to restore fuel and stand
structure in ponderosa pine communities to more natural, low-severity
fire regime conditions. Without allowing fire to play an ecological
role, the historical low-severity fire regime will increasingly be
replaced with moderate to high-severity fire regimes.

*White fir*

The white fir communities have a major component of ponderosa pine, as
well as sugar pine. Historic fires favored the survival of pines over
white fir, and most of these stands, concentrated in the southern
portion of the park, were historically dominated by ponderosa pine.
Specific fire history information is available for the panhandle area of
the park. Researchers studied an elevation gradient from the southern
end of the panhandle up into the red fir forest types, and found an
average fire return interval of 9-42 years along the gradient, with the
lower average adjacent to the ponderosa pine type and the upper average
adjacent to the red fir type. Variation was high, and that probably
allowed fire-intolerant white fir (at least while it was young) to
survive as a co-dominant in this classic low-severity fire regime type.

The forest stands in the southern portion of the park are generally
one-storied, and composed of small clumps. However, these clumps tend to
be comprised of only one of the major species in white fir communities:
one clump of ponderosa pine, another of sugar pine, another of white
fir, several more of ponderosa pine, etc. Fires are frequent enough to
kill most understory trees invading the clumps, so that these forest
stands remained relatively open.

Understory shrubs such as gooseberries, currants, and ceanothus would
either sprout after burning or reproduce from seeds stimulated to
germinate by heating as the fire passed over. As in the ponderosa pine
type, a low shrub/grass understory was maintained by frequent fires. It
was probably better developed under pine clumps than under relatively
shadier true fir clumps.

White fir forests have been significantly affected by fire exclusion.
The open forest has been choked by white fir regeneration and, to some
extent, lodgepole pine. Most of the regeneration ceased about 1950 when
growing space in the stands was fully occupied by trees. Fire hazard has
significantly increased in white fir communities, and the park has
identified the need to restore these communities to a low-severity fire
regime.

*Lodgepole pine*

The lodgepole pine ecosystem is defined, like the ponderosa pine type,
on the basis of a single species present: lodgepole pine. This type of
forest community is sometimes called climax lodgepole, and is associated
with sites of exceptionally low productivity, and typically, cold air
pockets. It is identified by the presence of lodgepole pine only in the
overstory, little to no understory, and a dearth of understory shrubs
and herbs. It is sometimes intermixed with other forests that also have
lodgepole pine, such as the red fir and mountain hemlock communities.
The occurrence of lodgepole pine in these communities is a good marker
of past high-severity disturbances, which occurs very infrequently (more
than 100 years between fires) and usually replaces an entire stand with
a high intensity fire. These events allow lodgepole pine to dominate
sites otherwise dominated by other species. In the climax lodgepole pine
forest, lodgepole pine is the dominant, regardless of disturbance
history.

Climax lodgepole pine forests have a moderate-severity fire regime. Most
stands show an origin from a more widespread stand replacement-type fire
and most have a patchy history of fire occurrence and spread. The
average fire-free interval is probably around 60 - 80 years, with areas
bordering higher productivity forest on the low end of the range. Strong
winds are likely associated with the rare stand replacement fire in the
lodgepole pine type. Mature lodgepole pines are quite resistant to fire
damage. Under most conditions, these forests will act as natural fuel
breaks, where fire suppression, if desired, will be relatively easy.

Most stands surveyed in the park have multiple age classes resulting
from mortality due to either mountain pine beetle (*Dendroctonus
ponderosae*) or past fire events. Stems killed by either agent will fall
within 5-10 years, and over a 40-50 year period they maintain a hard
sapwood but decayed heartwood, an ideal vector for fire spread. In the
meantime, any clump of trees killed is colonized by a new generation of
lodgepole pine, and this process, repeated over time, results in
multiple age classes of the pines. Understory development is never
substantial in these forests. Moisture competition restricts tree
regeneration to gaps created after a tree falls and few herbs or shrubs
tolerate these low productivity sites.

*Red fir*

Red fir ecosystems have a classic moderate-severity fire regime. Red
fir, when mature, is relatively fire tolerant. Average fire frequencies
of 40-70 years combined with a range of fire intensities leads to a
patchy mosaic of different age structures across landscapes of this
type. At Crater Lake, typical large fire sizes in red fir forests have
been about 500 acres. Small patches of low, moderate, and high-severity
fire typically occur, with high-severity fire often covering less than
one-third of the landscape. Old-growth stands of red fir are least
likely to burn with high severity. Although there has probably been some
increase in older patches, red fir stands have not been affected
substantially by fire exclusion over the past 80-100 years. Fire effects
from natural fires appear to be within the natural range of variability.

Stand development patterns in red fir forests are complex because red
fir is not only fire-tolerant but is also shade-tolerant. It does well
with or without disturbance. Several stand development patterns are
common. If no lodgepole pine is present when a stand replacement fire
occurs, shrub dominance will occur (ceanothus and manzanita) with later,
slow recolonization by red fir. In moderate-severity patches, some red
fir dominants remain and provide seed for colonization by red fir, which
does well in these partially shaded conditions, creating a multiple age
class stand. In low-severity patches, understory trees are killed but
little growing space is opened for regeneration, and red fir reproduces
slowly in small gaps where sunflecks occur.

*Mountain hemlock*

Mountain hemlock stands are the highest elevation continuous forests at
Crater Lake. Discontinuous stands of hemlock or whitebark pine are
transitional to the alpine zone and occur in a mosaic pattern. Lodgepole
pine is a common early seral species in the mountain hemlock zone,
indicative of past disturbance by fire. Many of these stands are
difficult to differentiate from the climax lodgepole pine forests
mentioned earlier, but usually have an understory component of mountain
hemlock.

Mountain hemlock and/or young lodgepole pine are thin-barked species
susceptible to fire damage, so fires, regardless of fire intensity, are
often of stand replacement severity. Where lodgepole pine is present, an
even-aged stand of lodegpole pine will emerge from the fire, but where
it is absent, the site may revert to shrubby, non-forest vegetation
after burning. Where whitebark pine is present, fires are often of
moderate-severity, killing some pine but leaving other clumps intact.

Almost a century of fire exclusion has had little impact on the behavior
of fires today in mountain hemlock forests.

*Whitebark Pine*

Whitebark pine forests occur on approximately 8,000 acres in Crater Lake
National Park and represent the most expansive and diverse agglomeration
in the Southern Cascades. The majority of whitebark pine occurs in the
most heavily visited portions of the park -- the rim of Crater Lake and
Mount Scott. The Rim Village and historic Rim Drive are surrounded by
whitebark pine dominated stands. Whitebark pine forests east of the
Cascade Crest support diverse communities with lodgepole pine, Shasta
red fir, and mountain hemlock often separately co-dominating stands.
Pure whitebark pine stands thrive on the flanks of Mount Scott (Murray
and Rasmussen, 2002).

Whitebark pine forests in the park, and elsewhere in the Cascades, are
dying from the introduced fungus (*Cronartium rubicola*), which causes
blister rust. Blister rust has been documented in the park as early as
1935. Current estimates suggest that the disease results in an overall
annual decline of 0.4% for mature whitebark pine trees within the park.
At that rate of decline, it is anticipated that there would be an
additional 20% less whitebark pine within 50 years (Murray and
Rasmussen, 2000).

Fire exclusion may have also impacted the health and vitality of the
whitebark pine stands in the park. Fire exclusion leads to less
opportunity for regeneration coupled with successional advancement of
competing trees. The success of whitebark pine regeneration is closely
tied with seed dispersal by the Clark's nutcracker. The nutcracker feeds
on seeds within the pinecones and usually stores some seeds underground
for later use. Some of these cached seeds sprout forming the basis for a
new population of pine trees (Jensen and Ross, 1999). Fire exclusion has
resulted in a much smaller acreage being exposed to moderate and high
severity wildfires, where new opportunities for whitebark pine
regeneration could occur.

[Threatened/ Endangered/ Sensitive Plant Species]{.underline}

As of 2001, Oregon had 14 federally listed threatened and endangered
plants, of which only one may occur in CRLA. Several Sensitive species
(an informal designation) occur in the park, and one State Threatened
species occurs.

Table 3-3 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| **Species**     | *         | **Description**                        |
|                 | *Status** |                                        |
+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| *Astragalus     | Federal   | Perennial plant species found in flat, |
| applegatei*     | E         | seasonally moist, strongly alkaline    |
|                 | ndangered | soils in the Klamath River Basin       |
| (Applegate's    |           | (USFWS, 1997).                         |
| milk vetch)     |           |                                        |
+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| *Arabis         | Federal   | Plant found in dry and exposed rocky   |
| suffrutescens*  | S         | habitat at high elevations (Appelgate, |
| var.            | ensitive, | 1939 and Rasmussen, 2001a)             |
| *horizontalis*  |           |                                        |
|                 | State     |                                        |
| (Crater Lake    | Candidate |                                        |
| rockcress)      |           |                                        |
+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| *Botrychium     | Federal   | Inconspicuous plant found in raw, pale |
| pumicola*       | S         | pumice on rocky mountain slopes at     |
|                 | ensitive, | high elevations or in frost pockets of |
| (pumice grape   |           | montane lodgepole pine openings (USDA  |
| fern)           | State     | and BLM, 1999)                         |
|                 | T         |                                        |
|                 | hreatened |                                        |
+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| *Collomia       | Federal   | Perennial species that inhabits open   |
| mazama*         | Sensitive | woods and meadows of the lodgepole     |
|                 |           | pine and red fir/mountain hemlock      |
| Mount Mazama    |           | forest zones (Baldwin & Brunsfield,    |
| collomia        |           | 2001).                                 |
+-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+

[Exotic Species and Noxious Weeds]{.underline}

Crater Lake National Park is home to 49 species of non-native vascular
plants. They are found on fewer than 150 acres throughout the park and
are associated with areas that have been disturbed primarily by
construction activities in the park's developed zones. Highway 62 is a
source of non-native plant introductions and the primary vector for
their spread within the park (Rasmussen, 2001b). There are two species
of non-native plants that pose the greatest threat of expanding their
populations within the park: spotted knapweed (*Centaurea
biebersteinii*) and St. Johnswort (*Hypericum perforatum*). Spotted
knapweed is a state listed noxious weed. Annual efforts are made to
manually control known infestations within park boundaries.

3.3.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Vegetation impacts were qualitatively assessed using literature reviews
and quantitatively assessed by acres impacted.

3.3.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under this alternative 2,181 acres would be treated with prescribed
fires. Additional acres would be also be subjected to wildland fire use.
Generally, hazard fuel treatments would result in the removal of
understory vegetation and trees, and would help restore natural fire
regimes to several of the forest stand communities in the park.
Restoration of fire regimes in the park through prescribed fire and
wildland fire use would positively benefit those forest stand
communities whose health and biologic diversity rely on the presence of
fire. The transformation of some forest stand communities to natural
fire regimes would result in an increase of fire-tolerant species, while
those fire-intolerant vegetative species would decrease.

More specifically, the benefits of prescribed fire and wildland fire use
include reduction of duff material, recycling of nutrients, reduction of
accumulating fuels, pruning of trees which reduce ladder fuels into the
canopy, thinning of regenerating pines, and minimizing the encroachment
of young conifers into grasslands and meadows.

[Forest Communities]{.underline}

*Ponderosa pine*

Hazardous fuels reduction through prescribed fires and wildland fire use
would help reduce fuel loadings in this forest type to their
pre-suppression levels, thus reducing the chance of stand-replacement
fires. These actions would also help return the low-severity fire regime
to ponderosa pine forests, which is essential for the health of the
species. Suppression activities in ponderosa pine could be beneficial if
the forests contain heavy fuel loadings and ladder fuels that could
result in stand replacement fires.

### *White fir*

Similar to ponderosa pine, hazardous fuels reduction through prescribed
fires and wildland fire use would help reduce fuel loadings in this
forest type to their pre-suppression levels, thus reducing the chance of
stand-replacement fires. These actions would also help return the
low-severity fire regime to white fir forests. Suppression activities in
white fir could be beneficial if the forests contain heavy fuel loadings
and ladder fuels that could result in stand replacement fires.

*Lodgepole pine*

While prescribed fire is not a high priority in these stands because of
the lack of demonstrated ecological change due to fire exclusion,
hazardous fuel would help maintain the mixed-severity fire regime in
some stands.

*Red fir*

Hazard fuels reduction would help maintain the mixed-severity fire
regime, which would in turn improve the diversity of habitats typical in
this forest community.

*Mountain hemlock*

Hazard fuels reduction through the use of prescribed fire use would
create natural fuel breaks, and provide for safer implementation of
wildland fire use, which would benefit this forest community by
maintaining its high-severity fire regime.

*Whitebark pine*

The application of prescribed fire would likely benefit regeneration of
whitebark pine stands in the park and help control the blister rust
infections. Prescribed fire is currently being employed in the Northern
Rocky Mountains to limit the deleterious effects of blister rust and
fire exclusion (Murray and Rasmussen, 2002). Prior to any prescribed
fires, however, the park would conduct research to help determine
science-based targets for the forest community, such as fire frequency,
severity, and size for the forests.

[Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive Plant Species]{.underline}

Fire plays a role in the management of many
threatened/endangered/sensitive plant species. Fire helps maintain open
habitat, encourages sexual and vegetative reproduction, and affects
competing or associated plant species. Although fire may injure or kill
individual plants, long-term effects on species may be beneficial.

The federally-endangered Applegate's milk-vetch (*Astragalus
applegatei*) is not known to inhabit the Park, and thus, ground crew
activities and fire effects associated with the implementation of the
1999 Fire Management Plan would not impact this species. Sensitive plant
surveys will be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities
associated with prescribed burns or manual thinning treatments. If
species are identified within proposed treatment areas, physical buffers
will be employed around each sensitive plant population to protect
plants from physical harm.

Most of the sensitive species within Crater Lake National Park are found
in environments that are unlikely to burn, so that fire suppression
activities rather than fire presence is likely the greater hazard to
these plants. Crater Lake rockcress (*Arabis suffrutescens* var.
*horizontalis*) is found in dry, rocky pumice and intermixed with
sparse, open, mountain hemlock forest. Pumice grapefern (*Botrychium
pumicola*) is a pumice-related species that grows where no humus exists,
so it is not threatened at all by fire. Mount Mazama collomia (*Collomia
mazama*) occurs in alpine wet meadow habitats. It may burn if fires in
adjacent forests move into adjacent non-forested areas. Long-term
effects of fire on this species are not known. Any fires occurring in
the area of Sphagnum Bog, Thousand Springs, upper Castle Creek, Copeland
Creek, and Trapper Creek would be monitored for post-fire impacts to
*Collomia*.

[Exotic Species and Noxious Weeds]{.underline}

Ground crew activities and fire can result in temporary or permanent
invasion of non-native species. Fire management at Crater Lake National
Park has not, to date, been associated with the spread of exotic plants.
Although fires do temporarily remove vegetation, post fire recovery of
native vegetation usually out-competes exotic plants (DOI, 1997). In
addition, park staff conducts yearly surveys of those areas adjacent to
roads and remove noxious weeds (Rasmussen, 2001b).

Pre- and post-fire surveys conducted by park staff would involve, among
other objectives, identifying and hand-removing exotic species. Among
fire suppression actions, fire lines, camps, or helispots would be
highest priority spots for monitoring. Since shading reduces the
potential for exotic encroachment, potentially forested terrain is less
likely to be a problem than places on the landscape where shrub/herb
vegetation is the potential vegetation. During rehabilitation efforts
following large or catastrophic fires, any re-seeding of burned areas
would be accomplished using native plant genotypes.

3.3.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

Manual and mechanical thinning, and prescribed fire would be employed on
12,715 acres. General vegetation impacts under Alternative 2 would be
similar to those described under the No Action Alternative, with some
exceptions. The exclusion of wildland fire use would delay the
restoration of fire regimes to some forest stand communities since fire
managers would have to rely solely on prescribed fire. Since some forest
stands would experience a delay in hazardous fuels reduction without the
use of wildland fire, the potential exists for an increase in stand
replacement fires in those forest stands as ground and ladder fuels
continue to accumulate to unnatural levels. This potential would be
greatest in ponderosa pine and white fir communities.

Minor vegetation impacts from the use of mechanical equipment would not
be significantly different than manual fuels treatment. Where mechanical
equipment use is envisioned, the initial survey of the area would help
identify any federally listed or sensitive species. If any listed and/or
sensitive species are found, appropriate measures and/or mitigation
would be developed by the park to protect them. These measures would
include actions such as establishing a restriction buffer for the
mechanical equipment or allowing for manual fuel treatment only.

Active coordination and consultation with the Forest Service and other
neighbors would benefit forest communities in park boundary areas since
the management of these areas would focus on treating the forest
communities as a whole, not simply those parts that fell within the
National Park Service's jurisdiction. By managing fire cooperatively,
whether it be prescribed fire or wildland fire use, the park and its
neighbors can improve forest health while, at the same time, reduce the
likelihood of unwanted, high-severity wildfires from entering or exiting
the park's boundaries.

3.2.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) **-** Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

Under this alternative, manual and mechanical thinning, prescribed fire,
and wildland fire use would be employed on 12,715-20,815 acres. General
vegetation impacts under the Proposed Action would be similar to those
described under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2; however,
the ability to employ wildland fire use as a fire management strategy
would maximize the park's ability to restore and/or maintain the natural
fire regimes to its forest stand communities.

*Conclusion*

Implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair vegetation
resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment
of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.4 Ecologically Critical Areas]{.smallcaps}**

3.4.1 *Affected Environment*

[Research Natural Areas]{.underline}

In 1995, four Research Natural Areas (RNA) were designated in the park:
Llao Rock, Desert Creek, Sphagnum Bog, and Pumice Desert. These Research
Natural Areas were established to allow natural processes to dominate
and to preserve a given ecosystem or feature. In national parks, RNA\'s
are focal locations for research.

*Llao Rock RNA*

Llao Rock RNA covers approximately 435 acres near the gently sloped
broad top of Llao Rock, and includes some steep terrain on the inner
caldera of Crater Lake. Alpine conditions dominate most of the RNA, with
small stringers of mountain hemlock forest on the north side and
scattered whitebark pine in the alpine zone. The alpine zone habitat has
a unique assemblage of wild flowers that are relatively few in number
but are noted for their colorful blooms. Two rare plant species occur in
the alpine zone. One of the largest populations of pumice grapefern
(*Botrychium pumicola*), a sensitive species, is found at the site,
growing in light-colored, loose pumice. The second species of concern is
the endemic Crater Lake rockcress (*Arabis suffretescens* var.
*horizontalis*), a sensitive species that has a small population also
growing in pumice substrate. Other flora and fauna are typical of the
subalpine and alpine zones of the park and associated high country.

*Pumice Desert RNA*

The Pumice Desert RNA, a broad shallow basin surrounded by forest, is
the largest RNA in the park at 3,053 acres. The site is deeply mantled
by Mount Mazama pumice and has an average plant cover of only 4.5%. Only
14 plant species are recorded for the area. Occasional pine invasion has
occurred in disturbed areas across the desert.

*Desert Creek RNA*

The 1,870-acre Desert Creek RNA, located in the northeast area of the
park, is the RNA most likely to be affected by fire. It has a central
non-forested area with bitterbrush/long-stolon sedge, and is surrounded
by three dry forest types: ponderosa pine/bitterbrush-manzanita/sedge,
ponderosa pine/bitterbrush-snowbrush/sedge, and lodgepole
pine/bitterbrush/sedge.

*Sphagnum Bog RNA*

A description of the Sphagnum Bog RNA can be found in Section 3.2.1 -
Surface Water

Resources.

3.4.2 *Environmental Consequences*

3.4.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Natural fires that occur in Research Natural Areas are generally
consistent with the designation intent. However, prescribed fire and
wildland fire use in RNAs may not be consistent with other resource
objectives, so fire suppression is a possibility for some fires in
RNA\'s. In each case, a far greater possible impact on RNA\'s is from
poorly conducted fire control operations rather than from actual fire
effects. Each RNA is unique in terms of its potential to burn and
potential fire effects. To minimize and/or eliminate potential impacts
to all RNAs, the following mitigation measures will be employed: 1)
helispots or camps are prohibited within the boundaries of all Research
Natural Areas, and 2) heavy equipment use will be prohibited in all
Research Natural Areas.

*Llao Rock RNA*

Fire suppression activities, including aerial retardants or foam, could
have an adverse impact considering the occurrence of rare plant species
within the RNA. In particular, fire lines tied to "open ground",
trampling effects from ground crews, and the fertilizer contained in
fire retardants may directly damage these rare plants. Excessive
fertilizer can cause a temporary "burn" on exposed vegetation and, in
some cases, kill the plants (USDA, 2001). To eliminate potential impacts
to this RNA, prescribed fire and wildifire suppression would not be
employed in this RNA.

*Pumice Desert RNA*

Pumice Desert RNA is not capable of carrying fire. The largest fire
management impact is likely to be fire suppression activities directed
towards surrounding forested areas. The Pumice Desert itself acts as a
firebreak, so fire line construction at the edge of the desert is not
likely. Prescribed fire would not be employed in this RNA. Wildland fire
is not possible due to the scarcity of fuels.

*Desert Creek RNA*

Fire suppression activities, including the use of foams and retardants
and construction of fire lines, could result in adverse impacts to the
vegetative communities in the meadow located in the center of the RNA.

Prescribed fires may be employed in this RNA. The construction of fire
lines, particularly through the meadow, could adversely impact the
vegetative communities in the RNA. Early season burns would probably not
need line construction at the edge of the open meadow located in the RNA
because fires would naturally extinguish there. Late season prescribed
fires would employ blacklining with water or foam at the edge of the
meadow provided that the meadow edge was the control line.

If fire needs to be stopped in the Desert Creek RNA, water and
appropriate foams will be recommended over fire line construction at the
meadow edge. Phosphorous/clay based retardants will be banned within the
RNA boundaries. If fire line construction is necessary, it will be best
achieved at the forest-meadow edge rather than through the middle of the
meadow.

Wildland fire use would also be allowed in this area since the meadow
likely burned in historic fires. It\'s expected that allowing fire to
return to this RNA will have short and long term benefits by increasing
forb/grass cover relative to bitterbrush cover.

*Sphagnum Bog RNA*

Vegetation impacts in this RNA from implementation of the Fire
Management Plan are described in section 3.2.2 -- Surface Water
Resources.

3.4.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described
under the No Action Alternative. In order to minimize and/or eliminate
impacts in RNAs from mechanical treatments, heavy earth-moving equipment
will be prohibited within all RNAs.

3.4.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) **-** Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described
under the No Action Alternative. In addition, wildland fire use may be
allowed in the Llao Rock and Desert Creek RNAs under acceptable
conditions as outlined in the FMP. After wildland fire use in or near
the RNA, fire monitors will seek out the rare plant populations and
evaluate before and after effects on these populations. It is very
unlikely that the rare plants would burn, because of their preference
for open, barren-ground pumice conditions. Under extreme fire conditions
during wildland fire use in the RNA, fire suppression could be
warranted. In such an event, MIST suppression techniques, taking care
that line construction did not tie into open ground within the RNA,
would be strictly followed.

*Conclusion*

Implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair ecologically
critical areas that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment
of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.5 Wildlife]{.smallcaps}**

3.5.1 *Affected* *Environment*

A wide variety of animals can be found in the forest, meadow and aquatic
habitats at Crater Lake National Park (more than 260 vertebrate species
have been identified to date). Fauna likely to be seen in the summer
include the black bear, elk, and mule deer. The exact population of bear
is unknown, but has been estimated at approximately 30 to 40 animals. A
migratory herd of about 150 elk bases itself near Union Peak and grazes
in the meadows on the south side of the park. Elk are most common in
open areas near timber stands, where they graze on grasses and shrubs.
Pronghorn antelope are also known to graze the park in summer in the
open ponderosa pine forests along the park's east boundary.

Rodent species make up the majority of mammals present in the park, such
as voles, ground squirrels, pikas and yellow-bellied marmots.
Golden-mantled ground squirrels are commonly seen by visitors near the
rim of Crater Lake in the summer, while the carnivorous pine marten (a
member of the weasel family) is often seen by winter visitors. A total
of 74 mammals are known to the park.

Several species of fish are found in the park's streams and lake, which
were stocked between the late 1800's and early 1940's. Of the five
species reported, only one, the bull trout, is native. Approximately a
dozen species of amphibians have been identified in the park's scattered
riparian habitats. More than 155 species of birds have been reported
within the park, though relatively few, among them gray jays, Stellar's
jays, Clark's nutcrackers, ravens, and great horned owls, are reported
as common on a year-round basis (DOI, 2001f).

Each of the species listed below may occur in the park and could be
influenced by fire management activities. The park also contains
suitable habitat for the federally endangered gray wolf (*Canis lupis*),
however, the species is extirpated from the park. In addition, the
federally endangered shortnose sucker (*Chasmistes brevirostris*) and
Lost River sucker (*Deltistes luxatus*) are found in the Klamath Falls
Basin but do not occur or have any habitat within the Park (Laye, 2001).

Table 3-4 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Species**                       | **Status**                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Lynx canadensis*                 | Federally Threatened              |
|                                   |                                   |
| (Canada lynx )                    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Gulo gulo*                       | State Threatened                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| (wolverine)                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Haliaeetus leucocephalus*        | Federally Threatened              |
|                                   |                                   |
| (Bald eagle)                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Strix occidentalis caurina*      | Federally Threatened              |
|                                   |                                   |
| (Northern spotted owl)            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Salvelinus confluentus*          | Federally Threatened              |
|                                   |                                   |
| (Bull trout)                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

The Canada lynx requires older and mature forests with downed trees and
windfalls to provide adequate cover for denning sites, escape, and
protection from severe weather (DOI, 2001g). The lynx is more commonly
found in the Northern Cascade Mountains, however, suitable habitat is
also present in the Park and surrounding National Forests (Hickenbottom,
et al., 1999). Park-wide surveys conducted between 1999-2001 failed to
detect the presence of Canada lynx. More than 80 hair samples were
collected for DNA analysis, which detected the presence of bobcat,
cougar, and domestic felines, among other mammals (Rasmussen, 2001c).

The wolverine predominantly uses montane coniferous forests and areas of
wilderness refugia, where human presence and activities are minimal
(Wolverine, 2001). Old forest structure, including wood debris for
denning (both logs and snags), is an important structural characteristic
of habitat for small carnivores (DOI, 1996). There have been no recent
records of wolverine sightings in Southern Oregon (Oregon, 1996). Annual
survey efforts, both aerial and ground-based, by federal biologists
between 1997 and 2002, have failed to produce any evidence to confirm
the presence of wolverine within or adjacent to the park (Rasmussen,
2001c)

Bald eagles (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) are known to occasionally nest
near Crater Lake and use it as a feeding area. A nesting pair has been
reported by the lake during the 2001 nesting season (Rasmussen, 2001b).
Eagles prefer large, old trees for nest sites. The forest types most
similar to the Klamath Basin nest sites are the white fir and ponderosa
pine types.

The northern spotted owl (*Strix occidentalis caurina*) is an old-growth
dependent species that prefers complex forest structure. It is at the
eastern end of its range in Crater Lake National Park. All currently
known nest locations have been found within areas identified as
potential habitat, but occasional sightings have been documented outside
of these areas. Potential habitat is found in patches throughout the
park, with higher density of patches and larger patch sizes southwest of
a diagonal line connecting the northwest and southeast corners of the
park. In 2001, twelve active spotted owl nesting sites were identified
in the park or immediately adjacent to it (Rasmussen, 2001c).

The bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus*) is a native Pacific Northwest
trout that has a radically smaller distribution and abundance than it
had even 40 years ago. Bull trout probably reached maximum distribution
and abundance after the last glaciation when clear cold-water streams
were abundant. Habitat fragmentation, together with habitat degradation
(particularly warming waters) and interspecific competition from the
exotic brook trout, have led to major declines of the species (DOI,
1997).

Bull trout are found in two streams at the park: Sun Creek and Lost
Creek. Non-native brook trout have been removed from the upper and
middle reaches of Sun Creek to help stabilize the bull trout population.
Bull trout were moved into Lost Creek following brook trout removal to
reduce the risk of local extinction from a catastrophic event in Sun
Creek (Girdner, 2002).

3.5.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Wildlife impacts were qualitatively assessed using presence/absence
determinations, GIS overlays of treatment units and protected species
and their habitats, and mitigation measures.

3.5.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Animal species, like plant species, evolved through a series of \"coarse
filters\" of environment and habitat. Fire was one of the coarse filters
that \"managed\" habitat through time before the park was established.
Prescribed fire and wildland fire use would have short-term impacts on
animal populations by eliminating cover, food sources, and habitat.
Injury and mortality are possible outcomes for some individuals. In
addition, heavy smoke may temporarily force animals to temporarily
vacate some areas. In the long term, habitat changes resulting from fire
have a greater impact on animal populations and communities than the
fire itself (USDA, 2000b).

Understory fires generally change habitat structure less severely than
mixed-severity or stand replacement fires. Stand-replacement fires
reduce habitat quality for species that require dense cover and improve
it for species that prefer open sites. Re-introduction of fire as a
management tool in the park would have beneficial impacts to
fire-dependent faunal species and adverse impacts to fire-intolerant
ones. Landscape-scale fire affects on fauna also include changes in
availability of habitat patches and heterogeneity within them; changes
in the composition and structure of larger areas, such as watersheds,
which provide the spatial context for habitat patches; and changes in
connections among habitat patches (USDA, 2000b).

Fire can cause a short-term increase in productivity, availability, or
nutrient content of forage and browse. These in turn may contribute to
an increase in herbivore populations, although such increases may be
moderated by animals' ability to thrive in an altered environment. Small
carnivores are affected by fire's affect on their prey; effects can be
positive or negative. Large carnivores and omnivores have extensive home
ranges and their populations may change little in response to fire;
however, they thrive where their preferred prey is most plentiful, often
in areas of recent burns. Fire may benefit raptors by reducing cover and
exposing prey. Other bird species, such as woodpeckers, may benefit from
population explosions of wood-boring insects. Birds that prefer
interior, closed-canopy forest may be negatively impacted by
stand-replacement fires. (USDA, 2000b)

In the long term, it is expected that reintroducing fire would provide
for greater habitat diversity and less catastrophic habitat loss. Fire
management provides for the least amount of disturbance overall by
reducing the chance of catastrophic fires and allowing for incremental
changes over time.

Unlike the plant species, none of the threatened/endangered/sensitive
animal species are endemic to Crater Lake National Park, and the
\"threats\" to their existence have largely occurred due to land
management activities elsewhere (habitat loss affecting northern spotted
owls, etc.).

The nearest suitable habitat for the shortnose sucker and Lost River
sucker is several miles outside the boundary of the park. Implementation
of any alternative by Crater Lake National Park would not have an
adverse impact of these two federally endangered species (Laye, 2001).

[Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive Animal Species]{.underline}

*Canada lynx*

Fire exclusion that changes the vegetation mosaic maintained by natural
disturbance processes is cited as one of several risks to the Canada
lynx in the Cascade Mountains. In addition, foraging habitat for the
lynx is likely to be maintained at a level less than what would be
provided under natural disturbance regimes (Hickenbottom, et al., 1999).
Prescribed fire and wildland use fire would likely benefit the lynx and
its habitat requirements in the park.

*Wolverine*

Hazardous fuel treatments would not adversely affect the wolverine.
Prescribed fire and wildland fire use would consume ground fuels,
including potential snags and logs, that may be suitable for denning
purposes, however, the effect on the wolverine is unknown.

Wildland fire use at Crater Lake tends to be patchy in terms of fire
severity. This patchiness historically was associated with habitat
improvement for small carnivores, and would likely be associated with
habitat maintenance for them in the future. High severity patches would
create prey concentration areas; moderate severity patches would create
coarse woody debris; and unburned patches mixed with low severity
patches would provide complex forest structure for small carnivores,
including the wolverine (DOI, 1996).

*Bald eagle*

Prescribed burning in white fir and ponderosa pine would likely reduce
the threat of catastrophic fire while maintaining adequate nest trees
for bald eagles. Hunting territories would be unchanged or enhanced.
There is the expectation prescribed fire would have a positive effect,
if any, on the hydrologic complex feeding wetlands in reducing
evapotranspirational area by killing some vegetation, and increasing
annual water flow through the wetland; and a positive effect by creating
a variety of successional stages that should result in an increase in
habitat for small mammals and birds, on which eagles feed.

*Northern spotted owl*

Fire has the potential to degrade habitat for northern spotted owls,
particularly if high severity fires occur on a wide scale and in old
growth forest stands. When fire historically occurred, owl habitat may
have been damaged for a decade or two and destroyed for longer times
only in limited areas. The wildfires of today, burning in higher fuel
loads and more uniform multi-layered canopies (resulting from fire
suppression), have resulted in an increased proportion of stand
replacement fire, which can destroy owl habitat. Hazard fuel treatments,
including the use of prescribed fire and wildland fire use, would
increase landscape diversity relative to fire, so that the potential for
catastrophic fire would be reduced. Monitoring of owls on the Yakima
Indian Nation in eastern Washington indicated that radio-telemetered
owls continued to forage in light-to moderate-severity patches created
by wildfire, but only unburned nest sites continued to be used.

Understory burning reduces dead fuel loads and vertical fuel continuity
within a treatment area. Although this reduces catastrophic fire
potential for some time, the elimination of a multi-layered understory
may result in suboptimum owl habitat at that site, so it would not be
done over wide areas in the same decade.

Wildland fire use would be allowed in spotted owl habitat. Over most of
the habitats where fire and owls may both occur, the fire regimes are
primarily mixes of low and moderate severity, with patches of high
severity and unburned islands also occurring. Annual surveys conducted
by the park locate spotted owl nest sites and activity centers, so that
suppression strategies would be used to protect these areas during
prescribed fires or wildland fire use.

Hazardous fuels reduction activities in the Crater Creek, Crater Peak,
Highway 62, and Red Blanket Treatment Units would have the potential to
impact spotted owl activity centers and interrupt nesting activity. To
maximize habitat benefits from thinning, prescribed fire, and wildland
fire use in or near spotted owl activity centers, and to eliminate the
potential for disturbing nesting owls, several mitigation measures would
be employed (see Section 2.4 - *Mitigation Measures and Monitoring*).
Among these measures would be a prohibition of treatment activities
during the breeding season. Owl nesting and foraging behavior would be
the focus of post-fire monitoring so that fire management and spotted
owl behavior can be better understood and can better help to guide
future spotted owl and fire management.

*Bull trout*

The event most likely to affect upper Sun Creek or Lost Creek, and in
turn the bull trout, is a high-severity forest fire. The Sun Creek
watershed near the caldera is in the mountain hemlock type, but it
grades quickly into the red fir type, characteristic of a
moderate-severity fire regime. Past fire activity appears to be moderate
severity for the most part. The Lost Creek watershed is comprised mostly
of lodgepole pine with a minor presence of the mountain hemlock type.
Past fire activity has been high severity in nature.

Management of bull trout in Sun Creek and Lost Creek over the long run
would depend on avoiding catastrophic disturbance. Catastrophic
disturbance is more likely to occur the longer a fire exclusion policy
is implemented in these watersheds. Currently, wildland fire use is
projected to create patchy effects and would prevent large-scale stand
replacement fire in the Sun Creek and Lost Creek watersheds.

Fire suppression actions would totally avoid the use of fire
retardant/foam in the Lost Creek and upper Sun Creek watersheds. The
chemical toxicity of retardant and foam would be a major risk to a fish
population constrained to one or two waterways. Fireline construction by
hand outside of the riparian corridor would not have any effect on the
population. Fire camps within riparian corridors would not be
constructed.

In the lower Sun Creek watershed, past fire suppression has led to
abnormally large increases in woody fuels that would also limit the
application of prescribed fire unless predicated by manual fuel
treatments.

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Sun Creek treatment unit, but
the amount of terrain affected by high-severity burning from such fires
would be constrained. Usually in the red fir zone, high-severity burns
affect less than 1/3 of the burned area. If no more than 1/2 of the
upper watershed is burned in any 20 year period (this includes low,
moderate, and high severity patches), this would keep \"opened\" areas
of high severity fire to 20 % or less of the potentially forested area
of the upper watershed during any time period. Suppression strategies
would be employed when the projected size for any single wildland fire
use reached the cumulative limit of 1/2 of the total acreage of the
upper watershed in any 20-year period. Otherwise wildland fire use would
be allowed to burn in this area over time until they are projected to
meet these limits. In this way, fire would approximate a natural role
while not placing the bull trout population at risk.

Moderate severity fire would maintain a source of snags and coarse woody
debris for the stream channel. It may reduce shading effects on the
stream channel from current levels, but upper Sun Creek is an incised
channel, oriented in a north-south direction, in parent material created
from volcanic avalanche deposits. Upland burning with less than 20% high
severity fire would minimally change shading effects on stream
temperature.

3.5.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General impacts to wildlife would be similar to those described in the
No Action Alternative. The exclusion of wildland fire use would delay
the restoration of natural fire regimes to some areas of the park and
reduce the habitat benefits derived from applications of fire in forest
communities. In addition, those areas deprived of wildland fire use
would continue to accumulate ground and ladder fuels, thus increasing
the potential for stand replacement fires. Stand replacement fires,
depending on their locations, could directly impact bald eagles and
spotted owls and their preferred habitats, and indirectly impact bull
trout.

Mechanical fuel treatments could result in the mortality of small
wildlife and the destruction of ground habitats. To reduce potential
impacts to the spotted owl, mechanical fuel treatments would be
prohibited within 100 acres of a nesting site and any activity center of
the owls. Similarly, its use would be prohibited within 200 feet of any
surface water resource, including Sun and Lost Creeks. This restriction
would minimize and/or eliminate potential impacts to bull trout.
Mechanical fuel treatments in the Grayback-Pinnacles unit would also
benefit the Lost Creek watershed and help protect bull trout in Lost
Creek through fuels reduction. The mechanical treatments would reduce
the potential of a large catastrophic fire from spreading upstream from
the Lost Creek campground.

A concerted effort by the park and its surrounding neighbors to manage
fire across ecosystem boundaries would improve habitat conditions for
those wildlife species that rely on fire-maintained ecosystems by
treating and restoring the entirety of forest stands, not simply parts
contained in one jurisdiction.

3.5.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General impacts to wildlife would be similar to those described in the
No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. The inclusion of wildland fire
use would facilitate the restoration of natural fire regimes to forest
stands in the Park and result in the habitat benefits associated with
that change.

*Conclusion*

Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not impair wildlife
resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment
of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.6 Noise]{.smallcaps}**

The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear
have intensities that are 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) times larger
than those of sounds that can just be detected. Because of this vast
range, any attempt to represent the intensity of sound using a linear
scale becomes very unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic unit known as
the decibel (dB) is used to represent the intensity of a sound. Such a
representation is called a sound level.

Although the dB scale accurately reflects the sound pressure level of a
given sound, it does not accurately reflect the sound exposure levels
heard by a human observer. The human ear is progressively reduced in
sensitivity to sounds in the lower and upper ranges of our audible
frequency spectrum. To more accurately assess the loudness of sounds as
heard by the human ear, sound levels are measured on the A-weighted
decibel (dBA) scale. This sound level scale is progressively reduced in
sensitivity to very low and very high-pitched sounds. This method of
sound measurement mimics our own sense of hearing, and therefore more
accurately assesses the effects of different sound levels on a human
observer.

Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels
above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort
and eventually pain at still higher levels (DOD, 1978). Sound level
examples can be found in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Common Noise Levels and Their Effects on the Human Ear

  ------------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------
  **Source**          **Decibel Level  **Exposure Concern**
                      (dBA)**          

  Soft Whisper        30               Normal safe levels.

  Quiet Office        40               

  Average Home        50               

  Conversational      60               
  Speech                               

  Busy Traffic        75               May affect hearing in some
                                       individuals depending on
                                       sensitivity, exposure length, etc.

  Noisy Restaurant    80               

  Average Factory     80-90            

  Pneumatic Drill     100              Continued exposure to noise over 90
                                       dBA may eventually cause hearing
                                       impairment

  Automobile Horn     120              
  ------------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------

(DOD, 1978)

To accurately assess the impacts of noise exposure on an entire
community, dBA sound levels are commonly expressed with a measure that
describes the cumulative effects of noise levels over time. The most
commonly employed cumulative noise measure for environmental analysis is
the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This measure (expressed in dBA)
describes the cumulative noise exposure expected from all major noise
sources over a 24-hour period. Using the Ldn system, 10 dB is added to
the assessment of sound produced by activities occurring between 10 PM
and 7 AM. This addition places greater weight on the noise produced by
nighttime activities due to the higher sensitivity of communities to
noise during these hours.

Certain facilities, communities, and land uses are more sensitive to a
given level of noise than others. Such "sensitive receptors" include
schools, churches, hospitals, retirement homes, campgrounds, wilderness
areas, hiking trails, and species of threatened or endangered wildlife.
Impacts from noise production are generally assessed with respect to
changes in noise levels experienced at sensitive receptors. Different
types of sensitive receptors vary in their acceptance of noise
disturbance. As a result, noise impacts for different receptors are
often assessed using different noise level standards. Recommended land
use and associated noise levels are illustrated in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Recommended Land Use Noise Levels

  ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Land Use Category**    **Noise Levels                                 
                           (Ldn)**                                        

                           **Clearly      **Normally     **Normally       **Clearly
                           Acceptable**   Acceptable**   Unacceptable**   Unacceptable**

  Residential              \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Commercial, Retail       \< 65          65-75          75-80            \> 85

  Commercial, Wholesale    \< 70          70-80          80-85            \> 85

  Manufacturing            \< 55          55-70          70-80            \> 80

  Agricultural, Animal     \< 60          60-75          75-80            \> 80
  Breeding                                                                

  Natural Recreation Areas \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Hospitals                \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Schools                  \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Libraries                \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Churches                 \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Nursing Homes            \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Playgrounds              \< 55          55-65          65-75            \> 75
  ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------

(HUD, 1991)

3.6.1 *Affected Environment*

There are several potential noise sources associated with fire
management activities under the No Action Alternative. These include
vehicular traffic, engines, chainsaws, and aircraft. Under the Proposed
Action and Alternative 2, mechanical equipment would also be employed
for fuels reduction efforts. The dB sound levels from the equipment at a
distance of 50' includes the following: Chainsaw (78 dB),
Harvester/Forwarder (86 dB) Engine/Truck (91 dB), and Wood Chipper (89
dB). In addition, there are several sensitive receptors near or within
the treatment areas of the proposed project. These include campgrounds,
wilderness areas, and federally listed animal species and their habitat.

3.6.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Noise levels were quantitatively determined using the Highway
Construction Noise Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation methodology
(Federal Highway Administration). Noise impacts were then assessed with
respect to the location of sensitive receptors. Noise impacts on a
person's wilderness experience were assessed in relation to the
presence/absence of people recreating in the proposed wilderness areas.

3.6.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Noise has the potential to impact both humans and wildlife. For humans,
noise can affect recreational experiences and the enjoyment of
wilderness values. For wildlife, noise may disrupt activities such as
hunting, breeding, and nesting. This is of particular concern for
Threatened and Endangered Species.

Noise disturbance is one of the primary impacts of both fixed wing
aircraft and helicopters. With the use of helicopters, the potential for
noise impacts increases, as flight frequency normally increases
dramatically and missions expand to include landings.

To reduce the impact of noise from overflights, the Fire Management
Officer would review any fire suppression activities or wildland fire
use within three miles of known Threatened and Endangered Species
locations. No direct overflights of known spotted owl nest sites would
be allowed below 1,500 feet above ground level from March 15-August 30
each year. No direct overflights of known peregrine falcon nests sites
would be allowed below 1,500 feet above ground level from January 1-July
31 each year. Aerial overflights associated with fire management
operations should be restricted to 1,500 feet above ground level
whenever possible.

3.6.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General noise impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those
described under the No Action Alternative.

Noise calculations for the project sites and sensitive receptor
locations were performed using the Federal Highway Administration's
Construction Noise Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation methodology.
Noise level calculations were performed assuming that obstructions that
may impede the propagation of sound (buildings, vegetation, etc.) were
not present, and that the land between the source of the sound and the
receiver was flat. Thus the noise level calculations should be
considered a "worst-case" measure. Based on the noise modeling
calculations, ambient noise levels of 65 dBA would be reached at a
distance of approximately 1,500 feet from the source of manual and
mechanical thinning activities. Sound levels would be reduced even
further if noise-generating activities occurred within dense vegetation,
especially conifer forests. Dense vegetation that is at least 100' in
depth would reduce the sound levels by 3 to 7 dBA (NYDEC, 2000). Thus,
ambient noise levels of 65 dBA could be reached within 750' of project
operations with the previous assumptions.

The park would consider whether the use of chainsaws in wilderness areas
would be the "minimum tool" necessary to conduct its hazardous fuels
reduction activities. If the use of chainsaws was authorized after
completing a minimum requirement assessment (see Section 4.12 --
*Wilderness*), thinning treatments would have the potential to impact
trail use in or adjacent to the PIAL Research, Crater Creek, and Red
Blanket Treatment Units. Manual and mechanical thinning would also have
the potential to impact campgrounds in Mazama Village and at Lost Creek.
Lastly, thinning treatments would have the potential to impact spotted
owls in the Crater Peak, Crater Creek, Red Blanket, and West 62
Treatment Units.

To minimize noise impacts to the campgrounds and trail users in the
proposed wilderness, the park would prohibit thinning operations during
holidays and, in some instances, would temporarily close access to the
affected trails (Mount Scott Trail, Bald Crater Loop Trail, Boundary
Spring Trail, and Stuart Falls Trail) and redirect recreationists to
other trails for their wilderness experience. To eliminate potential
noise impacts to nesting owls, thinning treatments would be prohibited
in the areas of those treatment units within 0.7 miles of a nest during
the owl's breeding season.

3.6.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General noise impacts under the Proposed Action would be similar to
those described under Alternative 2.

*Conclusion*

Following the completion of a "minimum requirements" process that
authorized the use of chainsaws in proposed wilderness areas,
implementation of any of the Alternatives would not impair sensitive
receptors or park resources and values that are (1) necessary to fulfill
specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park,
(2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in
the park's general management plan or other National Park Service
planning documents.

**[3.7 Air Quality]{.smallcaps}**

3.7.1 *Affected Environment*

Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, Crater Lake National Park and
other wilderness, national parks and wildlife refuges were designated
Class 1 areas. This designation provides for the highest degree of
regulatory protection from air pollution impacts. The primary means by
which the protection and enhancement of air quality is accomplished is
through implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). These standards address six pollutants known to harm human
health including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides (USDA, 2000a).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) further strengthened air
quality protection of Class 1 areas in 1999 through the Regional Haze
Rule. The rule specifies that States must review how pollution emissions
within the State affect visibility at Class 1 areas across a broad
region, not just those within the State. The Rule also requires States
to make reasonable progress in reducing any effect this pollution has on
visibility conditions in Class 1 areas and to prevent future impairment.
States are required to analyze a pathway that takes the Class 1 areas
from current conditions to "natural conditions" in 60 years. "Natural
conditions" is a term used by the Clean Air Act, which means that no
human-caused pollution can impair visibility (DOI, 2001b).

Since federal land managers (National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management) were required by
the Clean Air Act to protect visibility at designated Class 1 areas,
these agencies established the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) particulate monitoring network. Among
other measurements, IMPROVE gathers data on particulate matter of 2.5
micrometers and 10 micrometers (PM~2.5~ and PM~10~) (DOI, 2001c). In
addressing air pollutant emissions from fires managed for resource
benefits (prescribed fire and wildland fire use), the EPA considers
PM~2.5~ and PM~10~ as the primary indicators of public health impacts
(EPA, 1998). In general, IMPROVE uses scenery, optical, and aerosol
monitoring (DOI, 2001d). Crater Lake National Park is a participant in
the IMPROVE network and employs a nephalometer and fine particulate
monitoring in its visibility program (DOI, 2001e).

3.7.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Air quality impacts were qualitatively assessed upon review of National
Park Service best management practices to reduce air emissions, State of
Oregon prescribed fire permit specifications and requirements, and the
extent of proposed prescribed fire activities under all the
alternatives.

3.7.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Smoke consists of dispersed airborne solids and liquid particles, called
particulates, which could remain suspended in the atmosphere for a few
days to several months. Particulates can reduce visibility and
contribute to respiratory problems. Very small particulates can travel
great distances and add to regional haze problems. Regional haze can
sometimes result from multiple burn days and/or multiple owners burning
within an airshed over too short a period of time to allow for
dispersion.

The Oregon Department of Forestry prepares prescribed fire burning
instructions each day regarding weather conditions and recommended
conditions for burning (e.g. maximum number of acres to be burned at a
particular site, minimum spacing between fire sites, maximum tonnage of
fuels to be burned, etc). The instructions are developed to help
effectively manage smoke and resulting air quality impacts, as well as
to provide information on fire conditions and danger. Recognition of the
cumulative effects from multiple prescribed fires on any particular
day(s) is embedded in the instructions. The advisories also discuss
weather conditions and the potential for adequate smoke dispersion
(Ziolko, 2002). The National Park Service is responsible for preparing
its own smoke management plan to ensure adequate smoke dispersion and to
ensure no impacts to sensitive receptors (campgrounds, threatened and
endangered species). Crater Lake National Park will comply with the
Oregon Smoke Management Plan requirements during all its prescribed fire
and wildland fire use events.

For prescribed fires, there are three principle strategies to manage
smoke and reduce air quality effects. They include:

1\. [Avoidance]{.underline} - This strategy relies on monitoring
meteorological conditions when scheduling prescribed fires to prevent
smoke from drifting into sensitive receptors, or suspending burning
until favorable weather (wind) conditions;

2\. [Dilution]{.underline} -- This strategy ensures proper smoke
dispersion in smoke-sensitive areas by controlling the rate of smoke
emissions or scheduling prescribed fires when weather systems are
unstable, not under conditions when a stable high-pressure area is
forming with an associated subsidence inversion. An inversion would trap
smoke near the ground; and

3\. [Emission Reduction]{.underline} -- This strategy utilizes
techniques to minimize the smoke output per unit area treated. Smoke
emission is affected by the number of acres burned at one time, pre-burn
fuel loadings, fuel consumption, and the emission factor. Reducing the
number of acres that are burned at one time would reduce the amount of
emissions generated by that burn. Reducing the fuel beforehand, e.g.
removing firewood, reduces the amount of fuel available. Prescribed
burning when fuel moistures are high can reduce fuel consumption.
Emission factors can be reduced by pile burning or by using certain
firing techniques such as mass ignition.

Wildland fire use generally occurs over longer periods of time than
prescribed fires and is characterized by periods of lesser or greater
smoke emissions depending on fuel consumption and rate of spread.
Wildland fire use would generally cause minor degradation in air quality
or visibility except for short periods. If the impact of smoke does
become significant, several actions may be taken: additional wildland
fires may be classified as wildfires and suppressed; the current fire(s)
may be suppressed; or the current fire(s) may be allowed to continue
with smoke warnings posted for visitors and daily re-evaluations made.

Fires designated as wildfires and on which suppression strategies are
employed, are exempt from air quality regulations. In addition to
complying with the burning instructions prepared by the Oregon
Department of Forestry, park staff would also follow the decision tree
of the Fire Management Plan to guide decisions about effects of current
fires and whether new ignitions should be classified as management fires
or wildfires. Under this alternative, the park would employ prescribed
fire on 2,181 acres. There would not be any significant air quality
impacts with the use of mitigation measures and adherence to state
burning instructions, and in light of the limited number of acres to be
burned each year. If weather conditions changed unexpectedly during a
prescribed fire or wildland fire use, and there was a potential for
violating air quality standards or for adverse smoke impacts on
sensitive receptors, the park would implement a contingency plan,
including the option for immediate suppression.

3.7.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General air quality impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to
those described under the No Action Alternative, however, the exclusion
of wildland fire use would minimize the amount of emissions generated in
the park in the short term. In the long-term, the delay in treating some
areas with fire may result in those same areas having high levels of
smoke in the event of a moderate to high-severity wildfire. The park
would apply prescribed fire to 12,075 acres over a 5-year period, with
no more than 3,200 acres being burned in any given year.

3.7.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) **-** Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General air quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to
those described under the No Action Alternative. Over a 5-year period,
between 12,075 acres and 20,175 acres would be subjected to prescribed
fire and wildland fire use. In any given year, the park would not likely
conduct fire treatments (prescribed fire and wildland fire use) on more
than 5,000 acres.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair air
quality resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to
the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for
enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's
general management plan or other National Park Service planning
documents.

**[3.8 Recreation]{.smallcaps}**

3.8.1 *Affected Environment*

There are numerous recreational activities available at Crater Lake
National Park, including hiking, bicycling, bus tours, camping, boat
tours, stock use (horses, mules, burros, and llamas), fishing, scuba
diving, skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, ranger talks, and guided
walks/tours. Hunting and mushroom picking are prohibited within park
boundaries. In total, Crater Lake averages approximately 500,000
visitors per year (DOI, 2001h).

The park has over 96 ½ miles of maintained hiking trails, most of which
are day hikes. The hikes vary in length and level of difficulty.
Bicycling and bus tours are permitted on the 33-mile Rim Drive as well
as other park roads; bicycling is prohibited on park trails. Crater Lake
National Park maintains two campgrounds, Mazama Campground and Lost
Creek Campground. Mazama is open from June through early October, Lost
Creek is open from July through early October, both pending weather. In
total, there are 216 campsites between the two campgrounds for both tent
and RV camping. Boat tours take place on Crater Lake from late June or
early July through mid-September. The tours run 7 days a week, between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 6:15 p.m. Stock use by horses, mules, burros,
and llamas is permitted in a few backcountry areas of Crater Lake,
including the Pacific Crest Trail, Bald Crater Loop Trail, West Boundary
Trail, Stuart Falls Spur Trail, Lightning Springs Trail, and Bybee Creek
Stock Camp (DOI, 2001h).

Fishing is allowed in all streams and the lake, except Sun Creek and
Lost Creek. Provided there is safe access for fishing points, the lake
is open to fishing year-round. Streams are open to fishing from late May
through late October and may begin ½ hour before sunrise and continue
until ½ hour after sunset. Crater Lake is open to scuba diving from
mid-June through mid-September. The park has nearly 50 miles of ski
trails located in the Rim Village area and the Park Headquarters areas,
ranging from easy to difficult. Backcountry areas and Rim Drive are also
open to skiing, as well as to snowshoeing. Snowmobile use is allowed at
the park only on the North Entrance Road from the park boundary to North
Junction, where the entrance road meets Rim Drive (DOI, 2001h).

Ranger talks and guided walks/talks are scheduled from early July
through early September. While some of the activities take place only a
few days a week, others run up to 7 days a week. Talks and walks start
as early as 10 a.m. and run as late as 10 p.m. They take place in
various places across the park: Sinnott Memorial Overlook, Rim Village
Visitor Center, Mazama Campground (amphitheater), Discovery Point,
Garfield Peak, Annie Creek Canyon, Godfrey Glen area, and the Sun Notch
area (DOI, 2001h).

3.8.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Recreation impacts were qualitatively assessed in light of the timing,
intensity, and duration of fuel treatment activities as they related to
visitor use and experience.

3.8.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Possible factors impacting recreation include smoke, noise, changes in
scenic vistas, and visitor use restrictions.

Smoke from prescribed fires and wildland fire use near developed areas
may impact recreation in a number of ways. Recreationists may experience
temporary discomfort or decreased visibility if woodland smoke moves
into developed areas or near trails. If portions of the park were closed
to tourists because of smoke-related health and safety reasons,
recreation would be adversely impacted. Any use restrictions imposed by
the park would be temporary, except in the case of nearby stand
replacement and/or catastrophic fires. Restoration of natural fire
regimes to forest stands in the park would lessen the potential for
stand replacement fires in some forest types.

If located near developed areas or within viewsheds of the park,
prescribed fire and wildland fire use would also have short-term impacts
on foreground scenic quality through the killing of small understory
trees. Over time, as the areas green up and larger residual trees become
more visible, scenic quality would improve above pre-fire levels.
Wildland fire use would have effects on background long-distance vistas.
However, after the first year, when dead trees brown and shed their
foliage, they would add visual texture to an already heavily textured
landscape created by the effects of topography, soil, and different
species composition and age classes of trees (DOI, 1996).

Depending on the location of fires in other parts of the park, visitors
might be required to make adjustments to activities, such as altering
hiking routes. Under normal circumstances, prescribed fire and wildland
fire use would not affect visitors' ability to enjoy a full range of
recreational activities.

Hazard fuels reduction activities near developed areas, highly
frequented trails and in wilderness areas, or during times of special
park events or holidays, could impact the recreational experience of
some visitors. To minimize these potential noise and visual impacts, the
park would not initiate hazardous fuels reduction activities, such as
prescribed fire, near developed areas and trails during holidays. In
addition, the park would limit, to the extent practicable, fire
prevention and hazard fuels reduction efforts near developed areas and
trails to periods of low recreation visits, or temporarily prohibit
access to certain areas where treatments were being undertaken. In
addition, educational/informational materials will be developed and
distributed to the wilderness visitor on what to expect during fire
management activities including potential noise from chainsaws during
line construction, smoke dispersion, safety, helicopter and airplane
use, and information on where and when these activities would occur;

3.8.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General impacts to recreation would be similar to those described in the
No Action Alternative, with the following exception. Noise and visual
impacts arising from the use of mechanical equipment alongside Highway
62 and Grayback Drive/Pinnacles Road, may adversely impact the
recreational experience of campers or tourists. Similarly, manual
thinning efforts in the Mazama and the Munson Valley-Rim Village units
may have a minor impact on the recreational experience of campers or
tourists. Since the visual experience of a majority of park visitors
would equate with the views of Crater Lake and the other viewsheds of
the park, manual thinning activities in the villages would not
significantly impact their experience.

The exclusion of wildland fire use could result in a decrease in use
restrictions to park visitors and positively benefit recreation in the
short term; however, delay in restoring natural fire regimes to the park
would increase the likelihood of a future stand replacement or
catastrophic fire near developed areas and or hiking trails.

3.8.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General impacts to recreation would be similar to those described in the
No Action Alternative and in Alternative 2. The inclusion of wildland
fire use would indirectly benefit recreation by reducing the chance of
temporary and long-term use restrictions that could arise from a stand
replacement and/or catastrophic fire near developed areas and recreation
trails. In the short term, however, temporary use restrictions may be
implemented during times of wildland fire use.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair visitor
use and experience (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified
in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the
park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan
or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.9 Visual Resources]{.smallcaps}**

3.9.1 *Affected Environment*

The major scenic attraction at Crater Lake National Park, as the name
implies, is the lake itself. However, the vegetation is clearly an
important backdrop to the lake and forms the major landscape texture
element on the many vistas within the park (DOI, 1997). The park offers
scenic vistas and solitude in natural settings, clean air, and clear
night skies. A majority of the park is managed as wilderness. Scenic
attractions include the lake, panoramic vistas at viewpoints and along
96 ½ miles of hiking trails, wildflower viewing, and geologic land forms
that include volcanic landscapes and glaciated features (DOI, 1999a).

The summits of Mt. Scott, Watchman and Llao Rock offer views south to
Mt. Shasta in California and north to the summits of the Three Sisters
and beyond (DOI, 1999a). State highway 62 is open year-round, and from
it, the Munson Valley Road can be used to access the rim for lake views.
This access is year round, but is subject to temporary closures during
and after winter storms. Rim Drive circles the caldera rim, and has
pullouts along the side for viewing the lake. From Rim Drive, a spur
road leads to the Pinnacles area of volcanic spires. Other roads include
the North Entrance Road, which crosses the Pumice Desert, and the South
Access Road, which follows Annie Creek Canyon.

Crater Lake National Park is designated as a Class 1 airshed and
protecting visibility is a major concern to park management.

3.9.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Visual resource impacts in this environmental assessment were assessed
in terms of scenic integrity, visual wholeness, and unity of the
landscape. A view with high scenic integrity is ecologically intact; it
has few if any discordant elements in sight and contains only positive
human elements. In contrast, a view of low scenic integrity has
discordant and contrasting features such as geometric shapes (e.g.
clearcuts), structures that do not blend with their surroundings, or
roads that create large cut and fill slopes (Galliano and Loeffler,
2000).

3.9.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Implementation of the Fire Management Plan would have minimal effects on
scenic resources. Those factors most likely to impact visual quality are
smoke, mixed to high severity fires, and the presence and activities of
ground crews.

Smoke generation during wildland fire use would generally be longer in
duration when compared to prescribed fires since wildland fire use can
last up to several months. In both cases, fire severity would be
predominantly of low severity and affect the understory through a slow
burn. On occasion, prescribed fire and wildland fire use can also be of
mixed severity where smoke generation may increase as more fuel is
consumed during a shortened period of time.

Prescribed fires and wildland fire use would have short-term negative
impacts on foreground scenic quality by killing small understory trees
and creating dead fuel. Blackened and scorched larger trees may also be
expected. Over time, as the areas green up, and larger residual trees
are more visible, scenic impressions would improve above the pre-fire
levels. Wildland fire use would have effects primarily on background,
long-distance vistas. After the first year, when most of the killed
trees have browned and shed their foliage, these fires, mostly moderate
severity ones, would simply add minor texture to an already heavily
textured landscape created by effects of topography and soil, and
different forest species composition and age classes. If wildland fire
use occurs in the vicinity of the Rim Road, mountain hemlock are likely
to die as a result, and foreground snag patches are likely to occur. For
the first year or two, as the trees shed their leaves and bark, they
would be perceived by many as unattractive, but would soon become
attractive \"ghost trees\" and add to the diversity of the landscape
along the highway.

Other visible effects include work crews and areas near developed
regions, which would be seen by passers-by. Fire suppression activities
through MIST techniques would not be noticeable to park visitors once
operations and rehabilitation are complete. To limit visual impacts of
fire management activity from roads, fire lines would be curved when the
approach road corridors available for visitor travel.

3.9.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

Alternative 2 would have similar impacts as those listed under the No
Action Alternative, with the following exception. Mechanical fuel
treatments utilized would result in heavy equipment use, which could be
seen by visitors. Park officials could limit these activities to
off-peak times of visitation to reduce and/eliminate any visual quality
impacts and implement its educational campaign about fire management
activities. Manual thinning efforts in the Mazama and the Munson
Valley-Rim Village units may have minor visual impacts on campers or
tourists. Since the visual experience of a majority of park visitors
would equate with the views of Crater Lake and the other viewsheds of
the park, manual thinning activities in the villages would not
significantly impact that experience.

3.9.2.3 [Alternative 3 - Ecology-Based Program Including Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

Alternative 3 would have similar visual quality impacts as those listed
under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair visitor
use and experience (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified
in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the
park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan
or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.10 Human Health and Safety]{.smallcaps}**

3.10.1 *Affected Environment*

Crater Lake National Park has a comprehensive fire management program
dedicated to ensuring the safety of the public and Park employees.
Numerous safety measures are followed to maintain the highest safety
standards possible for park visitors, employees, and residents, and also
for the nearby population living outside park boundaries.

There are several safety standards currently followed in the park area.
Park personnel are informed of potential threats on a daily basis
through a fire activity report. If wildland fires or wildland fire use
pose an imminent threat to human health or safety, the park
Superintendent will close all or a portion of the park, including trails
and roads.

Public information and education pertaining to fire management is
presented through normally scheduled activities throughout the year, as
well as through focused activities when fires are in progress. Year
round activities include distribution of handouts, brochures, and
publications pertaining to the prescribed fire program. Information on
this program is also incorporated into visitor contacts, interpretive
talks, and campfire programs. Off-site programs and talks also include
discussions of the role of natural fire in the Crater Lake ecosystem.

Informational and educational activities when fires are in progress are
major factors in ensuring the public is appropriately informed when
fires are burning. During these periods, handouts specific to the
on-going fire may be prepared and distributed to visitors entering the
park, or at primary viewing areas. Areas of fire activity are clearly
marked with signs at trail heads and along roadways. Visitors obtaining
permits for backcountry use are notified of the exact location of fire
activity by personnel. Also, nearby residents adjacent to the park are
notified if any fire poses a possible threat to burn outside park
boundaries. News releases are distributed to the media as directed by
the Superintendent. Public information outlets of neighboring and
cooperating agencies and the Support Office will be provided with all
fire situation information.

Crater Lake National Park also has a spill response program in place to
contain and remove contaminants, such as fire retardants, foams, and
gasoline.

3.10.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Human health & safety impacts were qualitatively assessed through
determination of activities, equipment and conditions that could result
in injury, literature review of type and extent of injury caused by
equipment and conditions, and in light of mitigation measures and best
management practices.

3.10.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to human health and safety
would be minor. Factors most likely to adversely impact public and
fire-fighter health and safety include accidental spills, injuries from
the use of fire-fighting equipment, smoke inhalation, and, in severe
cases, injuries from wildland or prescribed fires.

Of chemicals used by fire management staff, accidental spills of fire
retardants and foams are the most likely to adversely impact human
health & safety. Fire retardants used in controlling or extinguishing
fires contain about 85% water, 10% fertilizer, and 5% minor ingredients
such as corrosion inhibitors and bactericides. Fire suppressant foams
are more than 99% water. The remaining 1% contains surfactants, foaming
agents, corrosion inhibitors, and dispersants. These qualified and
approved wildland fire chemicals have been tested and meet specific
requirements with regard to mammalian toxicity as determined by acute
oral and dermal toxicity testing as well as skin and eye irritation
tests (USDA, 2001). However, they are strong detergents, and can be
extremely drying to skin. All currently approved foam concentrates are
irritating to the eyes as well. Application of a topical cream or lotion
can alleviate the effects of a retardant, and protective goggles can
prevent any injury to the eyes when using foams.

Fuel break development and hazard fuels reduction practices pose safety
threats to firefighters. Injuries can occur from the use of equipment as
well as from traveling overland to targeted areas for fire-fighting or
fire prevention efforts. While each of the crew is trained in the use of
fire-fighting equipment, accidental injuries may occur from time to
time. Fire management operations apply risk management procedures to
minimize and mitigate risks to an acceptable level of residual risk,
thus maximizing the safety of wildland firefighters.

Smoke inhalation by firefighting crews can also pose a threat to human
health & safety. Smoke from wildland fires is composed of hundreds of
chemicals in gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. The chief inhalation
hazard appears to be carbon monoxide (CO), aldehydes, respirable
particulate matter with a median diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5),
and total suspended particulate (TSP). Adverse health effects of smoke
exposure begin with acute, instantaneous eye and respiratory irritation
and shortness of breath, but can develop into headaches, dizziness, and
nausea lasting up to several hours. Based on a recent study of
firefighter smoke exposure, most smoke exposures were not considered
hazardous, but a small percentage routinely exceeded recommended
exposure limits for carbon monoxide and respiratory irritants (USDA,
2000d).

Use restrictions applied to areas of prescribed fire, wildland fire use,
or wildland fires would minimize or eliminate human health & safety
concerns resulting from smoke exposure and fire injuries. Restrictions
during times of high fire danger would prevent accidental ignitions from
general public activities, like campfires, and would indirectly benefit
human health & safety.

3.10.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

The general impacts to human health & safety for Alternative 2 would be
similar to those described in the No Action Alternative. In addition,
the exclusion of wildland fire use could indirectly impact human health
& safety since unnatural fuels accumulation in some areas would be
delayed, thus potentially increasing the risk of a catastrophic or stand
replacement fires in or near developed areas. Fire management across
ecosystem boundaries would indirectly benefit human health & safety by
reducing the potential for stand replacement fires crossing
administrative boundaries.

The use of mechanical equipment would likely improve human health and
safety since only 2 operators would be involved in the treatment of an
area versus a typical ground crew ranging from 10-20 persons. Moreover,
the operators are seated within a protective cage that deflect any chips
or splinters that result from the stripping of the trees.

3.10.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

The general impacts to human health & safety under the Proposed Action
would be similar to those described in the No Action Alternative and
Alternative 2. The inclusion of wildland fire use would indirectly
benefit human health & safety by expediting the restoration of natural
fire regimes to the forest stands in Crater Lake National Park, thus
reducing the potential for stand replacement fires that could impact
developed areas.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair human
health and safety resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill
specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park,
(2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in
the park's general management plan or other National Park Service
planning documents.

**[3.11 Socioeconomics]{.smallcaps}**

3.11.1 *Affected Environment*

Crater Lake National Park is located in Klamath County, which has a
population of 63,775 (USCB, 2001a). Approximately 44,000 people reside
within the city limits and in the surrounding urban growth boundary of
Klamath Falls (Klamath, 2001a). Agriculture, timber, and related
businesses are major elements of the county's economy, as is
transportation. Tourism is probably the fourth most important industry
(SCORP, 1999). In addition to the Park, several National Wildlife
Refuges, a Volcanic Scenic By-Way, and the Klamath Tribes Casino bring
visitors to the county each year. Timber employment is not expected to
increase in the near future, and the county looks to increasing economic
diversification to aid economic growth. Tourism and recreation are an
important part of this mix.

The Park had 426,883 recreational visitors in the year 2000 (DOI,
2001i). Each visitor is required to pay an entrance fee. Single,
private, non-commercial vehicles are charged \$10; pedestrians, single
motorcyclists, and bicyclists are charged \$5; and commercial buses are
charged anywhere from \$25 to \$200, depending on capacity. In 1996,
Crater Lake National Park became one of the first participants in a
pilot project established by the United States Congress called the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. Today, park managers are using the
additional fees collected through this program to fund efforts important
to the protection of Crater Lake National Park (DOI, 2001j).

Approximately 90% of annual park visitation comes during the period
June-September. Approximately 28 % of visitors to the Park are from
Oregon, 33% are from California, and 8 % from Washington. Of the Oregon
visitors, approximate 23 % reside in Jackson County, 11% in Douglas
County, and 6% in Klamath County (USDA, 1998b).

Using the MGM2 model developed by researchers at Michigan State
University, it is possible to derive a rough estimate of the economic
benefits to the local community due to park use (Michigan, 2001). The
model uses as inputs the number of annual recreation visits, broken down
into local, non-local day use, and overnight visits, including stays at
motels and campgrounds, to generate estimates of economic effects on the
local community due to the park. The following inputs were used to
calculate the economic benefits of the park:

-   56,348 local visits, from the three surrounding counties of Jackson,
    Douglas, and Klamath Counties (40% of the total visitors from
    Oregon, based on Pelican Butte Draft EIS data)

-   33,900 visitors who stayed overnight in motels

-   39,112 visitors who stayed overnight in campgrounds, RVs, or
    backcountry camping

-   299,000 non-local day-users (DOI, 2001k)

The model uses a nationwide average of party size and length of stay in
motels and campgrounds for National Park visitors, as well as average
spending per party at a rural National Park, to convert the visitation
information to estimates of economic benefits. Using the above inputs it
is estimated that Crater Lake National Park brings in approximately
\$2,897,000 in local wages for persons involved in the tourism industry.

Executive Order 12898, *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations*, directs federal
agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high adverse
human health or environmental effects of its projects on minority or
low-income populations.

Minority populations constitute approximately 13% of the total
population in this county. Using the Census Bureau's categories, the
largest racial group is American Indian and Alaska native (4%), followed
by those who said they were of two or more races (3%), and those who
said they were some other race (3%). Asian, Black or African American,
and Native Hawaiian groups each made up less than 1% of the county's
population. In addition, 8% of the population identified themselves as
Hispanic or Latino; persons in this category can be of any race.

The median household income for Klamath County was \$23,054 in 1989
(USCB, 2001b). At that time, 9,494 of 56,707 individuals, or
approximately 17%, were reported to be living in poverty in the county.
The county reported an unemployment rate of 8.1% (Klamath, 2001b)
significantly higher than the national average of 4.4% reported by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of 2001.

3.11.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Socio-economic impacts were quantitatively assessed using U.S. Census
Bureau data on personal income, population data, and poverty measures.

3.11.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

The most probable socioeconomic impact would be the loss of revenues to
the park and concessionaires as a result of use restrictions, road
closures, or partial to complete park closures in response to fire and
excessive smoke. Use restrictions and road closures would likely to be
temporary and infrequent, and of a nature that would not significantly
reduce park revenues generated from entrance fees or compromise
concessionaire businesses. A catastrophic fire that destroyed developed
areas within the park or that resulted in the prolonged closure of part
or all of the park would have significant socioeconomic impacts (e.g.
damage and loss of property; temporary and prolonged loss of jobs; and
loss of revenues to the park and surrounding businesses from a decrease
in tourism); however, the likelihood of such a fire is small and the
implementation of the Fire Management Plan would further reduce the
possibility of an event.

Percentages of minority or socio-economically disadvantaged persons in
Klamath County are below the national averages for these categories, and
the probability of a disproportionate impact to these populations
resulting from the implementation of the Fire Management Plan would be
minor. The Klamath Tribes are headquartered in Chiloquin, approximately
20 miles south of the park's boundary, and many of its members reside in
Chiloquin and in areas south to Klamath Falls. In light of the distance
separating the tribe and the park, it is unlikely that a catastrophic
fire originating in the park would directly impact the community.

3.11.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General socioeconomic impacts for Alternative 2 would be similar to
those described in the No Action Alternative. Increasing the number of
acres to be actively managed through prescribed fire, in conjunction
with the exclusion of wildland fire as a fire management tool, would
require additional ground crew members to meet fire management goals.
The use of mechanical equipment would also create several additional
jobs. These additional jobs are not expected to significantly affect
local and regional economies.

3.11.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General socioeconomic impacts for the Proposed Action would be similar
to those described in the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2.

***Conclusion***

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair
socioeconomic resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill
specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park,
(2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in
the park's general management plan or other National Park Service
planning documents.

**[3.12 Cultural Resources]{.smallcaps}**

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their proposals on historic
properties, and to provide state historic preservation officers, tribal
historic preservation officers, and, as necessary, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to review and comment
on these actions.

3.12.1 *Affected Environment*

Cultural resources include archeological, cultural, and historic
resources in the park. More than 40 archeological sites have been
investigated in the park, including one \"archaeologically sensitive
area\" likely to contain significant material. However, some
archaeologists believe that there may be undiscovered artifacts in other
areas of the park, which have not been surveyed.

There are 23 National Register historic structures, including the
Watchman Lookout, buildings in Rim Village, and buildings in Munson
Valley in the Headquarters area. Included in this list is House 19,
which is a National Historic Landmark. There are two historic districts,
Munson Valley (containing 18 of the National Register historic
strucures) and Rim Village. Rim Drive will be a historic district when
nominated and listed on the NHRP. The Fort Klamath -- Jacksonville Wagon
Road is a historic road leading from Highway 62 to the rim area along a
path west of the current visitor highway from Highway 62 to the rim.
Overall, less than 2% of Crater Lake National Park has been surveyed in
accordance with professional standards in archeology (DOI, 1999a).

There are 13 individual landscapes on the Cultural Landscape Inventory
(CLI). A new property type, that of a logging railroad grade, was
discovered as part of a pre-burn archeological survey in 2001. There is
another grade, as yet unsurveyed, in the same vicinity (Mark, 2002).

More than 80 ethnobotanically significant plant species have been
identified for the park by the Klamath Tribes. Forty-two of these
species belong to the *Carex* genera, commonly known as sedge. Sedges
are associated with both riparian and dry meadow habitats of the park.
Other common species of importance include conifer trees, willows,
huckleberries, and other shrubs, forbs, and hardwood trees that provide
berries, nuts, herbal medicines and material for making baskets and
containers.

The park is working with the Klamath Tribes to develop a
government-to-government agreement regarding proposed revisions to its
Fire Management Plan. The agreement would incorporate the necessary and
required consultation protocols.

3.12.2 *Environmental Consequences*

Cultural resource impacts were qualitatively assessed through a
presence/absence determination of significant cultural resources and
mitigation measures to be employed during wildfire suppression,
thinning, and prescribed fire activities.

3.12.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

The Fire Management Plan is designed to protect cultural resources, and
would generally be successful in doing so by preventing damage to them
from stand replacement and/or catastrophic fires. Fire suppression
activities, however, can have damaging effects, especially to
undiscovered archaeological resources. Ground disturbance by fire crews
can displace artifacts from proper placement in the soil, and artifacts
can be destroyed by use of hand tools or heavy equipment. In addition,
fire retardants can stain or corrode historic structures. If wooden
structure protection is necessary, foams could be used. To eliminate
potential adverse impacts from the use of fire retardants, their use
would be prohibited in the vicinity of any historic structure, unless
there is imminent threat from wildfire to the historic structure. Any
fire suppression activity in the vicinity of a known historic or
archeological site would receive guidance from the Park Historian or a
designated representative from the park or the regional office.
Similarly, prior to any prescribed fire, the Park Historian or a
designated representative would conduct an inspection and develop a plan
to protect any existing or newly identified resources in the targeted
area. Following prescribed fires and wildland fire use, a similar
investigation would be conducted to determine the presence of exposed
and, as yet, unknown archaeological sites, as well as the impact of the
fire on the resources. Once discovered, appropriate steps would be
undertaken to ensure the protection and possible listing of new
resources.

The type of archeological remnants likely to be found locally are stone
artifacts. Light burning of sites will probably have little effect on
lithic artifacts, while heavy burning of sites (such as log corridors)
would likely have 40-50% of the lithic artifacts affected, mostly by
soot but also by spalling (DOI, 1997).

Fire management activities would likely result in the loss of some
ethnobotanicals (individuals). With a majority of the sedge species
occurring in both dry and wet meadows, as well as in forest habitats,
the loss of individual plants or trees would not threaten the viability
of the entire population in the park. In addition, many of the other
ethnobotanicals are found in riparian areas and will be unaffected by
fire management activities in accordance with mitigation measures
outlined in Section 2-4 *Mitigation Measures and Monitoring*.

3.12.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

General impacts to cultural resources in Alternative 2 would be similar
to those described in the No Action Alternative, with the following
exceptions. Mechanical fuel treatments could adversely impact known and
undiscovered cultural resources, especially archaeological sites, by
displacing or destroying them; however, protection measures developed by
the Park Historian or a designated representative would eliminate
impacts to known resources. Artifacts could also be discovered, and
subsequently protected, in these treated areas following the use of
prescribed fire to eliminate ground fuels generated from the mechanical
fuels treatment.

Exclusion of wildland fire use could result in fewer discoveries of
cultural resources since the areas most likely to be subjected to
wildland fire use have not been, and would not likely be, surveyed.

3.12.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

General cultural resource impacts under the Proposed Action would be the
same as those described in the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair cultural
resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment
of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.13 Wilderness]{.smallcaps}**

3.13.1 *Affected Environment*

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness
Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated
by Congress as \"wilderness areas\". By law, these wilderness areas
"shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people
in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and
enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of
these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and
enjoyment as wilderness" (16 USC 1131).

The Wilderness Act defined and described a wilderness area as area:

-   where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,
    where man himself is a visitor who does not remain

-   of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and
    influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation

-   which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
    forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
    unnoticeable

-   which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
    conditions

-   which has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
    unconfined type of recreation

-   which has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient
    size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
    condition

-   which may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
    scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

These attributes serve both as standards for studying areas and
evaluating their suitability for inclusion in the national wilderness
preservation system and as objectives to guide National Park Service
actions pertaining to the preservation and use of wilderness areas (NPS,
2001; DOI, 1999b).

Under the Wilderness Act, "there shall be no commercial enterprise and
no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this chapter
and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter (including
measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of
persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of
motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or
installation within any such area" (16 USC 1133).

The National Park Service wilderness management policies are based on
statutory provisions of the 1916 NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1), the 1964
Wilderness Act, and legislation establishing individual units of the
national park system (NPS, 2001; DOI, 1999b). In 1902, Congress passed
legislation for Crater Lake and its surrounding 180,000 acres to be
"dedicated and set apart forever as a public park or pleasure ground for
the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States." The act
(16 USC 121) also required that action be taken for the "preservation of
the natural objects...the protection of the timber...the preservation of
all kinds of game and fish," and for use by "scientists, excursionists,
and pleasure seekers".

In January 1994, the Park proposed 179,737 acres to be designated as
wilderness by Congress, excluding road and utility corridors and
developed areas. The U.S. Congress has not yet formally designated these
acres as wilderness, however, the park continues to manage the proposed
lands as wilderness. This decision is consistent with park policy for
management of wilderness, which states "for the purposes of applying NPS
wilderness policies, the term 'wilderness' includes the categories of
suitable, study, proposed, recommended, and designated wilderness. NPS
wilderness policies apply regardless of category" (DOI, 1999b).

Under the NPS Management Policies, each National Park Service unit
containing wilderness must develop and maintain a wilderness management
plan (or plan for the management of suitable, proposed/recommended
wilderness area) to guide the preservation, management, and use of the
area. The wilderness management plan will:

-   clearly identify the boundaries of wilderness units of the park;

-   identify individuals and/or organizations within the park
    administration responsible for wilderness preservation;

-   establish an administrative process to determine "minimum
    requirement" for actions in wilderness; and

-   establish specific management actions to be applied to guide public
    use and preservation of wilderness resources, including the
    establishment of desired future conditions.

All management decisions affecting wilderness must be consistent with
the "minimum requirement" concept as outlined in the Wilderness Act. The
minimum requirement concept is intended to minimize adverse impacts on
wilderness character and resources and must guide all management actions
in wilderness. This requirement includes decisions concerning
administrative practices, historic properties, proposed special uses,
research, and equipment use in wilderness (DOI, 1999b).

Planned administrative actions that may result in an exception to a
prohibited use (e.g. chainsaws, aircraft use, and mechanical equipment)
or have the potential to impact wilderness resources and values must be
consistent with an approved wilderness management plan and be documented
in accordance with the park's minimum requirements process.

3.13.2 *Environmental Consequences*

3.13.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

The restoration of natural fire regimes to forest stands within the
park, particularly those within areas proposed as wilderness, is
consistent with the restoration and preservation of wilderness values as
described in the Wilderness Act. The application of wildland fire use
would positively impact wilderness character and resources. Wildland
fire operations within the proposed Wilderness Area will adhere to the
requirements of the Wilderness Act, NPS Management Policies, and the NPS
Director's Orders #18 and #41 Wilderness Preservation and Management.
All fire management activities within the proposed Wilderness Area will
employ minimum actions and tools necessary based upon the Minimum
Requirement and Minimum Tool Determination. All fire management
activities within the proposed Wilderness Area will follow established
MIST implementation guidelines. All fire management activities within
the proposed Wilderness Area will follow established Rehabilitation
Guidelines for Wilderness Fire Suppression Activities. A Resource
Advisor should be available for advice and support with the crew(s) as
well as for quality control. When Wilderness campsites or travel routes
are closed during fire management activities, visitors will be rerouted
to alternative travel routes or campsites.

In light of the above mitigation measures, there would be only minor
impacts to wilderness.

3.13.2.2 [Alternative 2 - Ecology-Based Program Excluding Wildland Fire
Use]{.underline}

The general impacts to wilderness values under Alternative 2 would be
the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. Mechanical
thinning will be restricted to areas not proposed for or managed as
wilderness. Noise generated from manual and mechanical thinning
activities may be heard on several trails in the proposed wilderness. To
mitigate the effects, the park would prohibit thinning in Crater Peak,
Crater Creek, Red Blanket and PIAL Research during holidays. In
addition, the trails that are within or adjacent to these Treatment
Units may be closed to visitors during thinning.

Mechanical thinning may result in temporary and minor visual impacts to
the wilderness visitor for those trails that allow for a view of the
Highway 62 and Grayback/Pinnacles treatment units. To help mitigate this
impact, educational/informational materials will be developed and
distributed to the wilderness visitor on what to expect during fire
management activities including potential noise from chainsaws during
line construction, smoke dispersion, safety, helicopter and airplane
use, and information on where and when these activities would occur.

3.13.2.3 [Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) - Ecology-Based Program
Including Wildland Fire Use]{.underline}

The general impacts to wilderness values under the Proposed Action would
be the same as those described under Alternatives 1 and 2.

*Conclusion*

On condition that equipment used during manual thinning and prescribed
fires was codified under a minimum requirement assessment, the
implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair wilderness
values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and
(3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
National Park Service planning documents.

**[3.14 Cumulative Effects]{.smallcaps}**

The cumulative effects analysis for the Fire Management Plan
environmental assessment considers the past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions on land uses that could add to (intensify) or
offset (compensate for) the effects on the resources and that may be
affected by the Fire Management Plan alternatives. Cumulative effects
vary by resource and the geographic areas considered here are generally
the park and areas adjacent to the park. In some instances, activities
may result in both negative and positive impacts when considering the
short and long-terms. As a result, some resource categories in Table 3-7
show both positive and negative impacts resulting from a particular
activity. The information provided in Table 3-7 is the basis for the
cumulative effects described in Table 3-8. A significant cumulative
effect for any issue topic would be the "significant" impact as
described in Table 2-8 in Section 2.3 -- *Impact Definitions*.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th></th>
<th><strong>Soils</strong></th>
<th><strong>Water Resources</strong></th>
<th><strong>Vegetation</strong></th>
<th><strong>Ecologically Critical Areas</strong></th>
<th><strong>Wildlife</strong></th>
<th><strong>Air Quality</strong></th>
<th><strong>Noise</strong></th>
<th><strong>Visitor Use &amp; Experience</strong></th>
<th><strong>Human Health &amp; Safety</strong></th>
<th><p><strong>Socio-</strong></p>
<p><strong>economics</strong></p></th>
<th><strong>Cultural Resources</strong></th>
<th><strong>Wilderness</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Past prescribed fires and thinning on the park</td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Lightening &amp; human-caused wildfires</td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wildfire suppression past, present, future</td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Timber management on adjacent National Forest lands</td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Visitation to the park</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Hazardous fuels reduction on adjacent National Forest lands</td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
<td><strong>+ -</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Research and monitoring efforts in the park</td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Proposed designation of wilderness in the park</td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
<td><strong>+</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

DIRECT/INDIRECT EFFECTS KEY: (+) Positive/beneficial; (­)
Negative/detrimental; (Blank) Neutral/no effect

+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Reso | **Past and  | **Proposed    | **Future     | **Cumulative  |
| urce** | Present     | Actions**     | Actions**    | Effects**     |
|        | Actions**   |               |              |               |
+========+=============+===============+==============+===============+
| **S    | Adverse     | Prescribed    | Suppression  | Soils inside  |
| oils** | soil        | fire and      | efforts of   | of the park   |
|        | impacts     | thinning      | large        | would improve |
|        | (soil       | activities    | wildfires    | over time     |
|        | erosion or  | would have    | could        | with soil     |
|        | loss) from  | minor adverse | adversely    | development   |
|        | past roads, | effects on    | impact soils | and           |
|        | park        | soils (soil   | (compaction, | nutrification |
|        | buildings   | erosion and   | erosion from | from          |
|        | and         | compaction),  | firebreaks,  | prescribed    |
|        | im          | but           | etc.)        | fires; Fire   |
|        | provements, | beneficial    |              | Management    |
|        | willdland   | effects as    |              | Plan would    |
|        | fires and   | well over the |              | not result in |
|        | suppression | short and     |              | significant   |
|        | efforts;    | long-terms    |              | cumulative    |
|        | Beneficial  | (soil         |              | impacts; the  |
|        | soil        | development   |              | Proposed      |
|        | impacts     | and soil      |              | Action        |
|        | from past   | n             |              | Alternative   |
|        | wildland    | utrification) |              | would         |
|        | fires       |               |              | contribute    |
|        | (nu         |               |              | the most to   |
|        | trification |               |              | soil          |
|        | of soils)   |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **W    | Minor       | Thinning and  | Suppression  | Minor effect  |
| ater** | impacts to  | prescribed    | efforts of   | on water      |
|        | water       | fires would   | large        | resources;    |
| *      | resources   | indirectly    | wildfires    | Fire          |
| *Resou | from past   | impact        | could        | Management    |
| rces** | wildfires   | surface water | adversely    | Plan would    |
|        | and         | resources     | impact water | not result in |
|        | suppression | (sediment     | resources    | significant   |
|        | efforts     | loading and   | (sediment    | cumulative    |
|        |             | turbidity)    | loading)     | impacts; All  |
|        |             |               |              | the           |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | would         |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | similarly to  |
|        |             |               |              | water         |
|        |             |               |              | resource      |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts       |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **     | Natural     | Thinning and  | Thinning and | Habitat and   |
| Vegeta | fuel        | prescribed    | prescribed   | diversity     |
| tion** | loading     | fire would    | fire efforts | would         |
|        | increased   | decrease      | in the       | continue to   |
|        | in absence  | hazardous     | adjacent     | improve;      |
|        | of historic | fuel          | National     | noxious weeds |
|        | lo          | loadings;     | Forests      | would         |
|        | w-severity, | native grass  | would reduce | continue to   |
|        | high        | and forb      | fuel         | decline; fuel |
|        | frequency   | species would | loadings and | loadings      |
|        | fire        | be favored;   | help restore | would pose a  |
|        | regime;     | forest stand  | historic     | reduced fire  |
|        | native      | structure in  | fire regimes | danger; Fire  |
|        | plant       | some areas    | to forest    | Management    |
|        | habitat and | would return  | communities  | Plan would    |
|        | diversity   | to historic   | adjacent to  | not result in |
|        | declined;   | conditions;   | the park;    | significant   |
|        | increased   | fire regimes  | wilderness   | cumulative    |
|        | infestation | would be      | designation  | impacts; the  |
|        | of noxious  | returned to   | limits the   | Proposed      |
|        | weeds       | 12,075 acres  | ability of   | Action        |
|        |             |               | the park to  | Alternative   |
|        |             |               | reduce       | would         |
|        |             |               | hazardous    | contribute    |
|        |             |               | fuel         | the most to   |
|        |             |               | loadings in  | vegetation    |
|        |             |               | wilderness   | cumulative    |
|        |             |               | areas        | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **     | Fire        | Prescribed    | Future       | Habitat and   |
| Ecolog | regimes for | fire and      | monitoring   | diversity     |
| ically | several     | wildland fire | and research | would         |
| Cr     | RNAs were   | use would     | would help   | continue to   |
| itical | altered     | decrease      | maintain and | improve in    |
| A      | with fire   | hazardous     | preserve the | the RNAs,     |
| reas** | suppression | fuel loadings | RNAs         | encroachment  |
|        | efforts;    | in Llao Rock  |              | of woody tree |
|        | e           | and Desert    |              | species in    |
|        | ncroachment | Creek RNAs,   |              | the Desert    |
|        | of conifers | and           |              | Creek meadow  |
|        | into the    | encroachment  |              | would be      |
|        | meadow of   | by conifers   |              | reversed;     |
|        | Desert      | in the meadow |              | Fire          |
|        | Creek in    | at Desert     |              | Management    |
|        | the absence | Creek RNA     |              | Plan would    |
|        | of fire     | would be      |              | not result in |
|        |             | reversed      |              | significant   |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        |             |               |              | Proposed      |
|        |             |               |              | Action        |
|        |             |               |              | Alternative   |
|        |             |               |              | would         |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the most to   |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts on    |
|        |             |               |              | ecologically  |
|        |             |               |              | critical      |
|        |             |               |              | areas, while  |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Wild | Fire        | Thinning and  | Thinning and | Wildlife      |
| life** | suppression | prescribed    | prescribed   | habitat and   |
|        | efforts     | fire would    | fire efforts | diversity     |
|        | within the  | result in     | in adjacent  | increases;    |
|        | park        | minor,        | National     | Fire          |
|        | degraded    | short-term    | Forests      | Management    |
|        | wildlife    | disturbance   | would help   | Plan does not |
|        | habitat and | and           | restore      | result in     |
|        | diversity;  | displacement  | historic     | significant   |
|        | park        | with minimal  | fire regime  | cumulative    |
|        | building    | species loss; | to forest    | impacts; the  |
|        | and         | improved      | communities  | Proposed      |
|        | i           | habitat and   | adjacent to  | Action        |
|        | mprovements | increased     | the park and | Alternative   |
|        | temporarily | wildlife      | benefit      | would         |
|        | affect      | diversity     | habitat and  | contribute    |
|        | wildlife    | with          | species      | the most to   |
|        | species     | restoration   | diversity    | wildlife      |
|        |             | of historic   |              | cumulative    |
|        |             | fire regime   |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Air  | Industry    | Prescribed    | Future       | Class I air   |
| Qua    | and         | fire          | wildland     | quality       |
| lity** | a           | emissions     | fires        | standards     |
|        | gricultural | would result  | programs     | would not be  |
|        | practices   | in minor,     | would        | violated;     |
|        | emit        | short-term    | contribute   | Fire          |
|        | pollutants  | air quality   | to temporary | Management    |
|        | and         | and           | d            | Plan would    |
|        | particulate | visibility    | eterioration | not result in |
|        | matter;     | impacts       | in air       | significant   |
|        | a           |               | quality and  | cumulative    |
|        | utomobiles, |               | visibility   | impacts; the  |
|        | past        |               |              | Proposed      |
|        | wildland    |               |              | Action        |
|        | and         |               |              | Alternative   |
|        | prescribed  |               |              | would         |
|        | fires       |               |              | contribute    |
|        | contribute  |               |              | the most to   |
|        | to some     |               |              | air quality   |
|        | temporary   |               |              | cumulative    |
|        | de          |               |              | impacts,      |
|        | terioration |               |              | while         |
|        | in air      |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        | quality and |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        | visibility  |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **N    | Past        | Thinning and  | Traffic      | Noise sources |
| oise** | development | suppression   | associated   | and levels in |
|        | and         | activities    | with         | the park      |
|        | i           | would result  | visitation   | would         |
|        | mprovements | in minor      | of the park  | temporarily   |
|        | resulted in | noise impacts | continues to | increase;     |
|        | short-term  | to sensitive  | produce      | Fire          |
|        | noise       | receptors     | sustained    | Management    |
|        | impacts;    |               | and          | Plan would    |
|        | traffic     |               | long-term    | not result in |
|        | associated  |               | source of    | significant   |
|        | with        |               | noise        | cumulative    |
|        | visitation  |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        | of the park |               |              | Proposed      |
|        | continues   |               |              | Action and    |
|        | to produce  |               |              | Alternative 2 |
|        | sustained   |               |              | would         |
|        | and         |               |              | contribute    |
|        | long-term   |               |              | the equally   |
|        | source of   |               |              | to noise      |
|        | noise       |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 would       |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **V    | Es          | Minor visitor | Increased    | Long-term     |
| isitor | tablishment | use and       | recreation   | enhancement   |
| Use    | of the      | experience    | use as       | of recreation |
| and    | park,       | impacts       | population   | resources and |
| Expe   | improved    | resulting     | grows        | opportunities |
| rience | roads and   | from thinning |              | offsets       |
| (inc   | trails      | and           |              | short-term    |
| luding | provided    | prescribed    |              | recreation    |
| Recre  | access for  | fire          |              | i             |
| ation, | recreation  | activities    |              | nconveniences |
| Visual | opp         |               |              | from fuel     |
| Reso   | ortunities; |               |              | treatments;   |
| urces, | increased   |               |              | Fire          |
| and    | population  |               |              | Management    |
| Park   | growth      |               |              | Plan would    |
| O      | results in  |               |              | not result in |
| perati | increased   |               |              | significant   |
| ons)** | r           |               |              | cumulative    |
|        | ecreational |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        | use;        |               |              | Proposed      |
|        | proposed    |               |              | Action        |
|        | designation |               |              | Alternative   |
|        | of          |               |              | would         |
|        | wilderness  |               |              | contribute    |
|        | improves    |               |              | the most to   |
|        | r           |               |              | visitor use   |
|        | ecreational |               |              | and           |
|        | experience  |               |              | experience    |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| *      | Past        | Thinning and  | Similar      | Human health  |
| *Human | suppression | prescribed    | effects as   | and safety    |
| Health | efforts     | fire          | described in | would improve |
| &      | protected   | activities    | Past and     | over time     |
| Sa     | park staff  | might result  | Present      | with thinning |
| fety** | and         | in very minor | Actions      | and           |
|        | visitors    | impacts;      |              | prescribed    |
|        |             | long-term     |              | fire          |
|        |             | improvement   |              | activities;   |
|        |             | in human      |              | Fire          |
|        |             | health &      |              | Management    |
|        |             | safety with   |              | Plan would    |
|        |             | reduction in  |              | not result in |
|        |             | fuels         |              | significant   |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        |             |               |              | Proposed      |
|        |             |               |              | Action        |
|        |             |               |              | Alternative   |
|        |             |               |              | would         |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the most to   |
|        |             |               |              | vegetation    |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| *      | Es          | Very minor    | Similar      | So            |
| *Socio | tablishment | effects on    | effects as   | cio-economics |
| -econo | of the park | local economy | described    | would remain  |
| mics** | and visitor |               | under Past   | relatively    |
|        | use         |               | and Present  | unchanged;    |
|        | benefits    |               | Actions      | Fire          |
|        | local and   |               |              | Management    |
|        | regional    |               |              | Plan would    |
|        | economies   |               |              | not result in |
|        |             |               |              | significant   |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        |             |               |              | Proposed      |
|        |             |               |              | Action        |
|        |             |               |              | Alternative   |
|        |             |               |              | would         |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the most to   |
|        |             |               |              | s             |
|        |             |               |              | ocio-economic |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Cu   | Es          | Fuel          | Similar      | Cultural      |
| ltural | tablishment | treatments    | effects as   | resources     |
| Resou  | of the park | could result  | described in | continue to   |
| rces** | helped      | in impacts to | Past and     | be protected; |
|        | protect     | un-recorded   | Present      | Fire          |
|        | cultural    | sites         | Actions      | Management    |
|        | resources;  |               |              | Plan would    |
|        | past        |               |              | not result in |
|        | suppression |               |              | significant   |
|        | efforts may |               |              | cumulative    |
|        | have        |               |              | impacts; the  |
|        | impacted    |               |              | Proposed      |
|        | un-recorded |               |              | Action        |
|        | sites       |               |              | Alternative   |
|        |             |               |              | would         |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the most to   |
|        |             |               |              | cultural      |
|        |             |               |              | resources'    |
|        |             |               |              | cumulative    |
|        |             |               |              | impacts,      |
|        |             |               |              | while         |
|        |             |               |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             |               |              | 1 and 2 would |
|        |             |               |              | contribute    |
|        |             |               |              | the least     |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **     | Past fire   | Fire          | Thinning and | Wilderness    |
| Wilder | suppression | management    | prescribed   | would not be  |
| ness** | in the park | activities    | fire         | significantly |
|        | prevented   | would not     | activities   | impacted by   |
|        | wilderness  | result in     | would help   | proposed fire |
|        | areas from  | significant   | reduce fuel  | management    |
|        | achieving   | impacts to    | loadings in  | activities;   |
|        | historic    | wilderness    | the          | the Proposed  |
|        | fire regime | with the      | wilderness   | Action        |
|        | and allowed | i             | and          | Alternative   |
|        | for         | mplementation | contribute   | would         |
|        | hazardous   | of mitigation | to improved  | contribute    |
|        | fuel        | measures;     | forest       | the most to   |
|        | buildup     | fire          | health       | wilderness    |
|        |             | management    |              | cumulative    |
|        |             | activities    |              | impacts,      |
|        |             | would help    |              | while         |
|        |             | reduce fuel   |              | Alternatives  |
|        |             | loadings in   |              | 1 would       |
|        |             | the           |              | contribute    |
|        |             | wilderness    |              | the least     |
|        |             | and           |              |               |
|        |             | contribute to |              |               |
|        |             | improved      |              |               |
|        |             | forest health |              |               |
+--------+-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+

# 

# Consultation and Coordination

## List of Preparers

Webb Smith, Project Manager, Mangi Environmental Group

Sarah Nardotti, Environmental Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group

Rachel Shaw, Environmental Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group

Rebecca Whitney, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst, Mangi
Environmental Group

## Persons, Organizations, and Agencies Consulted

Joy Augustine, District Fire Management Officer, Winema National Forest

Tim Bradley, Fire Ecologist, Whiskeytown National Recreation Area

Mac Brock, Chief, Natural Resources, Crater Lake National Park

David Brennan, Chief, Resource and Visitor Protection, Crater Lake
National Park

Jorie Clark, Forest Archaeologist, Winema National Forest

Robert Cunningham, Asst. Fire Management Officer, Umpqua National Forest

Phil Kelley, GIS Specialist, Crater Lake National Park

Kelly Kritzer, Archeological Technician, Crater Lake National Park

Doug Laye, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Craig Letz, FMO, Crater Lake National Park

Steve Mark, Park Historian, Crater Lake National Park

Marsha McCabe, Chief, Interpretation and Cultural Resources, Crater Lake
National Park

Ken Paul, District Fire Management Officer, Winema National Forest

Todd Rankin, Prescribed Fire Specialist, Crater Lake National Park

Mary Rasmussen, Fire Ecologist, Crater Lake National Park

Rick Smedley, Fire Planner, Pacific West Regional Office, National Park
Service

Kent Taylor, Administrative Officer, Crater Lake National Park

Jerry Weinheimer, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Robin Wills, Research Fire Ecologist, Pacific West Regional Office,
National Park Service

Michael Ziolko, Meteorology Manager, Oregon Department of Forestry

## Persons, Organizations, and Agencies Who Received This Environmental Assessment

**TBD**

## Scoping

Details of the scoping process and the issues that arose from it are
described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5 -- *Scoping Issues and Impact
Topics*.

References Cited

(Agee, 1993). Agee, James K. 1993. *Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest
Forests*. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

(Agee and Huff, 2000). Agee, J.K. and M.H. Huff, 2000. The role of
prescribed fire in restoring ecosystem health and diversity in southwest
Oregon: part 1. ecological considerations. Report to the Pacific
Northwest Research Station Director's Office. Portland, OR: USDA Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Region.

(Applegate, 1939). Applegate, Elmer I. 1939. Plants of Crater Lake
National Park. *The American Midland Naturalist*. University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. pp. 225-271.

(Atzet et al., 1996). Atzet, T., D.E. White, L.A. McCrimmon, P.A.
Martinez, P.R. Fong, V.D. Randall, 1996. Field guide to the forested
plant associations of southwestern Oregon. Tech Paper
R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Region.

(Baldwin and Brunsfeld, 2001). Baldwin, Calib T. and Steven J.
Brunsfeld. June 2001. Genetics, Demography, Monitoring, and Restoration
of Mt. Mazama Collomia (*Collomia mazama* Coville). University of Idaho,
Department of Forest Resources.

(Brown and Smith, 2000). Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith (eds.). 2000.
Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station. Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 2.

(Brown et al., 2001). Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer.
2001. *Coarse Woody Debris and Succession*.

(DOD, 1978). United States Department of Defense. 1978. *Environmental
Planning in the Noise Environment*. Technical Manual 5-830-2. NAVFAC
P-970.

(DOI, 1996). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. July 1996. *Crater Lake National Park, Resource Advisor
Guide,Fire Management Plan*.

(DOI, 1997). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Crater Lake National Park. September 1997. *Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and Revised Fire Management Plan*.

(DOI, 1999a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Crater Lake National Park. August 1999. *Revised Fire
Management Plan*.

(DOI, 1999b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. August 1999. Director's Order #41 Wilderness Preservation and
Management.

(DOI, 2001a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 08 January 2001. *Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision Making*. Director's Order #12 and Handbook.

(DOI, 2001b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. What the Parks Should Know About the EPA's New Regional Haze
Rule. Web page. Date accessed: 18 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/vis/rhr.html

(DOI, 2001c). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. IMPROVE Particulate Monitoring Network Standard Operating
Procedures. Web page. Date accessed: 18 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/vis/sop/sopintro.html

(DOI, 2001d). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. Visibility Protection. Web page. Date accessed: 18 June 2001.
Accessed at: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/vis/visprot.html

(DOI, 2001e). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. Air Resources Programs at Crater Lake National Park. Web page.
Date accessed: June 18, 2001. Accessed at:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ARD/parks/crla/crla.htm

(DOI, 2001f). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. July 2001. Crater Lake-Animals/Wildlife. Web page. Accessed at:
http://www.nps.gov/crla/ani.htm

(DOI, 2001g). United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. July 2001. The Canada Lynx. Web page. Accessed at:
http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/lynx

(DOI, 2001h). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. July 2001. Recreation Information-Crater Lake. Web page. Date
accessed: May 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.nps.gov/crla/brochures/index.htm

(DOI, 2001i). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Public Use Statistics Office. Park Visitation Report:
Statistics for the Year 2000. Web page. Date accessed: 09 June 2001.
Accessed at: http://www.adq.nps.gov/stats

(DOI, 2001j). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 2001. Web page. Date accessed: 08 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.nps.gov/crla/feedemo.htm

(DOI, 2001k). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 2001. Public Use Statistics Office. Web page. Date accessed: 08
June 2001. http://www.aqd.nps.gov/stats

(DOI, 2001l). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 2001. Web page. Date accessed: 18 April 2002. Accessed at
http://www.nps.gov/fire/fmh/FEMHandbook.pdf

(EPA, 1998). United States Environmental Protection Agency. April 23,
1998. *Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires*.

(Galiliano and Loeffler, 2000). Galiliano and Loeffler. 2000. Scenery
Assessment: Beauty at the Ecoregion Scale. United States Department of
Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical
Report. PNW-GTR-472.

(GBC, 2001). Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Forestry. June
2001. Fire-Related Ecosystems. Web page. Accessed at:
http://www.gov.bc.ca/for

(Girdner, 2002). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 10 April 2002. Personal communication with Scott Girdner.

(Hickenbottom, et al., 1999). Hickenbottom, J. Randall, et al. December
1999. *Biological Assessment of the Effects of National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans
on Canada Lynx*. 149pp.

(HUD, 1991). United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1991. *The Noise Guidebook.*

(Jensen and Ross, 1999). Jensen , Edward C. and Charles R Ross. August
1999. *Trees to Know in Oregon*. Oregon State University. 128 pp.

(Klamath, 2001a). The City of Klamath Falls, Oregon. City Profile. Web
page. Date accessed: 27 July 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.ci.klamath-falls.or.us

(Klamath, 2001b). Oregon Chamber of Commerce, Klamath County. 2001.
Unemployment Rates. Web page. Date accessed: June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.klamath.org

(Laye, 2001). United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 23 July 2001. Personal communication with Douglas
Laye.

(Mark, 2002). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 10 April 2002. Personal communication with Steve Mark.

(Michigan, 2001). Michigan State University, Department of Park,
Recreation, and Tourism Resources. 2001. Computer Model. Date accessed:
07 June 2001. Available at: http://www.prr.msu.edu/mgm2/MGM2short/htm

(Murray and Rasmussen, 2000). Murray, Michael P. and M. Rasmussen.
September 2000. Status of Whitebark Pine in Crater Lake National Park.
Unpublished Final Report, Cooperative Cost-Share Agreement No.
H9320000035. 13 pp.

(Murray and Rasmussen, 2002). Murray, Michael P. and M. Rasmussen. 2002.
Fire Knowledge for Managing Cascadian Whitebark Pine Forests -- Research
Funding Proposal.

(NIFC, 1998). National Interagency Fire Center. 1998. *Wildland and
Prescribed Fire Management Policy Implementation Procedures Reference
Guide.*

(NPS, 2001). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 27 December 2000. *2001 Management Policies*.

(NYDEC, 2000). New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Office
of Environmental Permits. Issuance date 06 October 2000. *Assessing and
Mitigating Noise Impacts*. Program Policy, DEP-00-3. Revised 02 February
2001.

(Oregon, 1996). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon Wildlife
Diversity Program 1996 Report. Web page. Date accessed: July 26, 2001.
Accessed at:
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/Diversity/1996RPT.html

(Rasmussen, 2001a). United States Department of the Interior, National
Park Service. 03 July 2001. Personal communication with Mary Rasmussen.

(Rasmussen, 2001b). United States Department of the Interior, National
Park Service. 27 June 2001. Personal communication with Mary Rasmussen.

(Rasmussen, 2001c). United States Department of the Interior, National
Park Service. 25 July 2001. Personal communication with Mary Rasmussen.

(SCORP, 1999). South Central Oregon Regional Partnership. Strategic Plan
1999. Web page. Date accessed: 08 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.sobusi.com/scorp

(USCB, 2001a). United States Census Bureau. Census 2000 Quick Facts. Web
page. Date accessed: 08 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://factfinder.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41035.html

(USCB, 2001b). United States Census Bureau. 1990 Census of Population
and Housing. Web page. Date accessed: 08 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://factfinder.census.gov

(USDA, 1998a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National Forests.. September 1998. *Crown
Pacific Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement*.

(USDA, 1998b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Winema National Forest. October 1998. *Pelican Butte Ski Area Master
Development Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement*.

(USDA, 2000a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
April 2000. *Incorporating Air Quality Effects of Wildland Fire
Management into Forest Plan Revisions -- A Desk Guide (Draft)*.

(USDA, 2000b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. January 2000. Wildland Fire in
Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical Report.
RMRS-GTR-42-Vol 1.

(USDA, 2000c). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. July 2000. Smoke Exposure at Western
Wildfires. Research Paper. PNW-RP-525.

(USDA, 2001). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Wildland Fire Suppression Chemicals Toxicity and Environmental Issues
and Concerns. Web page. Date accessed: 06 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/The_Environment.html

(USDA and BLM, 1999). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. 1999. Conservation Strategy for *Botrychium Pumicola*
(Pumice Grape Fern) on the Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National
Forests, and Prineville District, Oregon.

(USFWS, 1997). United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. September 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Invites
Public Comments on Draft Recovery Plan for Applegate's Milk-Vetch. Web
page. Date accessed: July 2001. Accessed at:
http://pacific.fws.gov/news/1997/9799nr.htm

(Vogl, 1979). Vogl, R.J. Some basic principles of grassland fire
management. *Environmental Management* 3(1):51-57, 1979.

(Weinheimer, 2001). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service. 20 July 2001. Personal communication
with Jerry Weinheimer.

(Wolverine, 2001). The Wolverine Foundation. Life History Species
Account. Web page. Date accessed: 25 July 2001. Accessed at:
http://www/wolverinefoundation.org/specacct.htm

(Wright and Bailey, 1980). Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire
ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains -- A research review.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report.
INT-77.

(Ziolko, 2002). Oregon Department of Forestry. 25 February 2002.
Personal communication with Michael Ziolko.