National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Crater Lake National Park

Oregon

Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement

May 2004
Printed on recycled paper
Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Crater Lake National Park 

Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas Counties, Oregon 

Crater Lake National Park was authorized by an act of Congress on May 22, 1902 (Public 

Law 32 Stat. 20). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in

1977. Much has changed since 1977 — visitor use patterns and demographics have changed, 

there are new demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and 22,400 acres 

were added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and 

use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are 

managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. 

This document examines four alternatives for managing the national park for the next 15 to 

20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “noaction” alternative, alternative 1 describes the existing conditions and trends of park 

management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The 

emphasis of alternative 2 would be on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and 

resource education. Under alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater range of natural 

and cultural resources through recreational opportunities and education. The focus of 

alternative 4 would be on preservation and restoration of natural processes. Alternative 2 is 

the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. 

Impacts resulting from the no-action alternative would be negligible to minor on natural 

resources, park operations, and concession operations, with no adverse impact on most 

cultural resources. Under alternative 2 there would generally be moderate to major beneficial 

impacts. Impacts from alternative 3 would be beneficial, except for possible adverse impacts 

on concession operations. Alternative 4 would offer moderate beneficial impacts to natural 

and cultural resources, with a moderate, adverse impact on visitor use. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed 

to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. 

The public comment period for this document will last for 60 days after the EPA’s notice of 

availability has been published in the Federal Register.
HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

If you wish to respond to the material in this document you may submit your comments, with 

your name and address, by any one of several methods. You may mail written comments to: 

Terri Urbanowski 

National Park Service 

Denver Service center 

P.O. Box 25287 

 Denver, CO 80226 

You may also email comments to the following address: CRLA-GMP@nps.gov. Include your 

name and return address in your Internet message, and if possible, request a return receipt. 

You may also email directly to terri_urbanowski@nps.gov. 

You may hand-deliver comments to Crater Lake National Park headquarters in the park. 

Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available 

for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we

withhold their address from the planning record, which we will honor to the extent allowable 

by law. There also may be circumstances in which we will withhold from the record a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all 

submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 

representative or officials of organizations or business, available for public inspection in their 

entirety. 

This method for public comment submittal listed above stems from court rulings concerning 

the release of public comments, and it is included as recommended by the Office of the 

Solicitor, Department of the Interior (DOI).

ii
SUMMARY

The purpose of this Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Crater Lake National Park is 

to present a direction for resource 

preservation and visitor use and a basic 

foundation for decision making for the 

park for the next 15 to 20 years. The

general management plan provides a

comprehensive direction for managing

resource activities, visitor activities, and 

development that would be appropriate at 

the park in the future. 

An important element in determining the 

desired resource and visitor experience 

conditions for the park has been public 

participation. Many issues and concerns 

were identified by the general public and 

NPS staff as part of the initial planning 

efforts, and comments were solicited at 

public meetings, in planning newsletters, 

and on the internet. 

Once public input was received the 

planning team identified four alternatives 

for managing the park —a no-action and 

three action alternatives, including the 

preferred alternative. The plan also 

analyzes and presents the environmental 

and socioeconomic impacts or 

consequences of implementing each of

those alternatives ⎯ the environmental

impact statement part of this document. A 

summary of the alternatives and the 

important impacts is given below.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

Description 

The no-action alternative represents

continuation of the current management 

direction and approach at the park. It is a

way of evaluating the proposed actions of

the other three alternatives. 

Under the no-action alternative, 

archeological and ethnographic resources 

in the park would continue to be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated as National 

Park Service staff and funding permitted. 

Natural resource management protection, 

preservation, and restoration activities 

would also continue as staffing and 

funding allowed. 

Existing buildings and facilities in the park 

would remain; some historic structures 

would be adaptively used. Munson Valley 

would continue to serve as the center of 

NPS administration, maintenance, and 

housing. 

The existing road access and circulation 

system within the park would continue, 

and visitor recreational opportunities and 

interpretive programs in the park would 

continue. 

Impacts

Impacts resulting from the no-action 

alternative would be negligible to minor 

on natural resources, park operations, and 

concession operations. Most cultural 

resources, archeological sites, cultural 

landscapes, ethnographic resources, or 

museum collections would have no 

adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the 

superintendent’s residence would result in 

minor adverse impacts due to some loss of

historic fabric. However, adaptive use of

the structure as a science and learning 

center would ensure its long-term 

preservation and therefore provide a 

moderate beneficial impact. 

Visitor access, recreational and educational opportunities, and visitor facilities 

and services would remain relatively 

unchanged, and the park would continue 

iii
SUMMARY

to be an important visitor attraction, 

contributing to the tourism industry in the 

region. However, potential increases in 

visitation over the life of the plan could 

impact the ability to access some areas of

the park and enjoy those areas in relative 

solitude and tranquility. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED) – 

EMPHASIS ON INCREASED 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Description 

Management of the park would emphasize 

increased opportunities for recreational 

diversity and research and education. 

Most recreational opportunities would 

remain, but new opportunities along Rim 

Drive would allow visitors to directly

experience the primary resource of Crater 

Lake in ways other than driving. Any new 

uses around the rim would be nonmotorized and low impact. Opportunities to 

experience the lake by hiking and biking in 

a quieter setting would be explored by

experimental seasonal road closures of 

East Rim Drive. Other frontcountry 

opportunities, such as short trails and 

picnic areas, would be along the roadways. 

These new opportunities would provide 

transitional experiences between the 

developed areas (or transportations 

corridors) and the backcountry and also 

provide for enhanced interpretation, new 

research, and access the backcountry. 

Winter snowmobile and snowcoach access 

would remain along North Junction to the 

rim. 

Research and educational opportunities 

would be enhanced. A new science and 

learning center would form the core of the 

new research. The park would expand and 

encourage partnerships with universities, 

scientists, and educational groups. The 

information gathered would be 

disseminated throughout the park to 

rangers, interpretive staff, and visitors. As 

a result, special in-depth tours would be

available to interest groups such as 

birdwatchers or geology clubs. 

As described under the no-action 

alternative, existing buildings and facilities 

in the park would remain, but some 

structures would be adaptively used. 

Current and future needs for office and 

administrative space would be 

accommodated without additional 

construction. Administrative and other 

organizational functions, which are not by 

necessity park-based, would be moved to

surrounding communities as demand for 

space within the park increased. 

Parking and road congestion at the park 

would be managed by improving existing 

pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. If, 

in the future, crowding conditions developed, shuttles and other alternative transportation systems would be used to solve 

the problems, rather than expanding road 

and parking capacities. 

Impacts 

This alternative increases visitor

opportunities for recreation, education 

and interpretation, and access to park

facilities and services, creating major 

beneficial impacts on the visitor 

experience. 

Impacts on cultural resources, including 

the superintendent’s house, would be the 

same as the no-action alternative, with the 

exception of museum collections, which 

would have minor to moderate, long-term 

benefits. 

Greater emphasis on research, partnering, 

and visitor education would also indirectly 

iv
Summary 

promote moderate beneficial effects on 

biotic communities and could result in

some adverse impacts on some threatened 

and endangered species. 

As in alternative 1, some benefits would 

result from reconfiguration of Rim Village 

and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. 

However, under alternative 2, increasing 

staffing and moving some functions out of 

the park to nearby communities would 

result in beneficial impacts on park 

operations and on the local economy. 

Although the impact regionally would be 

negligible, the park would continue to be 

an important visitor attraction and 

contribute to the tourism industry in the 

three-county region. Alternative 2 is the 

environmentally preferred alternative as 

evaluated according to the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 – EMPHASIS ON 

ENJOYMENT OF THE NATURAL 

ENVIRONMENT 

Description

The emphasis of this alternative would be 

to allow visitors to experience a greater 

range of natural and cultural resources 

significant and unique to the park through 

recreational opportunities and education. 

A wider range of visitor experiences would 

reach out to greater diversity of visitor 

groups. Recreational programs, which 

would focus on minimizing impact, would 

provide the focus for interpretation and 

education. 

Resources would be managed to permit 

recreation while protecting the resources. 

Opportunities for recreation would be 

viewed in a regional context, where the 

park could serve as a source of information for regional recreational opportunities. Winter access would be

improved by grooming along North 

Junction Road. During the summer season 

use of a shuttle bus system would be 

explored. 

Use of most current facilities would 

continue. Treatment of historic structures 

and cultural landscapes would be similar 

to the no-action alternative, although such

resources could be affected by 

construction of additional trails, 

installation of new interpretive signs and 

other media, and expanded tour programs 

under alternative 3. 

Adequate space in an onsite facility would 

be provided for the curation and storage 

of the park’s museum collections . 

Impacts 

This alternative’s emphasis on increasing 

the diversity of visitor experience would 

create major beneficial impacts on the 

visitor experience. The shift toward a 

diverse visitor program also would 

decrease the range of interpretive 

programs, resulting in a moderate adverse 

impact on those preferring interpretive 

programs over experience. 

Impacts on cultural resources would be 

the same as alternative 2. 

Actions resulting from this alternative 

would result in some adverse impacts on 

some threatened and endangered species 

or biotic communities. 

As described under alternative 2, the 

reconfiguration of Rim Village, adaptive 

reuse of existing buildings, increased 

staffing, and moving some functions 

outside the park would result in beneficial 

impacts. The park also would continue to 

be an important visitor attraction and 

v
SUMMARY

contribute to the tourism industry in the 

three-county region. 

ALTERNATIVE 4 – EMPHASIS ON 

PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Description 

Park management would be focused on 

the preservation of native species and 

natural processes and the restoration of 

biodiversity and natural processes where 

altered. The park would be an active 

partner in a regional conservation strategy 

that would include other agencies and 

environmental groups. Most park 

operations and visitor contact facilities 

would be outside the park and shared with 

other agencies and communities. 

Resource preservation and restoration 

would be the overriding consideration in 

the park. Areas that have been altered 

would be restored to their natural 

conditions. Cultural resources would be 

preserved at the highest level possible. 

Museum collections would be increased 

but would be stored in an offsite facility 

that met professional and National Park 

Service museum standards. 

The visitor experience would stress 

activities that have low environmental 

impacts on and are harmonious with the 

resources. More emphasis would be place 

on self-guided and discover y education, 

and interpretive programs would focus on 

stewardship.

Vehicular transportation would be altered 

to reinforce the visitor experience. The 

Rim Road would be closed between

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch. Winter 

use of the park would change to allow 

natural processes to proceed with less 

disturbance than current management 

practices allow. Winter plowing of the 

road to the rim would stop, except for 

spring opening. Snowmobiling along 

North Junction Road would no longer be 

allowed. 

Facilities that are not historic and not 

essential to park functions would be 

removed and the area rehabilitated. 

Functions that are, by necessity parkbased, would be retained in the park. 

Impacts 

Impacts resulting from this alternative 

would include overall beneficial impacts to 

natural and cultural resources. The 

decrease in diversity of opportunities, 

accessibility, and number of interpretive 

programs would have a moderate adverse 

impact on the visitor experience. 

A decrease in buildings and facilities in the 

park, along with reduced winter operations, would have moderate beneficial 

impacts on park operations. The addition 

of a shuttle and snowcoach would result in 

moderate, long- term, adverse impacts on 

concession operations.

Moving operations out of the park would 

have a beneficial impact on the local 

economy. Although the impact regionally 

would be negligible, the park would 

continue to be an important visitor 

attraction and contribute to the tourism 

industry in the three-county region. 

vi
CONTENTS

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 1

Purpose, Need, and Scoping 3

 Introduction 3 

 Brief Description of the Park 3 

 Purpose and Need 7 

The Scoping Process 8

Planning Direction and Guidance 9 

 Purpose, Significance, Mission, and Interpretive Themes 9 

Servicewide Laws and Policies 11 

 Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 17 

Planning Issues 21 

Impact Topics – Resources And Values at Stake in the Planning Process 23

 Impacts Topics 23

Impact Topics Eliminated from Further Evaluation 24

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 31

The Alternatives 33 

 Actions Common to All Alternatives 33 

Development of the Alterantives 34 

Management Zones 34

Alternative 1 – No Action 39

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative—Emphasis on Increased Opportunities 43

Alternative 3: Emphasis on Enjoyment of the Natural Environment 51

Alternative 4: Emphasis on Preservation and Restoration of Natural Processes 57 

Mitigating Meaures 63

Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated from Further Study 67

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 68

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 70

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 79

Cultural Resources 81

Natural Resources 89

Visitors and the Park 95

Operations 101

Socioeconomic Environment 105

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 109 

Introduction 111

Methodology for Analyzing Impacts 112

Impacts to Cultural Resources and Section 106 of the 

 National Historic Preservation Act 112 

Cultural Resources 113 

Natural Resources 116 

Visitor Use 118 

Park and Concession Operations 119 

Socioeconomic Environment 119 

Cumulative Impacts 121 

Impairment of Park Resources or Values 123 

vii
CONTENTS

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1 – No Action 124

Cultural Resources 124 

Natural Resources 129 

Visitor Use 135 

Operations 138 

Socioeconomic Environment 139

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 140 

 Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance 

 and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 140 

 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 141 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative 142

Cultural Resources 142 

Natural Resources 145 

Visitor Use 153 

Operations 157 

Socioeconomic Environment 158 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 160 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance 

 and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 160 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 160 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 161 

Cultural Resources 161 

Natural Resources 164 

Visitor Use 170 

Operations 173 

Socioeconomic Environment 174 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 176 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance 

 and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 176 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 176 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 177

 Cultural Resources 177

 Natural Resources 180 

Visitor Use 185

Operations 188

Socioeconomic Environment 189 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 191

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance 

 and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 191

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 191 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 193

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX 199 

viii
Contents 

MAPS 

Vicinity 5 

Alternative 1 41 

Alternative 2 47, 49

Alternative 3 53, 55

Alternative 4 59, 61

TABLES 

1: Management Zones 35 

2: Summary of Comparison Costs 69 

3: Summary of Alternative Actions 72 

4: Summary Comparison of Impacts of Implementing Alternatives 74 

5: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 90 

6: Affected Area Population for Counties and Selected Towns 106 

7: Unemployment Rates for Selected Years 108 

8: Percent of People Living in Poverty 108

ix

PURPOSE OF AND NEED

FOR THE PLAN
2
PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPING

INTRODUCTION 

General management plans are intended 

to be long-term documents that establish

and articulate a management philosophy 

and framework for decision making and 

problem solving in the parks. General 

management plans usually provide 

guidance during a 15- to 20-year period 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

four alternative future directions for the 

management and use of Crater Lake 

National Park. The plan also analyzes and 

presents the environmental and socioeconomic impacts or consequences of implementing each of those alternatives – the 

environmental impact statement part of 

the document. An important element in 

determining the future directions is public 

participation throughout the planning 

process. One of the alternatives, alternative 2, is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative. The potential 

environmental impacts of all alternatives 

have been identified and assessed. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation 

plans are accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional 

data or regulatory compliance, and 

competing national park system priorities 

prevent immediate implementation of 

many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

Crater Lake National Park is in southwest 

Oregon in the south-central portion of the 

Cascade Range (see Vicinity map). The 

park ranges in elevation from about 3,800 

feet in the southwest corner of the park to 

just over 8,900 feet at Mount Scott. The 

flora of Crater Lake National Park is 

typical of the vegetation found throughout 

the Southern Cascades. Generally, the 

vegetation reflects a mosaic of forested 

and open nonforested areas. Vegetation 

ranges from a mixed conifer forest 

dominated by ponderosa pine at the south 

to high elevation mountain hemlock and 

whitebark pine forest at the rim. The park 

is regarded by many as a sanctuary for 

native forest and meadow communities. 

Near the center of the park is the park’s 

most spectacular resource, Crater Lake. It 

is 1,943 feet deep, the deepest lake in the 

United States. The lake is in a caldera 

which was formed when the top of the 

12,000-foot volcano erupted and collapsed. Over the centuries, the caldera has

collected water from rain and snow to 

form the lake. It is about 5 miles in diameter and is surrounded by the jagged, 

steep-walled cliffs of the caldera left by the

climatic eruption and collapse of Mt. 

Mazama about 7,700 years ago. The cliffs 

surrounding the lake rise from 500 to

2,000 feet above the lake’s surface. 

From the rimmed summit, the land slopes

gradually downward in all directions. 

There are no inlets or outlets to the lake. 

Evaporation and seepage prevent the lake 

from becoming deeper. Due to the topography, Crater Lake has no influent or

effluent streams to provide continuing 

supplies of oxygen, nutrients, and fresh 

water. Crater Lake is considered a youthful lake with a high level of purity. The 

purity can be attributed to the absence of 

inflowing streams introducing minerals 

and other debris. The lack of dissolved 

minerals greatly restricts the growth of 

3
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

aquatic plants and the absence of sufficient 

carbonates inhibits the development of 

large shelled animals. The result is a high

level of light penetration that exceeds

other alpine lakes. Crater Lake holds the 

world record for clarity among lakes. 

Visitors primarily come to Crater Lake 

National Park to view the lake. The inherit 

qualities of the lake and its setting provide 

breathtaking views from the rim of the 

caldera. The quality of the lake’s water 

enables sunlight to penetrate and create 

the reknown blue coloration. The steep 

caldera wells and mirror-like reflections 

tinted in subtle shades. At times brilliantly 

blue; at other times buried in a mass of 

brooding clouds, Crater Lake has a mystic 

and inspiring quality. 

The park encompasses approximately 

182,304 acres and is heavily forested, 

except for a number of treeless and 

pumice-covered flats. The topography 

ranges in elevation from about 3,800 feet

in the southwest corner of the park to 

8,900 feet at Mount Scott, which is the 

highest point in the park. Streams originating on the slopes of the caldera form 

headwaters of the Rogue River to the west 

or join the Klamath Basin to the south and 

east. Steep-walled canyons cut in pumice, 

such as at Annie, Castle, and Sun Creeks, 

contribute to the ruggedness of the terrain. 

Some of the nation’s best examples of

blending rustic architecture and other 

built features within a national park setting 

can be seen in the park at Rim Village and 

at park headquarters in Munson Valley. 

This designed landscape was constructed 

over 15 years, beginning in 1926. Most of

the features in these two areas are listed on

the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Crater Lake superintendent’s residence at Munson Valley was designated a 

national historic landmark (NHL) because 

it is an outstanding example of rustic 

architectural design. 

Crater Lake National Park is a vital 

element in a diverse regional recreation 

complex. Many visitors stop at the park as 

part of a north-south trip to various parks 

and scenic areas in Oregon and northern 

California. In southern Oregon, Crater 

Lake has historically been the leading 

visitor draw.

The park’s southern entrance station at 

Mazama Village is 76 miles from Medford 

and 56 miles from Klamath Falls and can 

be reached by Oregon State Route (OR) 

62. During summer the park can also be 

reached from the north by OR 138. Both 

the south and north access roads lead to 

Rim Drive, a 33-mile roadway that circles 

the caldera rim. Pullouts along Rim Drive 

provide scenic lake views. Rim Drive is in

the process of being nominated to the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

has been designated as part of an AllAmerican Road ( as are south Highway 62, 

Munson Valley Road, and the North 

Entrance Road). Winter access is maintained only from the south and west on 

OR 62 through the Munson Valley 

headquarters area and up to Rim Village. 

Road closures, particularly between 

headquarters and the rim, are common 

during the winter because of frequent 

snowstorms. 

Rim Village, at an elevation of 7,100 feet 

on the south edge of the Crater Lake caldera, has functioned as a year-round operation since 1948, although services are 

limited in the winter. Summer interpretive 

activities are provided from a small visitor 

contact facility near the rim and at the 

Sinnott Memorial overlook. The Sinnott 

Memorial is 25 feet below the rim on a 

precipitous cliff overlooking the lake. It 

has architectural significance as an 

4
5
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6
Purpose, Need, and Scoping 

expression of park rustic style in which the 

use of materials and siting blends 

seamlessly into the rim of the caldera. The 

Sinnott Memorial offers visitors a 

spectacular view of Crater Lake and is an 

ideal place to interpret the lake and 

caldera. Seasonal hotel accommodations 

are available at Crater Lake Lodge. Food 

services, gift sales, a picnic area, geology 

talks (summer only), and interpretive 

exhibits are also available at Rim Village. 

Mazama Village is about 7 miles south of 

Rim Village and is the primary overnight 

visitor use area in the summer. A campground, motel accommodations, a camper 

services store, shower and laundry facilities, a gas station, interpretive walks, and 

evening campfire programs are all available during the summer. The nearby Annie 

Spring entrance station is the first contact 

station where visitors arriving by way of 

OR 62 might encounter NPS staff during 

the summer.

Cleetwood is on the north shore of Crater 

Lake and is accessed from Rim Drive. It is

about 6 miles east of the north junction 

where Rim Drive intersects the north 

entrance road. Cleetwood contains a parking area, a nonpermanent ticket sales 

structure, and a portable restroom at the 

rim. A trail descends the side of the caldera 

to the lake. The concessioner offers commercial boat tours of the lake, accompanied by NPS interpreters. 

Park headquarters is about 3 miles 

south of Rim Village and serves as the 

center of NPS administration, 

maintenance, and housing. It also 

serves as the year-round visitor 

interpretation and orientation point. 

Park headquarters is in a historic 

complex of buildings at the central 

portion of the Munson Valley

development area. Visitor information 

services and interpretive exhibits are 

provided in this complex at the visitor 

information center. Primary park 

administrative services are in the 

administration building. Storage and 

maintenance facilities are also in the 

park headquarters area.PURPOSE AND 

NEED 

The purpose of this Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement is to clearly define a direction 

for resource preservation and visitor

experience at Crater Lake National Park 

over the next 15 to 20 years. The approved 

plan would provide a framework for proactive decision-making, including decisions on visitor use, natural and cultural 

resource management, park development, 

and addressing future opportunities and 

problems. 

This document will not describe how 

particular programs or projects will be 

implemented or prioritized. Those decisions will be deferred to more detailed

implementation planning, which will 

follow the broad, long-range decision

making presented in this document.

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 (PL 95-625) requires the preparation 

and timely revision of general management 

plans for each unit of the national park 

system. The previous Master Plan for Crater Lake was approved in 1977. A number 

of subsequent planning efforts were initiated, each undertaken to enhance the visitor experience and resource protection at 

the developed areas of Crater Lake National Park. The park has implemented 

significant portions of the plans for 

specific developed areas. For example, 

Crater Lake Lodge has been rehabilitated 

and reopened in May 1995. A new dormitory for concession employees has been 

built near Mazama Village. This General 

Management Plan will provide an 

7
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

opportunity to consolidate these past 

decisions that are spread throughout

several documents into a single document. 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement takes a 

new look at the management of the park 

based on the changes that have occurred 

since 1977 and current issues and 

concerns confronting the park, with the 

intent of building on the park’s previous 

planning accomplishments. Visitor use 

patterns and demographics have changed, 

there are new demands for recreational 

experiences and activities, and 22,400 

acres were added to the park. Each of 

these changes has implications for how 

visitors access and use the national park 

and the facilities needed to support those 

uses, how resources are managed, and 

how the National Park Service manages its 

operations. 

THE SCOPING PROCESS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used

to keep the public informed and involved 

in the planning process for Crater Lake 

National Park. A mailing list was compiled 

that consisted of members of government 

agencies, nongovernmental groups, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, 

and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on May 

25, 2001. A newsletter issued January 2001 

described the planning effort. Public 

meetings were held during April 2001 in 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and 

Salem and were attended by 96 people. A 

total of 72 written comments were 

received in response to that newsletter. A 

second newsletter issued in July 2001 

summarized the comments received in the 

meetings and in response to newsletter 1. 

These comments were used to complete 

the park purpose and significance 

statements that serve as the foundation for 

the rest of the planning. Comments on 

various issues facing the park were 

referred to during development of the 

general management plan. 

In spring of 2002 a total of 95 comments 

were received in response to a third 

newsletter describing draft alternative 

concepts and managing zoning. In general 

opinions were fairly divided in support of 

individual alternatives and how to address 

the issues. A number of letters favored 

continued snowmobile use while other 

people favored elimination of snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were divided 

on managing traffic on Rim Drive— 

maintaining current two-way traffic, 

converting part of the road to one-way 

traffic, or closure of the road to traffic. 

Most respondents favored use of shuttles. 

A number of people who opposed partnering with private industry were concerned 

with large-scale commercialization within 

the park.

8
PLANNING DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE 

PURPOSE, SIGNIFICANCE, MISSION, 

AND INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

The purposes, significance, and mission 

goals of Crater Lake National Park are 

three of the key elements that shaped the 

development of the General Management 

Plan. These elements underlie how the 

park is managed. Park purpose statements 

are based on park legislation and legislative history, other special designations, 

and NPS policies. The statements reaffirm 

the reasons Crater Lake National Park was 

established as part of the national park 

system and provide the foundation for 

park management and use. 

Significance statements identify the

resources and values that are central to 

managing the area and express the 

importance of the park to our natural and 

cultural heritage. Understanding the 

park’s significance helps managers make 

decisions that preserve the resources and 

values necessary to accomplish the area’s 

purposes. Crater Lake’s mission goals 

articulate the ideal future conditions the 

National Park Service is striving to attain. 

All of the alternatives and management 

prescriptions in this management plan are 

consistent with and support the park’s 

purpose and significance statements and 

the park’s mission. 

Interpretive themes are the key stories or

concepts that every visitor to the park

should have the opportunity to learn. They

include the ideas that are critical to a 

visitor’s understanding of the park’s 

purpose and significance. These themes

provide the foundation for the park’s 

interpretation and education programs 

and direction for interpretive media (e.g., 

exhibits, films, brochures, etc.) at the park. 

Based on Crater Lake National Park’s 

enabling legislation, legislative history, 

agency management policies, public input, 

and the knowledge and insights of park 

staff, the planning team identified the 

following purpose and significance 

statements, mission, and interpretive

themes for Crater Lake National Park. 

Park Purpose 

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 directs that 

the fundamental purpose of all parks is "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." Crater Lake 

National Park was established in 1902, 

dedicated and set apart forever as a public 

park or pleasure ground for the benefit 

and enjoyment of the people of the United 

States. In managing this park, the Park 

Service was originally charged with “the 

protection and preservation of the game, 

fish, timber, and all other natural objects 

therein.” In 1980, Congress updated the 

park purpose “to preserve for the benefit, 

education, and inspiration of the people of 

the United States certain unique and 

ancient volcanic features, including Crater 

Lake, together with significant forest and 

fish and wildlife resources” (Public Law 

96-553). 

Park Significance 

 Crater Lake is one of the most

renowned lakes on earth, 

principally because of the beauty 

imparted by its large size, blue 

color, mountain setting, and everchanging character. 

 Crater Lake lies in a caldera that 

was left by the climactic eruption 

9
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

and collapse of Mount Mazama 

more than 7,700 years ago. The 

circular lake, which formed in the 

caldera is considered by scientists 

to be a unique model for how small 

calderas evolve in geologic time. At

a depth of 1,943 feet, Crater Lake is 

the 7th deepest lake in the world,

and holds the world record for 

clarity among lakes. 

 In addition to the lake, most of the 

forests that surround Crater Lake 

have never been logged and are 

largely preserved in their pristine 

condition. These mature forests 

harbor a variety of plant and 

animal life which are characteristic 

of higher elevations in the Cascade 

Range. Because extensive 

alteration of forestland has taken 

place elsewhere in the Cascade 

Range, some of these plants and 

animals are rare. Those forests 

within the park boundary add 

unique opportunities for solitary 

and wilderness experiences. 

 Some of the nation's best examples 

of blending rustic architecture and 

other built features within a 

national park setting can be seen at 

Rim Village, park headquarters in 

Munson Valley, and along Rim 

Drive. Much of Rim Village, park 

headquarters, and Rim Drive are 

within districts listed on the 

National Register of Historic 

Places. 

 Crater Lake is of enduring 

importance to contemporary 

members of American Indian tribes 

because of its centrality to longstanding cultural traditions and 

resource harvesting activities, as

well as its symbolic significance as a 

sacred site. The park is part of a 

larger cultural landscape that 

extends well beyond park 

boundaries.

 Crater Lake has been the object of

scientific study for more than a 

century, and is unique for the 

scientific research related to its 

pristine waters, associated 

geothermal activities, and unusual 

aquatic organisms. 

 The unique natural and cultural 

resources of Crater Lake National 

Park provide exemplary 

opportunities for students and 

educators. 

Mission 

Crater Lake National Park’s mission 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

Interpretive Themes 

Cultural: Evidence left behind by a 

continuum of different land uses for 

thousands of years helps us imagine 

past human interaction with these 

resources and instills appreciation for 

the continuing challenge of balancing 

human use with preservation. 

Research and Education: For more

than 100 years, Crater Lake has been a 

landscape of exploration and 

discovery. Today scientists are

studying the lake and surrounding 

resources to better understand natural 

systems and improve future 

10
Planning Direction and Guidance 

management of the national park and 

the quality of life in this country and 

the world. 

Geology: Geologic processes,

primarily vulcanism, that created the 

Crater Lake caldera and the Cascade 

Mountains provides important lessons 

about the evolution of our planet. 

Plant / Animal Diversity: The 

Cascades ecosystem at and around 

Crater Lake National Park supports an 

extraordinarily rich biological 

diversity. 

Recreation and Visitor Experience: 

The serenity and beauty of Crater Lake 

National Park offers its visitors a wide 

range of recreational activities and 

opportunities to experience natural 

beauty, quiet, solitude, reflection, and 

inspiration.

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

As with all units of the National Park 

Service, the management of Crater Lake 

National Park is guided by a number of 

legal mandates and park policies in 

addition to the enabling legislation. These 

include the 1916 Organic Act (which 

created the National Park Service), the 

General Authorities Act of 1970, the act of 

March 27, 1978 (relating to the 

management of the national park system), 

and other applicable federal laws and 

regulations, such as the Endangered

Species Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The National Park 

Service has also established management 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in NPS 

Management Policies (2001). 

These legal mandates and policies

prescribe many resource conditions and 

some aspects of the visitor experience. 

This plan is not needed to decide, for

instance, whether or not it is appropriate 

to protect endangered species, control 

exotic species, protect archeological sites, 

or provide access for visitors with

disabilities. Although attaining some of 

these conditions set forth in these laws and 

policies has been temporarily deferred in

the park because of funding or staffing 

limitations, the National Park Service will 

continue to strive to implement these 

requirements with or without a new 

general management plan. 

The conditions prescribed by laws, 

regulations, and policies most pertinent to 

the planning and management of the park 

are summarized below. 

11
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Natural Resources 

Desired Condition Source 

Vegetation 

The preservation of the natural objects...the protection 

of the timber, and ...the preservation of all kinds of 

game and fish. 

The preservation of the park’s unique ecological and 

cultural heritage

Crater Lake National Park enabling legislation 

NPS-managed natural systems, and the human 

influences upon them, will be monitored to detect any 

significant changes. Action will be taken in the case of 

such changes, based on the type and extent of change. 

NPS Management Policies 

Maintain all the components and processes of naturally 

evolving park ecosystems.

The National Park Service will re-establish natural 

functions and processes in human-disturbed natural 

systems in parks unless otherwise directed by 

Congress. 

The Park Service will, within park boundaries, identify, 

conserve, and attempt to recover all federally listed 

threatened, endangered, or special-concern species 

and their essential habitats. As necessary, the Service 

will control visitor access to and use of essential 

habitats, and may close such areas to entry for other 

than official purposes. Active management programs 

(such as monitoring, surveying populations,

restorations, exotic species control) will be conducted 

as necessary to perpetuate, to the extent possible, the 

natural distribution and abundance of threatened or 

endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which 

they depend.

Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531, et seq.); 

NPS Management Policies 

The Park Service will identify all state and locally listed

threatened, endangered, rare, declining, sensitive, or 

special concern species and their essential habitats that 

are native to and present in the parks. These species 

and their essential habitats will be considered in NPS 

planning and management activities. 

NPS Management Policies 

 

Plant and animal species considered to be rare or 

unique to a park will be identified, and their 

distributions within the park will be mapped.

Management of populations of exotic plant and animal 

species, up to and including eradication, will be 

undertaken whenever such species threaten park 

resources or public health and wherever control is 

prudent and feasible. 

Revegetation efforts will use seeds, cuttings, or 

transplants representing species and gene pools native

to the ecological portion of the park in which the 

restoration project is occurring.

Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems

Surface and ground waters are restored or enhanced; 

water quality meets as a minimum the standard for 

contact recreation.

Clean Water Act; Executive order 11514; NPS

Management Policies

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are

maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface 

and ground waters 

Clean Water Act; Executive Order 12088; NPS

Management Policies

12
Planning Direction and Guidance 

Desired Condition Source 

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Executive order 11988; Rivers and Harbors Act; 

Clean Water Act; NPS Management Policies; 

Director’s Order 77-1

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are 

preserved and enhanced.

Executive order 11990; Rivers and Harbors Act; 

Clean Water Act; NPS Management Policies; 

Director’s Order 77-2 

Protection of stream features will primarily be 

accomplished by avoiding impacts to watershed and 

riparian vegetation, and by allowing natural fluvial 

processes to proceed unimpeded.

NPS Management Policies 

Wildlife 

Federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered 

species and their habitat are sustained. 

Endangered Species Act; NPS Management 

Policies 

Populations of native plant and animal species function 

in as natural condition as possible except where special 

management considerations are warranted. 

Native species populations that have been severally 

reduced or extirpated from the park are restored 

where feasible and sustainable.

Management of populations of exotic plant and animal 

species, up to and including eradication, will be 

undertaken whenever such species threaten park 

resources or public health and when control is prudent

and feasible.

NPS Management Policies 

Air Resources, Soundscapes, and Lightscapes

Air quality in the parks meets national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for specified pollutants. 

Park activities do not contribute to deterioration in air 

quality. 

Clean Air Act; NPS Management Policies

The National Park Service will preserve the natural 

ambient soundscapes of parks, which exist in the 

absence of human-caused sound. 

NPS Management Policies 

The Park Service will protect natural darkness and 

other components of the natural lightscape in parks. 

NPS Management Policies

Geological, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

Management of significant thermal features, including 

assessment, monitoring, data collection and protection 

from significant adverse effects due to geothermal 

development.

Geothermal Steam Act Amendment of 1988

Natural geologic processes proceed unimpeded. 

Paleontological resources, including both organic and 

mineralized remains in body or trace form, will be 

protected, preserved, and managed for public

education , interpretation, and scientific research. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as 

natural condition as possible, except where special 

management considerations are allowable under 

policy. 

The Park Service will actively seek to understand and 

preserve the soil resources of parks, and to prevent, to 

the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical 

removal, or contamination of the soil, or its 

contamination of other resources.

NPS Management Policies 

Research, Resource Inventory and Monitoring

13
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Desired Condition Source 

 Management of the resources will be enhanced by the 

availability and utilization of a broad program of the 

highest quality science and research. The Park Service 

will undertake a program of inventory and monitoring 

to provide baseline and long-term trends in the 

condition of resources. The Park Service will

encourage publication and dissemination of 

information derived from studies. 

National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998, 

Title II National Park System Resource 

Inventory and Management 

Wilderness 

 The Park Service seeks to retain wilderness potential in 

areas proposed as wilderness until enacted or 

rejected. 

The administration of wilderness meets the standards 

within the Wilderness Act: 

Protection of these areas in an unimpaired state for 

future use and enjoyment as wilderness 

Preservation of the wilderness character of these 

areas 

NPS Management Policies ; Wilderness Act of 1964; 

Director’s Order #41 

Wilderness is protected and managed so as to preserve 

its natural conditions and which 

• generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable. 

• has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

Wilderness Act of 1964; Director’s Order #41

Fire Management 

Each park is required to have a fire management plan / 

environmental assessment that addresses wildland and 

prescribed fires. 

Wildland fires are naturally ignited and part of natural 

systems that are being sustained by parks. 

Prescribed fires are human ignited to achieve resource 

management or fuel treatment objectives. 

Fire suppression within proposed wilderness will be 

consistent with the “minimum requirement” concept. 

(minimum tool or administrative practice to 

successfully and safely accomplish the objective with 

the least adverse impact on wilderness character or 

values) 

NPS Management Policies; Director’s Order #18

14
Planning Direction and Guidance 

Cultural Resources

Desired Condition Source 

Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, 

and their significance is determined and 

documented.

National Historic Preservation Act 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed 

condition unless it is determined through formal 

processes that disturbance or natural deterioration 

is unavoidable. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

In cases where disturbance or deterioration is

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented 

and salvaged.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archeology and Historic Preservation (1992) 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among 

the National Park Service, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and national Council of State 

Historic Preservation Officers (1995) 

NPS Management Policies

Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes

Historic structures and cultural landscapes are 

inventoried and their significance and integrity are 

evaluated under national register criteria.

National Historic Preservation Act 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

The qualities of historic structures and cultural 

landscapes that contribute to their actual listing or 

their eligibility for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places are protected in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, unless it is 

determined through a formal process that

disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archeology and Historic Preservation (1992) 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among 

the National Park Service, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and national Council of State 

Historic Preservation Officers (1995) 

NPS Management Policies

Objects and Archival Manuscripts Collections

Manage parks to provide for the protection of

historic, prehistoric, and scientific features. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906. 

Manage parks to “maintain historic or prehistoric

sites, buildings, objects, and properties of national 

historical or archaeological significance and... 

establish and maintain museums in connection 

therewith.” 

The Historic Sites Act of 1935.

All museum objects and manuscripts are identified 

and inventoried, and their significance is 

determined and documented.

The qualities that contribute to the significance of 

collections are protected in accordance with 

established standards.

Ensure that objects housed in 

repositories/institutions outside the park are 

preserved, protected, and documented according to 

NPS standards and guidelines. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

NPS Management Policies 

NPS Museum Handbook 

Director’s Order #24

Ethnographic Resources 

Manage parks to provide for the protection of

historic, prehistoric and scientific features. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 

15
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Desired Condition Source 

Continue to recognize the past and present existence 

of peoples in the region and the traces of their use 

as an important part of the cultural environment to 

be preserved and interpreted.

Consult with associated American Indian tribes to 

develop and accomplish the programs of Crater 

Lake National Park in a way that respects the 

beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the 

American Indians who have ancestral ties to park 

lands. 

Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of

traditional use areas in a manner that is consistent 

with park purposes and avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of these sites and resources. 

American Indians linked by ties of kinship or culture 

to ethnically identifiable human remains would be 

consulted when remains may be disturbed or are 

encountered on park lands.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978 and

as amended in 1994) 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (1990) 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations With Native 

American Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996, Indian

Sacred Sites 

Visitor Management Requirements 

Desired Condition Source 

Visitor Experience and Park Use Requirements 

Visitor and employee safety and health are 

protected.

NPS Management Policies

Visitors understand and appreciate park values and 

resources and have the information necessary to 

adapt to the park environments. Visitors have

opportunities to enjoy the park in ways that leave 

park resources unimpaired for future generations. 

NPS Organic Act 

Crater Lake National Park enabling legislation 

NPS Management Policies

Park recreational uses are promoted and regulated.

Basic visitor needs are met in keeping with park 

purposes.

NPS Organic Act 

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations

NPS Management Policies

New and remodeled buildings, outdoor developed 

areas, and features are accessible to all visitors, 

including those with disabilities, in compliance with 

federal standards. However, it may not be possible 

to make all sites or historic buildings accessible 

because the required changes would affect the 

integrity of the feature or the historic structure. In 

these cases interpretive brochures or programs 

could help convey an experience to visitors.

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Architectural Barriers Act 

Rehabilitation Act 

NPS Management Policies

Development and Sustainability 

Desired Condition Source 

New and remodeled buildings and facilities reflect 

the NPS commitment to energy and resource 

conservation, as well as durability. 

Executive Order 12873 

Executive Order 12902 

Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 

1993) 

16
Planning Direction and Guidance 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative 

commitments refer to park-specific 

requirements. Those most directly related 

to the General Management Plan or that 

may potentially affect it are listed below. 

Proposed Wilderness 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 “established a 

National Wilderness Preservation System 

to be composed of federally owned areas 

designated by Congress as ‘wilderness 

areas,’ and these 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.” The 1974 National Park 

Service wilderness proposal recommended wilderness designation for 

approximately 122,400 acres of lands 

within the park. This recommendation 

was transmitted to Congress by the 

president. 

The legislative process has not been 

completed for the Crater Lake National

Park Wilderness Designation proposal. 

However, it is the policy of the National 

Park Service (2001 NPS Management 

Policies, Chapter 6: Wilderness 

Preservation and Management) to “take 

no action that would diminish the 

wilderness suitability of an area possessing 

wilderness characteristics until the 

legislative process has been completed. 

Until that time, management decisions 

pertaining to lands qualifying as 

wilderness will be made in expectation of 

eventual wilderness designation. This

policy also applies to potential wilderness, 

requiring it to be managed as 

wilderness...” 

Among other mandates are the protection 

of wilderness areas and the preservation of 

their wilderness character. Wilderness 

characteristics are defined in the 

Wilderness Act as: 

 The earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by humans, 

where humans are visitors and do

not remain. 

 The area is undeveloped and 

retains its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent 

improvements or human 

habitation. 

 The area generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint 

of humans’ work substantially 

unnoticeable. 

 The area is protected and managed 

so as to preserve its natural 

conditions. 

 The area offers outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Management 

The federal Endangered Species Act and 

NPS policy provide special protection to 

all federally listed and threatened and 

endangered species. Species appearing on 

state lists of endangered, threatened, and 

special concern are also considered in

planning and management activities. The 

park supports and provides habitat for a 

number of federal or state listed species. 

The Park Service would continue to 

prepare and periodically update specific 

management plans and programs (e.g., fire 

management plan; bull trout restoration 

program; threatened and endangered

species inventory, monitoring, and 

research programs). These initiatives are 

directed by servicewide laws and policies, 

17
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

and the General Management Plan will not

explore alternatives to these plans and 

programs. Nothing in this General 

Management Plan would conflict with 

these initiatives. 

Although these plans and programs would 

benefit threatened and endangered species 

and their habitat within the park, it should 

be noted that some adverse effects, 

including “taking” of individuals, such as 

loss of some individual fish during bull 

trout restoration operations, have and 

would likely continue to occur. The Park 

Service would continue to consult the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service as these plans 

and programs are prepared and updated to 

ensure the conservation of these species. 

While these beneficial and adverse effects 

would not result from the implementation 

of any of the General Management Plan

alternatives, they are considered in the 

cumulative impacts analysis (see 

“Environmental Consequences, 

Cumulative Impacts” section). 

Research and Monitoring 

The Crater Lake Long-Term Limnological 

Monitoring Program (LTLMP) began with 

a congressionally mandated (Public Law 

97-250) 10-year study (1982 - 1992). The 

10-year program was established to 

determine whether the lake was 

undergoing what appeared to be a longterm decline in water clarity. The National 

Park Service did not have an adequate 

limnological data base to interpret the 

apparent changes in clarity for managing 

this nationally and internationally 

treasured resource. During the 10-year 

program scientists and park managers 

built a high quality limnology program. 

The program documented that the lake 

clarity was within normal inter-annual 

variation, it also provided valuable data 

and recommendations on a number of 

other management issues. 

In 1994 the National Park Service received 

Congressional funding to continue a longterm monitoring program as part of park 

base operations. The purpose of the longterm program is to develop a limnological 

database to evaluate long-term trends; to

develop an understanding of the 

interrelationships among ecosystem

components to evaluate change, and; to 

contribute to the preservation and 

management of Crater Lake, and other 

international aquatic resources through 

publication of peer reviewed program 

results. 

Title II – National Park System Resources 

Inventory and Management of the 

National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

of 1998 had the following purposes: 

• More effectively achieve the 

mission of the National Park 

Service 

• Enhance management and 

protection of park resources by 

providing clear authority and 

direction for scientific study 

• Ensure appropriate documentation 

of resource conditions 

• Encourage use of the national park 

system for the benefit of park 

management as well as broader 

scientific value 

• Encourage the publication and 

dissemination of information 

derived from studies in the 

national park system 

•

The act directs that management of park 

units is enhanced by the highest quality 

science and information. It further 

establishes a program of inventory and 

monitoring resources to establish baseline

information and provide information on 

18
Planning Direction and Guidance 

the long-term trends in the conditions of

national park resources. 

Klamath Basin General Stream

Adjudication 

The State of Oregon, Klamath Basin 

General Stream Adjudication, is currently 

active and includes Crater Lake National 

Park. The adjudication is a legal process 

that will determine the quantities and 

relative priorities associated with the 

park’s use of water from Crater Lake and 

the streams flowing within the park. The 

United States of America, National Park 

Service, has filed twenty-one federal 

reserved water rights claims (Claim Nos. 

591 – 611) on behalf of Crater Lake 

National Park for instream, lake level, and 

out-of-stream uses. On August 2, 2001, the 

hearing officer ordered Claim Nos. 591 – 

601, for instream and lake level uses, 

referred back to the adjudicator for final 

disposition. On February 28, 2002, the 

hearing officer signed a Final Proposed 

Order and recommended that the 

Adjudicator enter a Final Order for Claim 

Nos. 602 – 611, for out-of-stream uses. 

Final adjudication of the park’s federal 

reserved water rights claims will occur 

when the claims of the other federal

agencies included in the adjudication are 

settled. Acquisition of the federal reserved 

water rights would not eliminate the risk 

of Crater Lake’s administrative uses being 

called out by downstream senior water 

rights holders during dry years. The 

National Park Service is negotiating with 

local water users for senior water rights 

that would augment the park’s federal 

reserved water rights during dry years. 

Visitor Services Plan

Klamath Falls, Medford, and Roseburg are 

the gateways to Crater Lake National Park 

providing the primary business, 

transportation, and service centers in their 

respective counties. Klamath Falls is the 

closest of these, located 50 miles south of

the park. A number of smaller 

unincorporated communities — Beaver 

Marsh, Diamond Lake, Fort Klamath, 

Prospect and Union Creek — are much 

closer to the park. These provide some 

visitor services, not all of which are yearround. 

Overall guidance for actions at the major 

developed areas is provided as part of the 

1999 Crater Lake National Park Visitor 

Services Plan. The plan is a blend of 

actions intended to improve the protection of park resources while providing 

enjoyable visitor experiences. The Visitor

Services Plan analyzed the appropriate 

level and location of interpretive and

visitor services in the park, considering 

both National Park Service and 

commercial services. It stated that NPS 

interpretive services would be 

emphasized. Commercial services, 

considered to be necessary and 

appropriate due to the park’s distance

from sizable communities, would be 

modified to better serve visitors. 

The Visitor Services Plan identifies the 

appropriate and necessary levels and kinds 

of NPS and concession services desired at 

Rim Village as well as the other major 

developed areas within the park. This

General Management Plan builds on the 

previous planning effort. Elements of the

Visitor Services Plan include the following: 

Rim Village

• Rehabilitate historic cafeteria building

• Relocate parking and road to area 

behind cafeteria building

• Convert existing parking lot to 

pedestrian open space 

19
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

 20

• Construct new visitor contact station 

for year-round information and 

interpretation 

• Remove Rim Village dormitory 

Mazama Village 

• Retain Mazama Village Motor Inn 

• Construct new restaurant and expand 

parking lot 

• Remove public laundries 

• Increase space for sale of gift and 

sundry items and camping supplies 

• Retain gasoline sales 

• Retain limited food service 

• Retain public showers 

• Retain amphitheater 

• Develop two group campsites 

• Construct concession maintenance 

facility 

Munson Valley 

• Retain park administration, 

maintenance and housing facilities

• Provide interpretive services

• Provide backup of winter visitor 

contact station and post office

Cleetwood Cove 

• Rehabilitate Trail and add wayside 

exhibits

• Replace dock and improve bulkhead 

• Construct seasonal shade structure

• Construct storage structure for 

supplies and equipment

• Retain vault toilets

• Define trail entry and crosswalk 
PLANNING ISSUES

INTRODUCTION 

The general public, NPS staff, and other 

agencies and organizations identified

issues and concerns during scoping for 

this general management plan (see 

“Scoping Issues” in the “Purpose, Need, 

and Scoping” section). Resource 

protection, visitor expectations, tolerance 

for greater crowding, the amount of park 

resources devoted to snowplowing, and 

the current limitations on staff and budget 

to provide interpretive presentations and 

outreach activities were the starting point 

of issues for this General Management 

Plan. Comments received during scoping 

demonstrated that snowmobile use, 

boundary enlargement, impacts on 

surrounding communities and the region, 

and use were important to visitors, 

organization, and other agencies. 

The general management plan provides a 

framework or strategy for addressing the

issues within the context of Crater 

National Park’s mission, purpose, and 

significance goals; it also proposes 

resource conditions for summer and 

winter use on the land within the park

boundary and desired visitor experiences. 

ISSUES 

A variety of issues that the National Park 

Service currently faces were identified. 

The issues were identified and refined

through discussions with park staff, 

interested agencies and organizations, and 

the general public. 

Some of the issues, such as modifying fees, 

are outside the scope of this plan. Some 

concerns identified during the planning 

process are already prescribed by law, 

regulation, or policy and were addressed 

in the preceding section, “Servicewide 

Laws and Policies.” The key issues

addressed in this plan are identified below

along with the underlying questions and 

concerns identified during scoping. 

Resource Protection: To what extent 

can visitor uses and visitor, administrative, and support facilities be provided 

while protecting natural and cultural 

resources?

 Should historic structures in the park

be adapted for administrative use or 

educational or interpretive purposes? 

 Is the park adequately addressing the 

potential resource protection 

concerns associated with visitor use 

(e.g., disturbance to wildlife;

trampling of soils and vegetation; the 

effects of vehicle emissions on air and 

water quality), including winter use 

within the park? 

 To what extent can visitor 

opportunities be provided without 

adverse impacts to resources? 

Interpretation, Education, and Recreation: What is the appropriate balance 

between interpretation, education, and

recreation within the park? What types 

of access are needed to support the 

appropriate mix of visitor experiences? 

 Should the park expand its 

educational program and educational 

outreach? In what ways should this be

done? 

 Is the park providing an adequate 

range of visitor information services? 

 Is the park currently providing an 

appropriate range of visitor 

experiences? Should the park 

consider increased bicycle, hiking, 

camping, and pedestrian access? 

Should any of these activities be 

decreased? 

21
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

 Should alternative means of 

transportation be considered for 

visitor access at Crater Lake? If so, 

what type? Should parts of Rim Drive 

be closed to vehicular access to 

improve bicycle and pedestrian 

access? 

 What types of winter access and use 

should be accommodated within the 

park? Should winter lake-viewing be

limited? Expanded? 

Partnerships: To what extent should the 

park partner with and support other 

agencies, organizations, and researchers 

to further common needs and fulfill the

NPS mission?

 The clear waters of Crater Lake and 

the pristine surrounding forest areas 

in the park offer unique opportunities 

for scientific research and education. 

As a part of its mission, the park 

promotes and encourages research. 

Should the park emphasize and 

encourage research activities and 

partnerships that facilitate research 

and learning? 

 Staff and budget levels limit onsite 

interpretive presentations and 

outreach activities. Should the park 

develop and expand its partnerships

with other agencies or commercial 

operators to enhance orientation and 

education opportunities? 

Park Operations: To what extent should 

park facilities and operations be maintained, expanded, or relocated to provide for park operational needs and 

efficiencies?

 Existing facilities have inadequate 

space for administrative and support

functions. They lack adequate 

employee workspace and collections 

storage. Should these functions remain 

in the park or be relocated outside the 

park? 

 A substantial portion of park resources 

is devoted to plowing the road to the 

Rim Village each winter. Are there 

other ways to accommodate winter

lake-viewing?

 

22
IMPACTS TOPICS – RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE 

 IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

IMPACTS TOPICS

Impact topics allow comparison of the 

environmental consequences of

implementing each alternative. These 

impact topics were identified based on

federal laws and other legal requirements, 

NPS subject-matter expertise and 

knowledge of limited or easily impacted 

resources, and concerns expressed by

other agencies or members of the public 

during scoping. A brief rationale for the 

selection of each impact topic is given 

below, as well as the rationale for 

dismissing specific topics from further 

consideration. 

To focus the environmental impact 

analysis, and to ensure that the alternatives 

were evaluated against relevant topics, the 

planning team selected the following 

specific impact topics for further analysis 

and eliminated others from evaluation. 

These topics are described in the 

subsequent “Affected Environment”

section and analyzed in the 

“Environmental Consequences” section. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource impact topics were 

selected on the basis of major values 

identified in the park’s enabling legislation, 

values identified in the scoping process, 

and applicable laws and executive orders 

pertaining to cultural resources (e.g., the 

1966 National Historic Preservation Act 

and the National Environmental Policy 

Act). The topics are archeological 

resources, historic buildings/structures, 

cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, and museum collections. 

Natural Resources 

Natural resource impact topics were 

selected for analysis based on the major 

values identified in the park’s enabling 

legislation, values or issues identified in 

the planning process, NPS knowledge of 

limited or easily impacted resources, as 

well as applicable laws and regulations 

(e.g., Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, and NPS Management Policies 

2001). The topics are biotic communities 

(includes the interrelated components of 

vegetation, wildlife and their habitat, and 

soils), threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species (selected species), water 

resources, and air quality. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

The planning team identified visitor 

experience as an important issue that

could be appreciably affected under the 

alternatives. The Organic Act and NPS

Management Policies 2001 both direct the 

Park Service to provide enjoyment 

opportunities for visitors that are uniquely 

suited and appropriate to the superlative 

resources found within the park. The 

different aspects of visitation and 

enjoyment that are evaluated include 

orientation, interpretation, education, 

soundscapes, scenic quality, and access 

and circulation 

Park and Concession Operation 

 Actions proposed in the alternatives could 

adversely or beneficially affect both park 

and concession operations. For example, 

eliminating winter snow plowing to the 

rim and implementation of a snowcoach 

23
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

operation would affect operations for both 

the park and concessioner. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

The planning team selected the 

socioeconomic environment as an impact 

topic because the park plays an important 

role in recreation in the region, which in 

turn contributes to the economy of the 

surrounding communities. Analyzing the 

regional economic impacts provides the 

context for evaluating the possible impacts 

the alternatives may have on the 

surrounding area. 

IMPACT TOPICS ELIMINATED 

FROM FURTHER EVALUATION 

The following topics were dismissed from 

further analysis because the alternatives 

being considered would have no

discernable effect on the resource or topic, 

or the resource does not occur in the park. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

 Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain 

Management) and 11990 (Protection of 

Wetlands) require an examination of 

impacts to floodplains and wetlands, of 

potential risk involved in placing facilities 

within floodplains, and protecting 

wetlands. The 2001 NPS Management 

Policies , DO 77-1 (Wetland Protection), 

DO 77-2 (Floodplain Management), and 

DO-12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making) provide direction for 

development proposed in floodplains and 

wetlands. It is NPS policy to avoid 

affecting floodplains and wetlands and to 

minimize impacts when they are 

unavoidable. Permanent streams in the 

park generally have steep-sided channels, 

and associated floodplains and riparian 

areas are narrow. The term wetlands 

include wet environments such as 

marshes, swamps, and bogs. They may be 

covered in shallow water most of the year, 

or be wet only seasonally. Plants and 

animals found in these areas are uniquely 

adapted to wet conditions. Crater Lake 

National Park wetlands include Sphagnum 

Bog, Thousand Springs, Boundary Springs, 

seeps, and creeks. 

Facilities proposed for development under 

the alternatives would be sited to avoid 

floodplains and wetlands. Based on the 

prevalence of upland sites both within the 

park and nearby communities, it is 

expected that wetlands and floodplains 

would be avoided. Mitigation measures 

would be required as part of construction 

to minimize any potential indirect effects. 

For example, erosion control measures

would be used to minimize siltation or 

sedimentation of nearby waters or

wetlands from construction site runoff. 

Before initiating any ground-disturbing 

projects, further investigation would be 

conducted to ensure that these resources 

would not be appreciably affected. 

Floodplains and wetlands will be 

addressed at the project level to ensure 

that projects are consistent with NPS

policy and EO 11988 and EO 11990, and 

any potential impacts would be negligible. 

Ecologically Critical Areas, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, or Other Unique Natural 

Resources 

Four distinct natural areas within the 

boundaries of Crater Lake National Park 

have been designated as research natural 

areas: Sphagnum Bog, Llao Rock, Pumice 

Desert, and Desert Creek. These four

areas illustrate unique ecosystems and 

represent outstanding habitats of the 

Oregon Cascades Province, as defined in 

the Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (1981). 

 

24
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at State in the Planning Process 

25

Several other areas within the park contain 

important ecological communities. 

Boundary Springs is in the northwest 

corner of the park and 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 (Applegate 

1939). Thousand Springs is approximately 

1 mile south of the west entrance (OR 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. 

These research natural areas and 

important ecological communities would 

continue to be preserved and managed to 

minimize human disturbance under all of 

the alternatives. Negligible disturbance to 

these areas has occurred or is expected to 

occur under any of the alternatives. 

No actions proposed in the alternatives 

would affect the eligibility or designation 

of a wild and scenic river. 

Geologic Resources

Crater Lake National Park lies within a 

north-south chain of large volcanic cones 

built during the last few hundred thousand 

years along the crest of the Cascade Range 

(Schaffer 1983). The current landscape 

was formed after the eruption and collapse 

of Mt. Mazama. The park landscape 

displays a large range of volcanic rocks 

and remnant glacial material as well as a 

variety of geologic features. The steepwalled cliffs of the caldera left by the 

eruption of Mt. Mazama display the 

geologic layering of lava flows over time. 

Wizard Island is an example of a cinder 

cone and lava flows that erupted soon 

after the one which formed the caldera. 

Several more post caldera volcanoes are 

hidden by the lake. Studies of the lake 

bottom have shown the presence of 

hydrothermal activity on the lake floor. 

The Sand Creek/Pinnacles area in the 

southeast corner of the park is a site of 

unique geological importance. The 

canyon formed by Sand Creek has sloping 

walls of scoria and pumice. Along the 

walls are numerous pinnacle formations, 

many 50 feet or taller. 

No actions proposed in the alternatives 

would affect these geologic resources. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species (Select Species) 

There are a number of species that are 

considered threatened or endangered in 

Oregon, according to lists maintained by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, and the 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

 26

Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

(ONHP) that inhabit, or for which 

potential habitat exists in the park. The 

alternatives would have no effect on some 

of these species as discussed below. 

Surveys would be conducted and potential 

new development or trails proposed under 

any of the alternatives would be sited to 

avoid disturbing sensitive species. 

Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and 

shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) 

are federal and state endangered species. 

Both species are primarily lake residents 

that spawn in rivers, streams, or springs 

associated with lake habitats. Wood River, 

which flows south of the park in the upper 

Klamath Lake watershed, provides spawning habitat for these species. Neither 

species is known to inhabit the park at 

present, and it is not known if they have 

historically inhabited the park. The alternatives would have negligible effects on 

water use from Annie Spring, which joins 

with the Wood River south of the park. 

There would be no measurable effect on 

Wood River flows; and, therefore, may 

affect, but would not be likely to adversely 

affect spawning habitat for these species 

would occur. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) is a federal candidate and 

listed by ONHP under species threatened 

or endangered or possibly extirpated from 

Oregon but secure elsewhere. Populations 

of this species have declined in portions of 

their range in the United States, particularly west of the Continental Divide. 

Western yellow-billed cuckoos appear to 

require large blocks of riparian habitat for 

nesting. Loss and degradation of western 

riparian habitats appears to be a primary 

factor in their decline. A survey in eastern 

Oregon and Klamath County located no 

birds but identified potential breeding 

habitat along the lower Owyhee 

 

River (Littlefield 1988). This species is not 

known to inhabit the park, nor would the 

alternatives adversely affect large blocks of 

riparian habitat. No effect on this species 

is anticipated under any of the alternatives. 

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is a 

federal candidate and listed by ONHP 

under species threatened or endangered 

throughout their range. The tailed frog 

(Ascaphcs truei) and Cascade frog (Rana 

cascadae) are both federal species of 

concern and listed by the state under 

species threatened or endangered or 

possibly extirpated from Oregon but 

secure elsewhere. Spotted frogs are highly 

aquatic and live in or near permanent 

bodies of water, including lakes, ponds, 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at State in the Planning Process 

slow streams and marshes. Tailed frogs are 

stream dwellers that do not inhabit ponds 

or lakes. The Cascade frog is found in

small pools adjacent to streams flowing 

through subalpine meadows. They can 

also be found in sphagnum bogs and fens, 

seasonally-flooded, forested swamps, 

small lakes, ponds, and marshy areas 

adjacent to streams. These species are not 

known to inhabit the park, nor are the 

alternatives expected to affect potentially 

suitable habitat. 

Crater Lake newt (Taricha granulosa ssp. 

mazamae) is listed by ONHP under species threatened or endangered throughout 

their range. This species is endemic to

Crater Lake and is found in the shoreline 

ecosystem of the lake. None of the actions 

within the alternatives would affect areas 

of known populations. The Park Service 

would continue to take management 

actions as necessary to avoid impacts from 

continuing visitor and research activities 

that occur within the caldera. 

Mt. Mazama collomia, (Collomia mazama)

is listed by the ONHP under taxa that are 

endangered or threatened throughout

their range or which are presumed extinct. 

This species inhabits high elevation (4,800' 

-6,300') forest-meadow ecotones in the 

red fir/mountain hemlock and lodgepole 

pine forest zones and occasionally along 

riparian areas. Within the park it is found 

north of Sphagnum Bog, along Pacific 

Crest Trail and Dutton Creek, and in scattered open woods and meadows of the 

lodgepole pine and true fir forest zones 

along the west side of park. None of the 

actions under the alternatives would affect 

areas of known populations within the 

park. The Park Service would continue to 

take management actions as necessary to 

avoid impacts by backcountry visitors. 

Crawford's sedge (Carex crafordii), 

abrupt-beaked sedge (Carex abrupta), and 

lesser bladderwort (Utricularia minor) are 

listed by the ONHP under species that are 

threatened, endangered, or possibly 

extirpated from Oregon, but are stable or 

more common elsewhere. These species 

occur within the park and are associated 

with wetlands and/or springs. The alternatives would not affect habitat where these 

species are found. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

In 1980 the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) directed that federal 

agencies assess the effects of their actions 

on farmland soils classified as prime or 

unique by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Prime or unique farmland is 

defined as soil that particularly produces 

general crops such as common foods, 

forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland 

produces specialty crops such as fruits, 

vegetables, and nuts. There are no prime 

or unique farmlands associated within the 

park, and this impact topic was dismissed 

from further analysis. 

Lightscape

NPS Management Policies (2001) state that 

the National Park Service will preserve, to

the greatest extent possible, the natural 

lightscapes of parks, including natural 

darkness. The agency strives to minimize 

the intrusion of artificial light into the 

night scene by limiting the use of artificial 

outdoor lighting to basic safety requirements, shielding the lights when possible,

and using minimal impact lighting techniques. The actions proposed in the 

alternatives could result in new facilities, 

some of which could necessitate some 

night-time lighting. However, the effects 

of this lighting would be localized and 

minimized by the mitigation techniques 

described above. Only a small area would 

27
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

 28

 

Natural or Depletable Resource 

Requirements and Conservation 

Potential 

None of the alternatives being considered 

would result in the extraction of resources 

from the park. Under all of the alternatives 

ecological principles would be applied to 

ensure that the park’s natural resources 

were maintained and not impaired. 

Energy Requirements and Conservation 

Potential 

The National Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever possible in 

all decisions regarding national park 

operations, facilities management, and 

development in Crater Lake National 

Park. Whenever possible, the Park Service 

would use energy conservation 

technologies and renewable energy 

sources. Consequently, the alternatives 

would negligibly affect energy 

consumption compared to current 

conditions. 

Land Use 

There are no anticipated conflicts with 

local land use planning. The proposed 

management zones and creation of 

additional recreation and visitor service 

opportunities in the park as proposed 

under certain alternatives would not be 

inconsistent with local land use plans. 

Potential development of NPS facilities in 

local communities outside the park would 

conform with any local land use plans such 

as the Klamath County Comprehensive 

Plan. None of the alternatives would be 

expected to induce changes in land use 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at State in the Planning Process 

outside the park, and there are no private 

in holdings within the park. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,” requires all federal agencies 

to incorporate environmental justice into 

their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of

their programs and policies on minorities 

and low-income populations and communities. No alternative would have 

health or environmental effects on 

minorities (including American Indian 

tribes) or low-income populations or

communities as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental 

Justice Guidance (1998). Therefore, this 

impact topic has been dismissed as an 

impact topic in this document. 

Indian Trust Resources

The lands comprising Crater Lake 

National Park are not held in trust by the 

secretary of the interior for the benefit of

Indians due to their status. Therefore, this

topic was dismissed. 

Wilderness Resources and Values

The alternatives place all lands within the 

1974 wilderness proposal within the 

backcountry zone and would allow only 

uses and development compatible with the 

protection of wilderness characteristics 

and values. All new development proposed under any of the alternatives would 

occur within the exclusions, and proposed 

wilderness lands would be avoided during 

construction activities. Backcountry 

opportunities for visitors to experience 

solitude and unconfined recreation in the 

backcountry would remain unchanged. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation, 

primarily hiking and backpacking, in the 

wilderness would remain. In most 

wilderness areas of the park, visitors

would continue to find what they perceive 

as pristine natural conditions. For 

example, visitors would continue to find a 

landscape generally untrammeled by

people with few signs of disturbance or 

alteration. Relatively few visitors use the 

backcountry in the park, and although this 

number is expected to increase, negligible 

impacts to backcountry visitor experiences 

are anticipated under alternative 1 (noaction alternative). 

29
30
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
 32
33

THE ALTERNATIVES

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

four alternatives, including the National 

Park Service’s preferred alternative, for 

future management of Crater Lake 

National Park. Alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative, describes the continuation of 

current management and trends and 

serves as a basis for comparing the other 

alternatives. Alternative 2 is the National 

Park Service’s preferred alternative. It 

would provide additional opportunities 

while providing for the research and 

protection of resources. Alternative 3 

would allow visitors to experience the 

entire range of natural and cultural 

resources significant and unique to the 

park through recreational opportunities 

and education. Alternative 4 would have a 

greater emphasis on resource preservation 

and restoration than the other alternatives. 

The preferred alternative was developed 

following an initial assessment of the 

impacts of the preliminary alternatives. An 

evaluation process, called “Choosing by 

Advantages (CBA),” was then used to 

evaluate and compare the alternatives and 

to develop a preliminary preferred 

alternative. As part of the CBA process, 

the planning team looked at comparative 

costs of the alternatives (see appendix C 

for these comparative costs). 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

All alternatives to be considered in the 

General Management Plan must be consistent with and contribute to sideboards 

within which all management actions must 

fall. These sideboards are the purpose and 

significance statements, along with the 

mission goal. All alternatives must also be 

within NPS legal mandates and park 

policies. 

At Crater Lake National Park the lake and 

the surrounding environment led to the 

initial creation of the park. Research and 

information since the legislation creating 

the park have highlighted the unique and 

scientific aspects of the lake. In addition to 

the beauty of its large size, blue color, and 

mountain setting, the lake holds the world 

record for clarity among lakes and has 

been the object of scientific study for more 

than a century due to its pristine waters, 

associated geothermal activities, and 

unusual aquatic organisms. The ongoing 

Crater Lake Long-Term Limnological 

Program has indicated that the chemical 

and physical parameters measured in the 

lake are within their expected range of 

variation. 

All alternatives in this General Management Plan would provide for resource 

protection and visitor use. The park would 

manage its ecosystems for the 

sustainability of the resources found in the 

park. Protection, preservation, and 

monitoring of the primary and most 

unique resource in the park, Crater Lake, 

would occur in all alternatives. 

All alternatives in this general management 

plan discuss resource condition, the visitor 

experience, and appropriate activities and 

facilities. Prior to this general management 

plan, the 1999 Crater Lake National Park 

Visitor Services Plan established the basis 

for a new concession contract. This new 

10- year contract went into effect in 2003. 

The concession projects proposed in the 

Visitor Services Plan are consistent with 

the alternatives. Any future commercial 

actions or operations would need to be 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUSING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 34

 within the defined visitor experience, 

level of activity, and facilities as defined in 

the preferred alternative. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

Before the alternatives were developed, 

information on park resources, visitor use, 

and visitor preferences was gathered and 

analyzed. Information about the issues and 

scope of the project was solicited from the 

public, other agencies, special interest 

groups, and park staff through newsletters, 

meetings, and personal contacts. This 

information helped with developing the 

preliminary alternatives. The alternatives 

were further refined based on public 

comments on an alternatives newsletter. 

Each of the alternatives support the park’s 

purpose, significance, and mission; 

address issues; avoid unacceptable 

resource impacts; and respond to differing 

public desires and concerns. 

Using the information described above, 

the planning team developed eight management zones for guiding preservation, 

use, understanding, and development of 

Crater Lake National Park and its 

resources. These zones form the basis of 

the alternatives and reflect the range of 

ideas proposed by the Park Service and 

public. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

An important tool in planning and management is the establishment of management zones for various areas in the park. 

These zones identify how different areas 

could be managed to achieve a variety of 

resource conditions and visitor experiences. Each zone specifies a particular 

combination of resource, social, and management conditions (see the following 

chart). Under the action alternatives, the 

National Park Service would take different 

actions in different zones concerning uses 

and facilities. 

Summer and winter scenarios and maps 

follow each alternative description 

because the park landscape changes so 

dramatically from winter to summer. 

These scenarios help distinguish when 

visitor activities and access are possible 

and allowed.
35

Table 1: Management Zones 

ZONE RESOURCE CONDITION OR 

CHARACTER 

VISTOR EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE 

FACILITIES 

BACKCOUNTRY 

Biological diversity and ecological integrity • Managed for wilderness character 

and values 

• Moderate level of management for 

resource protection and visitor safety 

• Minimal evidence of modern 

civilization 

• Subtle onsite controls and 

restrictions 

• Resource modifications would 

harmonize with the natural environment. 

Tolerance for resource degradation in this zone would be very low 

Immersed in nature, away from comforts and conveniences 

• Opportunities for solitude • Few other visitors • High level of independence, challenge, 

adventure and application of outdoor skills 

• Longer time commitment • Low tolerance for noise and visual 

intrusions 

• Generally requires higher level of 

physical exertion 

Minimal 

• Primitive trail• Small designa• Small facilitie• No motorized 

management determined n

• If any, facilitie

sensitive resou

NATURAL HERITAGE ZONES 

FRONT 

COUNTRY 

Transition between developed areas and those managed for natural values • Managed predominately for natural 

values 

• Subtle site modifications to 

accommodate use that harmonizes with natural environment 

• Moderate level of management for 

resource protection 

Tolerance for resource degradation would be low to moderate

In contact with nature, close to modern conveniences

• Common to encounter other visitors • Some physical exertion required • Short to moderate time commitment • Moderate tolerance for noise and visual 

intrusions 

Support facilities

• Trails, possibl• Facilities for v

convenience — trash cans, besignage or dri

• Bicycling and 

recreation 
 36

ZONE RESOURCE CONDITION OR 

CHARACTER 

VISTOR EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE 

FACILITIES 

LAKE AND 

CALDERA 

Pristine 

• Highest level of resource protection • Low levels of management for 

access, resource protection and visitor safety would be appropriate in these areas 

• Any resource modifications would 

be minimal and would harmonize with the natural environment 

Fully immersed in nature in a unique environment 

• Access would require a moderate to 

high level of challenge 

• Visitors would access the resource as 

part of a guided boat tour 

• Intimacy with resources, learning, and 

access to a large portion of the lake would be key elements of this experience 

• Probability of encountering other boats 

would be low, and there would be some opportunities for individual solitude 

Minimal facilitieoperations, resea

• Boat touring w

predominant 

• Swimming, fis

permitted. Anrequire park a

• Comfort stati

storage, and a

• Hiking would 

area

RESEARCH 

NATURAL 

Protection for unique habitats and extraordinary ecological values• Managed to allow natural processes 

to occur without disturbance or impacts from humans 

• Tolerance for resource degradation 

in this zone would be very low 

Resource Oriented 

• Visitors may or may not be allowed, 

depending on specific resource goals. 

• If allowed, visitation would be 

education-oriented and an NPS guide could be required 

Minimal and profacilities requireobjectives 

• Research, obs

activities whiczone's specific 
37

ZONE RESOURCE CONDITION OR 

CHARACTER 

VISTOR EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE 

FACILITIES 

CULTURAL HERITAGE ZONE 

Maintaining and protecting cultural resources and providing for quality visitor experiences 

• Evidence of management activity 

and resource preservation could be visible to visitors. 

• Setting would be predominantly 

historic 

• National register-listed (or eligible) 

properties would be managed to preserve their documented values. 

• Historic scene and the landscape 

would be managed to maximize their integrity and to support visitor use 

• Some minor aspects of the natural 

and cultural landscape could be modified to protect resources and accommodate use 

Immersed in a built environment 

• Rich in architectural and cultural 

history 

• Interpretive and educational services 

and media would be greatest 

• Opportunities to understand and 

appreciate resources 

• Visitor activities would occur in both 

structured (such as interpretive talks) and unstructured ways (self-guided tours and waysides) 

• Probability of encountering other 

people and NPS staff would be high 

• Opportunities for physical challenge 

would be low 

• Moderate intrusions on the natural 

soundscape by cars and other people 

Learning about thuman history anhistorical signific

• Viewing Crat

photography

• A range of in

and orientatiprovided, wiinterpretatiomostly onsite 

• Facilities cou

restrooms, exrelated to paroperations 

• Trails and pic

TRANSPORTATION ZONE 

Resources modified to accommodate roads and road construction 

• Minimize impacts to resources • Minimize landscape and visual 

impacts 

• Resources modified for essential 

visitor and park operational needs 

Touring the park, enjoying scenic overlooks and interpretive media, and gaining access into other park areas 

• Visitor attractions would be 

convenient and easily accessible 

• Visitors would have little need to exert 

themselves, apply outdoor skills, or spend a long time in the area 

• Probability of encountering other 

visitors and NPS staff would be high 

Substantially dev

• Paved roads, 

associated shparking areas as restroomswayside exhitouring 

• Most faciliti

be accessible 

• Road realign

road corridothe centerlin
 38

ZONE RESOURCE CONDITION OR 

CHARACTER 

VISTOR EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE 

FACILITIES 

DEVELOPED 

ZONE 

Resources modified for visitor and park operational needs 

• Not in designated wilderness nor 

near sensitive resources 

• Visitors and facilities would be 

intensively managed 

• Signs of human activity would be 

fairly obvious 

Convenient and accessible 

• Opportunities for adventure would be 

relatively unimportant 

• Promotes social experiences • Probability of encountering other 

visitors or NPS staff would be high 

Visitor and admi

• Visitor cente

offices, mainresidences 

• Paved paths, 

walkways coappropriate 

• Campground 
39

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

The no-action alternative represents 

continuation of the current management 

direction and approach currently used at 

the park. This alternative is presented as a 

way of evaluating the proposed actions of 

the other three alternatives and is useful in 

understanding why the National Park 

Service or the public may believe that 

future changes are necessary. 

Ongoing and planned actions and projects 

in the park are included under projects 

that make up the cumulative impact scenario and are not included as part of this 

alternative. The impacts of these actions 

are analyzed as part of the cumulative 

impact analysis. 

The existing road access and circulation 

system within the park would continue. 

Two-way traffic and existing pullouts 

along Rim Drive that provide scenic lake 

views would be maintained. Several 

pullouts that are heavily used would likely 

continue to have crowding problems 

during peak times and problems with 

newer, larger vehicles and RVs. Grayback 

Road would remain unpaved and open to 

one-way traffic. During winter, private 

vehicular access would be maintained 

from the south and west on OR 62 through 

park headquarters and up to Rim Village. 

Winter snowmobile and snowcoach access 

would continue along North Junction to 

the rim. Other winter visitor activities in 

the park, including cross-country skiing 

and snow play on unplowed roads, would 

also continue. The Park Service would 

initiate a data collection and monitoring 

program to gather information on winter 

use and resource conditions to ensure 

long-term protection and sustainable use 

of park resources. 

Existing buildings and facilities in the park 

would remain. Preservation and maintenance of existing historic structures would 

continue based on available staff and 

funding. Some historic structures would 

be adaptively used for visitor use and 

administrative functions. The superintendent’s residence, a national historic 

landmark, would be rehabilitated for use 

as a science and learning center. Munson 

Valley would continue to serve as the center of NPS administration, maintenance, 

and housing. It would also serve as the 

year-round visitor interpretation and 

orientation point. There would continue 

to be inadequate storage and workspace 

for park collections that meets NPS 

museum standards. Due to limited staffing, 

the cataloging backlog would continue to 

increase . 

Existing visitor recreational opportunities 

and interpretive programs in the park 

would continue. Rim Village would continue to function as a year-round operation with limited services in the winter. 

Seasonal interpretive activities would be 

provided at the rim. Mazama Village 

would be the primary overnight visitor use 

area in the summer. Development at Cleetwood would continue to provide access to 

Crater Lake and the commercial boat 

tours of the lake. 

Cultural resources in the national park 

would continue to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria of 

evaluation to determine their eligibility for 

listing in the national register as NPS staff 

and funding permitted. 

Natural resource management protection, 

preservation, and restoration activities 

would also continue as staffing and 

funding allowed. The following protection 
ALTERNATIVES, IN CLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 40

measures to protect the lake would also 

continue: 

• minimal development would be 

allowed within the caldera and lake 

drainage area 

• operations would be managed to 

prevent contaminants from 

draining into the lake 

• only essential visitor service would 

be provided at Rim Village 

• the number and types of boats 

would be controlled 

• a single access trail would be 

provided to the lake 

The Crater Lake Long-term Limnological 

Program would continue to research and 

monitor Crater Lake as well as determine 

periodic recommendations for resource 

preservation. Partnerships with academia 

and other outside research interests would 

continue in support of inventorying and 

monitoring of resources. 

 

 42
43

ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE— 

EMPHASIS ON INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES

CONCEPT AND RELATED ACTIONS 

Management of the park would emphasize 

increased opportunities for visitors in both 

recreational diversity and learning about 

park resources. Most visitor recreational 

opportunities would remain. 

This alternative would explore a greater 

diversity of uses along Rim Drive. New 

opportunities would allow visitors to 

directly experience the primary resource 

of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. 

Any new uses would be nonmotorized and 

low impact and be limited to areas that 

would have space to accommodate them; 

new trails could be included. Additional 

opportunities may be provided by seasonal 

closures of sections of east Rim Drive to 

allow hiking and biking along Rim Drive. 

These closures would also provide 

opportunities to experience the lake in a 

quieter setting without requiring physical 

changes to the historic Rim Drive. Closure 

of Rim Drive would be experimental to 

determine how well this approach worked, 

and the road may be reopened if warranted. The Grayback Road would no 

longer be used for motorized transportation. It would function as a nonpaved 

trail to accommodate hikers, bicyclists, 

and stock use. Winter snowmobile and 

snowcoach access would remain along 

North Junction to the rim. Winter access 

in private vehicles to Rim Village would 

continue via plowing the road. The Park 

Service would initiate a data collection and 

monitoring program to gather information 

on winter use and resource conditions to 

ensure long-term protection and 

sustainable use of park resources. 

Other current opportunities would still be 

available but with a greater depth and 

range of information. Some additional 

frontcountry opportunities would be in 

areas along the rim and along the 

roadways. Transitional experiences (such 

as short trails and picnic areas) would be 

provided between the developed areas or 

transportations corridors and the backcountry. Areas for enhanced interpretation, new research, and access to the 

backcountry would also be provided. 

Opportunities would be added for 

research, learning, and conveying of 

information to park visitors. The goal 

would be to facilitate research that was 

focused, purposeful, and significant to the 

resources of Crater Lake National Park or 

that would further basic natural, cultural, 

and social science understanding. A new 

science and learning center would form 

the core of the new research. The park 

would expand and encourage partnerships 

with universities, scientists, and educational groups. Research would provide 

information that is relative to and could be 

compared to larger regional and global 

contexts, which would then form the basis 

of a more substantive interpretive and 

educational experience for visitors. 

The park, through its partnerships, would 

invite scientists, educators, students, and 

researchers to study mutually beneficial 

subjects at Crater Lake. Joint conferences 

and seminars could be held on related 

topics with partnering universities or with 

other agencies or at the park’s science and 

learning center. The information gathered 

would be disseminated throughout the 

park to rangers, interpretive staff, and 

visitors. Park staff would use new and 

expanding sources of information to 

manage resources and to analyze impacts 

to the resources and incorporate the 

newest research into their interpretive 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 44

talks. Researchers would interpret their 

research through field trips, seminars, and 

workshops. Visitors would have the 

opportunity to participate in extended 

workshops to support research and 

resource management. Special in-depth 

tours would be available to interest 

groups, such as bird groups or geology 

clubs. An underlying theme would be the 

environment, especially its connection 

beyond park boundaries. Methods for 

disseminating information about park 

resources would go beyond the current 

level. Radio information would be 

provided for visitors in private cars, and 

interpreters would provide research-based 

programs for buses and tour boats. New 

technology would be used to provide 

information to "virtual" visitors who may 

never step within the boundary of the 

park. 

The park’s museum collections would be 

increased as a result of the expanded 

research activities. Pertinent park-related 

collection materials not currently owned 

or managed by the National Park Service 

would be acquired and stored in onsite 

and offsite facilities that met professional 

and National Park Service museum 

standards. Thus, adequate storage and 

workspace would be provided for 

improvement of curation, protection, and 

access to the collections, and staffing 

would be upgraded to reduce the 

cataloging backlog. 

Existing buildings and facilities in the park 

would remain, but some structures would 

be adaptively used for new functions and 

uses, including the rehabilitation of the 

superintendent’s residence as a science 

and learning center. While researchers, 

scientists, and artists may be invited and 

encouraged to visit and stay in the park, it 

is anticipated to be small numbers and 

relatively short term — a few days to a 

month. Space would be provided within 

existing facilities for educational groups — 

classes, clubs, and tour groups. Current 

and future needs for office and administrative space would be accommodated 

without additional construction. Administrative and other organizational functions, 

which were not by necessity park-based, 

would be moved to surrounding communities as demand for space within the 

park increased. Community- based 

employees would strengthen ties to nearby 

communities as well as provide greater 

choices of living situations for employees, 

thereby improving recruitment and 

retention. Functions could be dispersed to 

more than one community in the area, 

locating close to institutions partnering 

with the park to strengthen and solidify 

those relationships. 

A greater emphasis on research, education, 

and interpretation would require an 

increase in staffing in those areas. 

Parking and road congestion at the park 

would be managed by improving existing 

pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. 

Minor changes could include signing, 

marking parking spaces, and minor 

pavement alterations. If, in the future, 

crowding conditions developed, shuttles 

and other alternative transportation 

systems would be used to solve the 

problems, rather than expanding road and 

parking capacities. At that time, a 

feasibility analysis would determine 

whether the alternative transportation 

would be a concession, Park Service 

operated, or a service contract. 
Alternative 2 —Emphasis on Increased Opportunities 

45

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Summer 

Most of the lands within the park would 

be managed under the backcountry 

management zone, which includes most 

lands contained in the 1974 wilderness 

recommendation. This zone would 

preserve the park’s pristine landscape and 

provide visitor opportunities for solitude 

and a primitive experience. The research 

natural zone would be applied to the four 

research natural areas (shown on the 

Alternative 2 — Summer map) in the park 

that posses unique habitats and extraordinary ecological values. This zone 

includes the remaining lands contained in 

the 1974 wilderness recommendation not 

zoned as backcountry. Crater Lake would 

be zoned lake and caldera. Management 

would emphasize continued resource 

protection and the learning opportunities 

associated with this unique environment. 

The developed zone would include visitor 

and administrative facilities at Rim Village, 

Munson Valley, Mazama Village, North 

Junction, and Lost Creek. The transportation zone would include corridors along 

the park road system. The frontcountry 

zone would be in a number of areas along 

the Rim Drive and other park roadways to 

support expanded frontcountry opportunities. The Grayback Road, which would 

become a nonpaved trail, would also be 

included in this zone. 

Winter 

In the winter, the backcountry zone would 

be expanded to include those portions of 

the park’s road system and visitor facilities 

that would be closed in the winter.

 
 46
Legend

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Front Country

Research

Back Country (Summer)

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20141

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

Emphasis on Increased

Visitor Opportunities

Alternative 2 - Preferred

Summer

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK
 48
Legend

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Front Country

Research

Back Country (Winter)

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20142

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

Emphasis on Increased

Visitor Opportunities

Alternative 2 - Preferred

Winter

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK
 50
51

 ALTERNATIVE 3 — EMPHASIS ON ENJOYMENT

OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

CONCEPT AND RELATED ACTIONS 

The emphasis of this alternative would be 

to allow visitors to experience a greater 

range of natural and cultural resources 

significant and unique to the park through 

recreational opportunities and education. 

The park would be managed to provide a 

wider range of visitor experiences and 

would reach out to a greater diversity of 

visitor groups — different ages, abilities, 

economic, and ethnic groups. Recreational 

opportunities would provide the base for 

interpretation and education. These 

programs would focus on minimizing 

impact, leaving no trace and acquisition of 

skills for outdoor recreation. Programs 

would include a broader range to provide 

appropriate levels of education and 

interpretation for a variety of groups. 

Trails would be located to introduce 

visitors to a diverse range of ecosystems 

and terrain and to accommodate ability 

and experience levels. 

Resources would be managed to permit 

recreation while protecting resources. The 

park would partner with a range of 

tourism, hospitality, and recreation clubs, 

along with private contractors and related 

agencies, to provide orientation and 

education. Some orientation and 

education efforts could occur offsite in 

local hotels and/or on tours to prepare 

visitors for and teach stewardship to 

groups before getting to the park. Partnering with commercial operators to provide 

interpretation on guided van tours would 

be encouraged. Interpretive programs for 

less physically fit visitors would be provided; possibly on tours or in community 

facilities. Opportunities for recreation 

would be viewed in a regional context. 

While not all recreational activities are 

appropriate for, nor would be allowed 

within the boundaries, the park could 

serve as a source of information for 

regional recreational opportunities. 

Winter access would be improved by 

grooming along North Junction Road to 

accommodate both snowmobiling and 

snowcoaches. Plowed vehicle access 

would continue from Mazama Village to 

Rim Village. Increases in numbers or 

impacts to resources or visitors could 

warrant changes in management actions. 

In addition to reaching out to groups in 

nearby communities and those on tours, 

use of a shuttle bus system would be 

explored. The shuttle would be integrated 

with recreational opportunities to create a 

wide range of visitor opportunities. The 

shuttle would also be integrated with the 

interpretive program to expand the park 

experience. For example, visitors could 

park at Mazama and take a shuttle to and 

around Rim Drive. The shuttle stops could 

be connected with the trail system, 

allowing visitors to have short stops, short 

hikes, or successively longer outings, as 

they chose. The road section between 

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch could be 

one way for private vehicles. This could 

create an area where visitors could ride 

bikes in one lane with a high degree of 

safety. 

Increases in visitor contact and contact 

with the resource would stimulate a shift 

toward increased interpretive and ranger 

services. Some interpretive functions 

could be based in nearby communities 

where partnerships with the tourism 

industry have established off site 

interpretive programs For example, 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 52

interpretive programs could be presented 

in local hotel meeting rooms, schools, or 

community buildings. Use of most current 

facilities would continue. Treatment of 

historic structures and cultural landscapes 

under this alternative would be similar to 

the no-action alternative, although such 

resources could be affected by construction of additional trails, installation of new 

interpretive signs and other media, and 

expanded tour programs. 

Adequate space would be provided for the 

curation and storage of the park’s museum 

collections, which would be stored in an 

onsite facility that met professional and 

National Park Service museum standards. 

Although adequate storage and workspace 

would be provided to improve curation 

and protection of the collections, and 

staffing would be upgraded to reduce the 

cataloging backlog, park-related collection 

materials not currently owned or managed 

by the National Park Service would 

generally not be acquired. Access to the 

collections, both for NPS and non-NPS 

researchers, would be limited by availability of museum staff to assist in use of 

the collections. 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Summer 

The zone allocation would be similar to 

alternative 2, with the following exceptions. The Grayback Road would be 

included in the transportation zone to 

accommodate continued motorized 

recreational opportunities. In addition, a 

corridor along the park’s road system 

would be zoned frontcountry to allow for 

increased visitor opportunities, such as 

hiking and picnicking, in these corridors. 

(Please see the Alternative 3 — Summer 

map.) 

Winter 

The zone allocation would be similar to 

alternative 2, where the backcountry zone 

would be expanded to include those 

portions of the park’s road system and 

visitor facilities that would be closed in the 

winter. However, the frontcountry zone 

would be applied along the entire OR62 

and south access road corridors to support 

increased winter use opportunities. 
Legend

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Front Country

Research

Back Country (Summer)

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20143

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

Emphasis on Enjoyment of

the Natural Environment

Alternative 3

Summer

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 54
Legend

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Front Country

Research

Back Country (Winter)

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20144

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

Alternative 3

Winter

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK

Emphasis on Enjoyment of

the Natural Environment
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 56
57

ALTERNATIVE 4 — EMPHASIS ON PRESERVATION 

AND RESTORATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CONCEPT AND RELATED ACTIONS 

Park management would be focused on 

the preservation of native species and 

natural processes and the restoration of 

biodiversity and natural processes where 

altered. The park would be an active 

partner in a regional conservation strategy 

that would include other agencies and 

environmental groups. Most park 

operations and visitor contact facilities 

could be outside the park and shared with 

other agencies and communities. 

Resource preservation and restoration 

would be the overriding consideration in 

the park. Evaluations, surveys, and 

monitoring would be conducted to ensure 

protection of park resources. Areas that 

have been altered would be restored to 

their natural conditions. Research within 

the park would be nonmanipulative. 

Cultural resources would be preserved at 

the highest level possible. Preservation of 

historic fabric would be an overriding 

factor. Adaptive reuse, which permits 

additions or alterations to a historic 

structure to accommodate a compatible 

contemporary use, would occur only 

where it can be accomplished in 

accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation.

The volume of the park’s museum 

collections would be increased as a result 

of the expanded park research activities as 

well as acquisition of pertinent parkrelated collection materials not currently 

owned or managed by the National Park 

Service. The museum collections would be 

stored in an offsite facility that met 

professional and National Park Service 

museum standards. Thus, provision for 

adequate storage and workspace would be 

provided to improve curation, protection, 

and access to the collections, and staffing 

would be increased to reduce the 

cataloging backlog. 

The visitor experience would stress 

activities that have low environmental 

impact on and are harmonious with the 

resources. Existing trails would be routed 

away from sensitive areas. The trail system 

would be reviewed and new trails may be 

provided (e.g., low elevation nature trails). 

Some trails could be eliminated and the 

area rehabilitated. If not eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places, the 

Grayback Road would be closed and 

restored to natural conditions. Existing 

services would continue, however, there 

would be more emphasis on self-guided 

and discovery education. Environmental 

sensitivity would serve as a strong theme. 

Interpretive programs would focus on 

stewardship within the park and on the 

protection of resources, while incorporating this philosophy into everyday life. 

Vehicular transportation would be altered 

to reinforce the visitor experience. The 

Rim Road would be closed between 

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch . The 

area between the two sides would provide 

visitors with opportunities for hiking and 

solitude along the rim. 

To reduce the human presence on the 

natural landscape, the trend would be 

toward fewer buildings and facilities. 

Facilities that are not historic and not 

essential to park functions would be 

removed and the area rehabilitated. 

Functions that are by necessity parkbased, such as maintenance and law 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 58

enforcement, would be retained in the 

park. The composition of the staff would 

increase in the areas of resource 

preservation, restoration, protection, and 

education activities. 

Winter use of the park would change to 

allow natural processes to proceed with 

less disturbance than current management 

practices allows. Winter plowing of the 

road to the rim would stop, except for 

spring opening. Winter access to the rim 

would begin from the Mazama parking lot 

and would be via snowcoach. Grooming of 

the road would probably be needed to 

ensure access by snowcoach. Snowmobiling along North Junction Road would 

no longer be allowed. 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Summer 

As under alternatives 2 and 3, most of the 

lands within the park would be managed 

under the backcountry management zone, 

which would include most lands contained in the 1974 wilderness recommendation (see the Alternative 4 — 

Summer map). The Grayback Road, which 

would be closed and restored if not 

eligible for the national register, would 

also be zoned backcountry. The research 

natural zone would be applied to the four 

areas in the park that posses unique 

habitats and extraordinary ecological 

values. This management zone would 

include the remaining lands contained in 

the 1974 wilderness recommendation not 

zoned as backcountry. Crater Lake would 

be zoned lake and caldera. 

To preserve cultural resources at a higher 

level, Rim Drive, Rim Village, and the 

Munson Valley Historic District would be 

included in the cultural heritage zone. The 

developed zone would include visitor and 

administrative facilities at Munson Valley, 

Mazama Village, and Lost Creek. The 

transportation zone would include 

corridors along the park road system, 

excluding Rim Drive. 

Winter 

The backcountry zone would be expanded 

to include those portions of the park’s 

road system and visitor facilities that 

would be closed in the winter, including 

the North Junction road. The south access 

road, between OR 62 and the rim, would 

be zoned transportation but would restrict 

motorized access to snowcoach only.
Legend

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Cultural

Cultural/Non Motorized

Back Country (Summer)

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20145

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

Emphasis on Preservation &

Restoration of Natural Processes

Alternative 4

Summer

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 60
Legend

Pumice

Desert

Sphagnum

Bog

Desert

Creek

Llao

Rock

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

DSC / MAR 04 / 106 / 20146

.

NORTH

Crater Lake National Park

CRATER

LAKE

NATIONAL

PARK

Park Boundary

Lake/Caldera

Transportation

Development

Cultural/Non Motorized

Back Country (Summer)

Emphasis on Preservation &

Restoration of Natural Processes

Alternative 4

Winter
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 62
63

MITIGATING MEASURES 

The general management plan provides a 

management framework for the park. 

Within this broad context, the alternatives 

include the following practicable measures 

to minimize environmental harm. These 

measures are common to all alternatives 

and are based on the analysis of impacts of 

the alternatives presented in the “Environmental Consequences” section. However, 

additional appropriate mitigation would 

be identified as part of implementation 

planning and for individual construction 

projects to further minimize resource 

impacts. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Adverse impacts on properties listed in, or 

determined eligible for listing in, the 

National Register of Historic Places, 

would be avoided if possible. If adverse 

impacts could not be avoided, these 

impacts would be mitigated through a 

consultation process with all interested 

parties. 

Mitigation includes the avoidance of 

adverse effects to cultural resources. 

Avoidance strategies may include the 

application of the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation. Presented below 

is a description of typical mitigation 

measures. 

Archeological Resources 

Wherever possible, projects and facilities 

would be located in previously disturbed 

or existing developed areas. Facilities 

would be designed to avoid known or 

suspected archeological resources. If 

avoidance of archeological sites was not 

possible, mitigation strategies would be 

developed in consultation with all 

interested parties to recover information 

that makes sites eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Archeologists would monitor grounddisturbing construction in areas where 

subsurface remains might be present. If 

previously unknown archeological 

resources were discovered during 

construction, work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted 

until the resources could be identified, 

evaluated, and documented and an 

appropriate mitigation strategy was 

developed, if necessary, in consultation 

with the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office and any associated 

Indian tribes. In the unlikely event that 

human remains, funerary objects, or 

objects of cultural patrimony were discovered during construction, applicable provisions of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act would be 

implemented. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

All project work relating to historic 

structures/buildings would be conducted 

in accordance with the guidelines and 

recommendations of the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Typical 

mitigation measures for historic structures/buildings include measures to avoid 

impacts, such as rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, designing new development to 

be compatible with surrounding historic 

properties, and screening new development from surrounding historic resources 

to minimize impacts on cultural landscapes and ethnographic resources. 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 64

Cultural Landscape 

All project work relating to cultural 

landscapes would be conducted in 

accordance with the guidelines and 

recommendations of the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties With Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Typical 

mitigation measures for cultural 

landscapes include measures to avoid 

adverse impacts, such as designing new 

development to be compatible with 

surrounding historic properties and 

screening new development from 

surrounding cultural landscapes to 

minimize impacts on those landscapes. 

Ethnographic Resources 

The National Park Service would continue 

to consult with park associated American 

Indian tribes to develop appropriate 

strategies to mitigate impacts on ethnographic resources. Such strategies could 

include identification of and assistance in 

providing access to alternative resource 

gathering areas, continuing to provide 

access to traditional use or spiritual areas, 

and screening new development from 

traditional use areas to minimize impacts 

on ethnographic resources. 

Museum Collections 

Mitigation measures related to museum 

collections consist of preventative 

conservation of a collection through 

proper storage, handling, and exhibit of 

objects as specified in the NPS Museum 

Handbook and NPS Director’s Order No. 

24, Standards for NPS Museum Collections 

Management. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

New facilities would be built in previously 

disturbed areas or in carefully selected 

sites with as small a construction footprint 

as possible. 

New facilities would be built on soils that 

are suitable for development. Soil erosion 

would be minimized by limiting the time 

that soil is left exposed and by the use of 

various erosion control measures, such as 

erosion matting or silt fencing. Once work 

is completed, construction areas would be 

revegetated with native plants in a timely 

period 

Interpretive displays and programs, ranger 

patrols, and regulations on visitor use 

would be used to minimize impacts caused 

by visitors. 

Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails) would be 

monitored for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Public education, revegetation of disturbed areas with native 

plants, erosion control measures, and 

barriers would be used to control potential 

impacts on plants from trail erosion or 

social trailing. 

A long-term data gathering and monitoring program to evaluate winter use and 

associated impacts would be implemented 

to ensure long-term protection of park 

resources. Management actions, such as 

restrictions on off-trail use, specific area 

closures, or limits on party sizes, would be 

taken as necessary to address impacts. 

Water Resources 

Best management practices such as the use 

of silt fences, would be followed to ensure 

that construction related effects were 
Mitigating Measures 

65

minimal and to prevent long-term impacts 

on water quality, wetland, and aquatic 

species. 

Equipment would be regularly inspected 

for leakage of petroleum and other 

chemicals. 

Revegetation plans would be developed 

for areas impacted by construction 

activities or other human disturbance and 

would include the use of native species, as 

well as salvaging of plant and topsoil. 

Air Quality

The best available clean fuel technology 

for boat operations would be applied (as it 

becomes available) to the extent feasible. 

Dust abatement measures such as watering 

and revegetation of disturbed areas, as well 

as requiring machinery to meet emission 

standards, would be employed. 

Native Vegetation and Wildlife 

Facilities would be designed and sited to 

use previously disturbed sites and to avoid 

sensitive resources such as wetlands or 

whitebark pine stands to the extent 

practicable. Other individual management 

actions to avoid or minimize the extent 

and severity of impacts would also be 

implemented, such as localized area or 

seasonal use restrictions and confining or 

directing use through use of barriers, trails, 

and designated camping sites. 

Restoration of native vegetative communities would rely on natural regeneration and succession as well as active 

measures. The principle goal is to assist 

natural regeneration in reestablishing a 

sustainable native plant community. 

Areas used by visitors would be monitored 

for signs of native vegetation disturbance 

and the introduction of non-native 

species. Public education, revegetation of 

disturbed areas with native plants, erosion 

control measures, and barriers would be 

used to control potential impacts from 

visitors along roads, trails, or social 

trailing. 

A variety of techniques would be 

employed to minimize or avoid impacts to 

native vegetation and wildlife, including 

visitor education programs, ranger patrols, 

and use restrictions (permitted activities, 

locations, and times) in areas with rare 

plants, vegetative communities, and/or 

sensitive wildlife populations and habitats. 

Wetlands would be delineated by qualified 

NPS staff or certified wetland specialists 

and marked if construction of new 

facilities were to occur near them. 

New developments would not be built in 

wetlands if feasible. If avoiding wetlands is 

not feasible, other actions would be taken 

to comply with Executive Order 11990 

(“Protection of Wetlands”), the Clean 

Water Act, and Director’s Order 77-1 

(“Wetland Protection”). 

Special precautions would be taken to 

protect wetlands from damage caused by 

construction equipment, erosion, siltation, 

and other activities with the potential to 

affect wetlands. Construction materials 

would be kept in work areas, especially if 

the construction takes place near natural 

drainages. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species 

These species include those listed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife as threatened or 

species of concern, and by the state of 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 66

Washington as threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive. Also included are species on the 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program List 1 

or 2. 

Surveys would be conducted for special 

status species before implementing any 

action that might affect these species. 

Facilities would be designed and sited to 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts. In 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Oregon Department 

of Natural Resources, measures would be 

taken to protect any sensitive species and 

their habitats. 

Management practices to protect, restore, 

and monitor special status species would 

continue to be implemented, such as 

closing areas of the park near nest sites, 

restoring bull trout populations, and 

monitoring species status. The National 

Park Service would continue to work 

cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to identify and implement 

appropriate mitigation measures to protect 

nesting areas within the park. 

 

Where visitor use near rare plant populations would occur such as along the rim, 

and there is the likelihood of disturbance 

to plants, visitors would be alerted about 

the need to stay on trails. If necessary, 

populations would be protected by 

placement of signs and fencing. New 

developments, including trails, would be 

sited to avoid disturbing or providing 

access to rare plant populations. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

Crater Lake National Park would strive to 

incorporate the principles of sustainable 

design and development into all facilities 

and park operations. Sustainability can be 

described as the result achieved by doing 

things in ways that do not compromise the 

environment or its capacity to provide for 

present and future generations. 

Sustainable practices minimize the shortand long- term environmental impacts of 

developments and other activities through 

resource conservation, recycling, waste 

minimization, and the use of energy 

efficient and ecologically responsible 

materials and techniques. 

The National Park Service’s Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design (1993),

which provides a basis for achieving 

sustainability in facility planning and 

design, emphasizes the importance of 

biodiversity, and encourages responsible 

decisions. The guidebook describes 

principles to be used in the design and 

management of visitor facilities that 

emphasize environmental sensitivity in 

construction, use of nontoxic materials, 

resource conservation, recycling, and 

integration of visitors with natural and 

cultural settings. Crater Lake National 

Park would adhere to these principles and 

especially strive to reduce energy costs, 

eliminate waste, and conserve energy 

resources by using energy efficient and 

cost effective technology whenever 

possible. Energy efficiency would also be 

incorporated into any decision-making 

process during the design or analysis and 

value engineering, including life cycle cost 

analysis, would be performed to examine 

energy, environmental, and economic 

implications of proposed development. In 

addition, the park would encourage 

suppliers, permittees, and contractors to 

follow sustainable practices.
67

ALTERNATIVES OR ACTIONS CONSIDERED 

BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY 

Some comments received during public 

scoping suggested that the Park Service 

should consider increasing the number of 

roads in the park that are open to 

snowmobile use. Currently, snowmobiles 

are allowed along the North Entrance 

Road to North Junction to accommodate 

winter lake-viewing access. Other park 

visitors also enjoy being able to crosscountry ski and snowshoe along the rim 

without encountering motorized vehicles 

and to enjoy the solitude and quiet of 

winter lake viewing. Expanding 

snowmobile use along the Rim Road 

would result in conflicts with other users. 

Snowmobilers also have a substantial 

network of roads and trails available for 

recreational use outside of the park. 

Consequently, increasing the extent of 

roads open to snowmobile use in the park 

was dropped from further consideration. 

The alternatives do examine the possibility 

of improving access along the North 

Entrance road to accommodate both 

snowmobiling and snowcoaches. 
 68

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

EVALUATION 

In order to develop the preferred 

alternative, all of the alternatives were 

evaluated. To minimize the influence of 

individual biases and opinions, the 

planning team used an objective analysis 

process called “Choosing by Advantages” 

(CBA). This process, which has been used 

extensively by government agencies and 

the private sector, evaluates different 

alternatives by identifying and comparing 

the relative advantages of each according 

to a set of criteria. 

One of the greatest strengths of the CBA 

system is its fundamental philosophy: 

decisions must be anchored in relevant 

facts. For example, the question “Is it more 

important to protect natural resources or 

cultural resources?” is “unanchored,” 

because it has no relevant facts on which 

to make a decision. Without such facts, it 

is impossible to make a defensible 

decision. 

The CBA process instead asks which 

alternative gives the greatest advantage. To 

answer this question, relevant facts were 

used to determine the advantages the 

alternatives provide. To ensure a logical 

and trackable process, the criteria used to 

evaluate the alternatives were derived 

from the impact topics in the EIS. 

Alternatives were evaluated to see how 

well they would 

• maximize protection of cultural 

resources (archeological resources, 

ethnographic resources, historic 

structures/buildings, cultural 

landscapes, and museum 

collections) 

• maximize protection of natural 

resources (biotic communities, 

threatened and endangered 

species, water resources and, air 

quality) 

• provide visitor experience (diversity 

of visitor activities, interpretation 

and orientation, visitor facilities and 

services and visitor experience 

values) 

• limit effects on neighbors (park 

neighbors; local, state, and 

land/resource managing agencies) 

• improve operational efficiency 

(staffing, infrastructure, visitor 

facilities and services, and the role 

of commercial operators) 

Alternatives were rated on the attributes 

relating to each of the factors just listed. 

Then the advantages of the attributes were 

compared. Alternative 2 served as the basis 

for the preferred alternative. It was 

modified to add aspects of alternatives 3 

that provided the greatest advantages. 

COSTS 

Costs are also a consideration in the 

selection of a preferred alternative. A 

GMP provides a framework for proactive 

decision making, including decisions on 

visitor use, natural and cultural resource 

management, and park development. The 

plan prescribes resource conditions and 

visitor experiences that are to be achieved 

and maintained over time. Park 

development is considered in general 

needs rather than in specifics. For the 

purposes of cost estimating, general 

assumptions were made regarding 

amounts and sizes of development. These 

assumptions are then carried across to all 

alternatives so that comparable costs can 

be considered for each alternative. 

Costs identified in the GMP are not 

intended to replace more detailed 
Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

69

consideration of needs, sizes, and amounts 

of future development. They should not be 

used as a basis for money requests until 

further analysis has been completed. Costs 

and items considered are shown in 

appendix C. 

Comparative costs for the alternatives 

include both initial development costs and 

total life-cycle costs. Initial development 

costs are the estimated construction costs 

of the alternatives. Demolition, labor, and 

materials for buildings, roads, trails, 

exhibits, and parking are included. 

Estimated costs are based on costs for 

similar types of development in other 

parks from the Denver Service Center 

Class “C” Estimating Guide. Life-cycle 

costs consider the costs of each alternative 

over a period of time. Life-cycle costs 

include the costs of operating buildings, 

the staffing required, maintenance, and 

replacement costs of alternative elements. 

The life-cycle costs below are for a 25-year 

period. 

Table 2: Summary of Comparative Costs (FY 2002 Dollars) 

(Summarized from Appendix C) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Ongoing Actions 

and Projects $7,906,900 $7,906,900 $7,906,900 $7,906,900

Initial Development 

Costs $ 3,800,000 $4,743,000 $3,934,000 $3,941,000

Total Life Cycle 

Costs 

(Present Worth) 

$ 3,800,000 $12,905,000 $21,495,000 $8,479,000
 70

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable 

alternative is the alternative that will 

promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in section 101 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. In the 

National Park Service, the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

identified by (1) determining how each 

alternative would meet the criteria set 

forth in section 101(b) and (2) considering 

any inconsistencies between the 

alternatives analyzed and other 

environmental laws and policies (DO 12, 

2.7E). Section 101 states that “... it is the 

continuing responsibility of the Federal 

Government to ... 

 fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations 

 assure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and 

esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings 

 attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or 

safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences 

 preserve important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage, and, wherever 

possible, maintain an environment 

that supports diversity and variety 

of individual choice 

 achieve a balance between 

population and resource use that 

will permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s 

amenities 

 enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources.” (Criteria 6 

was determined to be not 

applicable to this planning effort.) 

Taken as a whole, the preferred alternative 

(alternative 2) would best satisfy the five 

remaining goals and is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. The preferred 

alternative would enhance the park’s 

ability to carry out its mission through 

developmental and programmatic 

activities while limiting the amount of new 

environmental impacts from development 

and use. Current visitor experiences 

would still be available but with a greater 

depth and range, and there would be 

increased opportunities for both 

recreational diversity and learning about 

park resources. Buildings would be 

adaptively used for new functions thus 

maximizing visitor opportunities without 

expanding the developed areas. Thus the 

preferred alternative would satisfy 

national goals 2, 3, 4, and 5 to a high 

degree, ensuring for the long-term that 

visitors coming to the park see an 

esthetically and culturally pleasing area, 

providing a wide range of opportunities 

for visitors to learn and enjoy the area with 

minimal adverse impacts, while preserving 

and enhancing the understanding and 

preservation of the park’s important 

natural and cultural resources and 

fulfilling the Park Service’s responsibilities 

as trustee of the environment (goals 1 and 

4). 

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, 

would continue to preserve important 

cultural and natural resources (goals 1 and 

4), although it would not enhance the Park 

Service’s ability to achieve these goals to 
Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

71

the same degree as under the preferred 

alternative. Educational, informational, 

and research opportunities would remain 

limited by lack of facilities and programs 

and would thus not fulfill goals 2, 3, 4, and 

5 as well as the preferred alternative. 

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest 

range and flexibility in visitor recreational 

opportunities, thus meeting goals 2, 3, 4, 

and 5. However, alternative 3 would not 

have the emphasis on both research based 

educational opportunities and recreational 

diversity that the preferred alternative 

would offer. Providing these opportunities 

and associated new facilities would also 

result in more extensive and dispersed 

resource impacts and a greater likelihood 

that resource management would become 

more reactive rather than proactive in 

addressing issues. Thus this alternative 

would not provide as great a degree of 

protection for resources (goals 1 and 4) 

compared to the preferred alternative. 

Alternative 4 would provide the highest 

degree of protection for the park’s natural 

and cultural resources, primarily by 

removing nonhistoric facilities and 

restoring areas to more natural conditions, 

expanding resource management 

programs and data collection, and 

generally preserving cultural resources at 

the highest level possible, with 

preservation of historic fabric a priority. 

Thus goals 1 and 4 would be best served by 

this alternative. Although some visitor 

opportunities would be enhanced, 

particularly nonmotorized opportunities, 

overall there would be a narrower range 

and fewer opportunities for all visitors to 

fully enjoy the park and its resources 

(goals 2, 3, 4, and 5) compared to the other 

alternatives. 
 72

TABLE 3:

SUMMARY OF 

ALTERNATIVE 

ACTIONS

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on 

Increased Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

Concept Continuation of existing 

management 

Education, research, and learning about park resources and the park’s national and international context would be emphasized. Recreational opportunities would be increased. 

Visitors would experience the park resources through recreational opportunities and education. 

Pafoanpr

Visitor Opportunities Existing visitor recreational opportunities and 

interpretive programs in the park would continue. 

 Provide additional ways to experience the park – nonmotorized and low impact Additional frontcountry areas would provide enhanced interpretation and access to the backcountry. Additional interpretive experiences would offer a greater depth and range of information based on new research. 

Recreational opportunities form the basis +or interpretation and education. Experiences would provide a wider range of visitor experiences and reach out to a greater diversity of visitors. A broad range of programs would accommodate all ages and abilities and economic and ethnic groups. 

Enwointemon dis

Transportation/Access Grayback Road would 

remain unpaved and open to one-way traffic 

Grayback Road would become a nonpaved trail to accommodate hikers and bicyclists. Sections of East Rim Drive would be closed in the fall. 

A shuttle around Rim Village would integrate with recreational opportunities and interpretive programs. An additional shuttle would connect Mazama and Rim Village. East Rim Drive could be converted to one way. 

RibeanGrrecofoHi
73

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on 

Increased Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

Winter Access Winter access to Rim 

Village in private vehicles would be on plowed road. Winter snowmobile and snow coach access along North Junction to the Rim would continue. 

Same as no-action alternative 

Winter access for snowmobiles and snowcoaches would be enhanced by improved grooming. 

WVicoVisnNowo

Facilities Existing buildings and 

facilities would be adaptively used. 

Same as no-action alternative. 

Same as no-action alternative. 

Fahisparemreh

Administrative Park functions would 

remain in existing facilities inside the park. 

Administrative and other functions that are not parkbased, would be moved to surrounding communities as needed. 

Some interpretive functions would be based in surrounding communities. 

Pawopawosu

Partnerships Partnerships with 

academia and other outside research interests would continue. 

Partnerships would be targeted toward universities, scientists, and educational groups. 

Partnerships would be formed with the tourism and hospitality industry. 

Padeaggr

Staffing Existing staff would 

remain. 

Staffing increases in research, education and interpretation 

Staffing increases in interpretation and ranger services. 

Staincprpr

Research Research activities would 

continue. 

Facilitate research that is focused, purposeful and significant to resources. New research would form the basis of a more substantive interpretive and educational experience for visitors. 

Same as no-action alternative 

Rema
 74

TABLE 4:

SUMMARY 

COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE 

ALTERNATIVES

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on Increased 

Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

Cultural Resources There would be no adverse 

effects on archeological resources, cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, or museum collections. Rehabilitation of the superintendent’s residence would result in adverse, minor, permanent impacts due to some loss of historic fabric. Adaptive use of the structure would ensure its long-term preservation and thus moderate, beneficial impact on the building. 

Same as alternative 1, except for museum collections. Increased volume due to research and acquisition along with improved storage and workspace would have beneficial, minor to moderate, long-term impacts on museum collections. 

Same as alternative 1, except for museum collections. Improved storage would have minor to moderate benefits on the curation and protection of the collections. 

TheeffeethnOvewoumodbenhistbuilsupewoualtervolualonstorwouminterm coll

Natural Resources The no-action alternative 

would have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on biotic communities, primarily in existing areas of concentrated use and development. It would not adversely affect and could beneficially affect threatened or endangered species if additional 

 Greater emphasis on research, partnering, and visitor education under this alternative would indirectly contribute to moderate long-term beneficial effects on biotic communities and could result in some adverse impacts on some threatened and endangered species. Long-term adverse 

This alternative would result in some adverse impacts on some threatened and endangered species or biotic communities. Long-term adverse impacts from construction and use of new facilities would be localized and minor. Actions in this alternative would have 

The redurestconresothe locawidterm biotwou
75

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on Increased 

Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

protection measures were implemented. The water quality within the park would remain good; there would be a negligible adverse effect on water quality and quantity due to continuing maintenance activities and a slight increase in visitation, but there would be no impairment to water resources. This alternative would have a negligible, long-term adverse effect on air quality from a small increase in vehicle use within the park. 

impacts from construction and use of new facilities would be localized and minor. Actions in this alternative would have negligible, long-term impacts on water quantity, water quality, and air quality. 

negligible, long-term impacts on water quantity, water quality, and air quality. 

effeendthei

Visitor Experience Visitor access, recreational 

opportunities, education, and visitor facilities and services would continue unchanged in this alternative. Potential increases in visitation over the life of the plan could have moderate, long-term impacts on the visitor’s ability to access some areas of the park and enjoy scenic vistas in quiet, uncrowded conditions. 

Increased visitor opportunities for recreation, educational, and interpretive programs, and access to park facilities and services would provide major beneficial impacts. Some visitors would experience minor long-term adverse impacts due to the seasonal closure of Rim Drive. The same action would create major beneficial impacts for a small number of visitors to enjoy scenic views. The 

Alternative 3 would have a major beneficial impact on the diversity of visitor experience. There would be a reduction in the range of interpretive programs resulting in moderate long term adverse impacts to visitor enjoyment of interpretive programs. Access to park facilities and services would increase resulting in a major beneficial impact to visitors’ enjoyment of park 

Altemodadvediveoppacceabilipartand Thelong on vpark 
 76

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on Increased 

Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

cumulative actions in conjunction with the noaction alternative would result in an overall major, long-term, beneficial impact. 

facilities. There would be minor, long term, adverse impacts to visitors’ perceptions of soundscapes. Opportunities for scenic views would be expanded, resulting in minor, beneficial impacts to visitors. 

Park Operations Continuation of existing 

management would result in minor, long-term impacts to park operations. Reconfiguration of Rim Village and adaptive reuse of historic structures would result in overall moderate, long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Benefits of reconfiguration of Rim Village and adaptive reuse of historic structures would be the same as alternative 1. More functions would be accomplished outside the park, resulting in increased difficulties in communication and coordination. This would be offset by increased efficiencies in developing partnerships. Overall, this alternative would result in moderate, beneficial impacts on park operations. 

Same as alternative 1 with small additional amounts of maintenance resulting from new frontcountry trails and closure of a portion of Rim Drive to two-way traffic. 

Altein mimp

Concession Operations 

Alternative 1 would have negligible impacts to concession operations. Reconfiguration of Rim Village, Mazama Village, 

Same as Alternative 1. Increased partnering with 

commercial operators would provide for increased opportunities for concession/commercial 

Winwourathresulong
77

 Alternative 1 

No-Action 

Alternative 2 

Preferred Alternative 

Emphasis on Increased 

Opportunities 

Alternative 3 

Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of the Natural 

Environment 

Em

and Cleetwood Cove would have moderate, long-term, beneficial, cumulative impacts. 

operations, which would result in a moderate, longterm beneficial impact. 

Socioeconomic The no-action alternative 

would continue to have a minor to moderate, shortterm, beneficial impact on the socioeconomic climate of the gateway communities and regional area due to development projects. In the long term, the park would continue to be an important visitor attraction and contributor to the tourism industry in the three-county region. 

Increased staff levels and moving some functions to nearby communities would have a moderate impact on the local economy and a negligible impact on the regional economy. Ongoing and approved projects could result in moderate to major, short-term, beneficial impacts to individual firms and employees with some beneficial effects on the region and adjacent communities. 

Same as alternative 2. Mov

nearhave the neglregiand coumajficiafirmsomthe com
 78
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
80
CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Prehistoric occupation of the Crater Lake 

area could date to more than 10,000 years 

ago, when extensive mountain glaciers 

began to recede and hunters followed big 

game into present-day southeastern 

Oregon. The great eruption of Mount 

Mazama, more than 7,700 years ago, left

the area around it temporarily uninhabitable. Until Euro-Americans arrived in the 

area, prehistoric populations from the 

eastern and western sides of the Cascade 

Mountains intermittently used the area. 

Prehistoric uses included hunting, 

traveling to trade materials such as 

obsidian (volcanic glass used to make 

some stone tools), gathering resources 

such as huckleberries, and practicing 

traditional spiritual activities in the higher 

elevations and around Crater Lake. 

Archeological survey work has been 

conducted in the national park since the 

mid-1960s, and to date less than 1% of the 

land area has been examined. Until 2001 

only ten archeological sites in the park had 

been officially recorded. These consisted 

of one lithic scatter, five “vision quest” 

rock feature sites, three rock feature sites 

constructed within the last ten to thirty 

years, and one obsidian source area. 

Complementing these sites were 18 

isolated finds, most of which have been 

curated by park personnel. These isolates 

included two finds of obsidian raw 

materials (chunks or nodule); one isolated 

obsidian flake; a find of two crytocrystalline (CCS) flakes; 11 obsidian tools or 

tool fragments; and three CCS tools. The 

tools are mainly hunting related implements, consisting of ten point and point 

fragments (projectiles or knives), with one 

utilized flake, two bifaces, and one 

unifacially modified flake. 

During 2001 a new archeological resource 

property type — grades and artifacts 

associated with railroad logging was 

discovered and recorded during a 

contracted survey of prospective burn

units in the park’s northeast quadrant. 

That area of the park was transferred from 

Winema National Forest to Crater Lake 

National Park in 1980 and is part of a 

much larger logging railroad “network” 

developed during the 1920s. 

Although only a small portion of the park 

has been surveyed for archeological 

resources, an archeologist working for the

National Park Service has made some 

predictions about where archeological 

sites are likely to occur. These sites include 

small base camps near water resources that 

are indicated by scatters of stone tools; 

rock features, such as cairns or piles, 

stacks, and rings on mountain peaks and 

high ridges (probably associated with 

spiritual activities); and hunting sites 

throughout the park that are indicated by 

isolated tools such as projectile points. To

date, the archeological finds in the park 

conform to the hypotheses set forth in this 

predictive model. 

None of the archeological sites in the park 

have been evaluated for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Three Native American groups bordered 

the Crater Lake area on the west – Molala, 

Upper Umpqua, and Takelma − while the 

Klamath Tribes lived to the east. The

Klamath Tribes are a confederated tribe 

that includes people of Klamath, Modoc, 

and Yahooskin Paiute ancestry as well as

descendents of the southern Molalas. 

Indian lifeways, before disruption by 

81
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Euro-American contact, involved seasonal 

movements from lower-elevation winter 

villages to hunt and gather a variety of fish, 

plant, and animal resources throughout 

their territories. Use of the Cascade Range, 

such as the present-day Crater Lake 

National Park area, included the 

establishment of warmer season camps to

hunt animals, gather plant products such 

as huckleberries, and conduct traditional 

spiritual activities. Raiding by various 

Native American groups also occurred in

the park area. 

Spirit quests took Indian people to isolated 

places that were believed to possess the 

powers of certain physical forces and 

animals that, when acquired, brought 

success in activities such as gambling,

romance, and healing. Those on quests 

retreated alone to particular places to fast, 

stay awake for long periods, undertake 

certain physical activities, and pray, while 

waiting for an answering vision. Some

activities included running, stacking rocks 

into high piles, and swimming in water 

bodies thought to possess a sought-after 

power. 

An ethnological overview of the park

found Crater Lake to have been an 

important place of power and danger, 

highly regarded as a spirit quest site. This 

study referred to the lake as an important 

sacred place or landscape; such sites are 

called “traditional cultural properties” by 

cultural resource managers, although the 

boundaries of Crater Lake as a traditional 

cultural property have yet to be defined 

and documented. Parts of the lake are 

associated with mythical events and 

characters, and parts may be used for 

contemporary spirit quest rituals. 

Members of the Klamath Tribes have 

identified Mount Scott, Crater Lake, and 

Huckleberry Mountain as important to 

traditional use activities. Some plant 

collection and harvesting probably 

occurred as a tribal use within park 

boundaries. Tribal staff have not yet 

formalized a request to further evaluate 

these sites as traditional cultural properties 

under National Register criteria, with the 

exception of Huckleberry Mountain. The 

request was transmitted to Rogue River 

National Forest, although an ongoing 

traditional use/ethnographic study 

indicates tribal activities associated with 

Huckleberry Mountain, the most 

significant harvesting area on the 

immediate western edge of present-day 

Crater Lake National Park, also included 

portions of the national park within the 

Union Creek drainage. The ongoing 

traditional use/ethnographic study has 

several related components — an 

appendix funded by the U.S. Forest 

Service for interviews with tribal members 

on Huckleberry Mountain, a separate 

study of anthropogenic fire regimes along 

the park’s western boundary underwritten 

by the Crater Lake Natural History 

Association, and a separately contracted 

exhibit plan focusing on traditional use 

through consulting with park-associated 

tribes. 

The National Park Service will continue to 

consult with concerned Indian tribes to 

learn about possible traditional cultural 

property sites and how to avoid them. 

Consultation with the Klamath Tribes will 

be extended to include National Park 

Service activities affecting “ceded lands”

— areas of the park within the boundaries 

established by a treaty negotiated in 1864 

with the Klamath and Modoc and a group 

of the Northern Paiutes that ceded vast 

territories to the federal government and 

created in compensation a reservation of 

approximately 1.1 million acres. The treaty 

established the federally recognized 

Klamath Tribes and delineated “peak to 

82
Cultural Resources 

peak” — Thielson to Scott and Scott to 

Pelican Butte — boundaries that include 

most of the park’s southeast quadrant. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES/ 

BUILDINGS

The documented historic structures/ 

buildings in Crater Lake National Park are 

primarily associated with development of 

the area as a national park. Most of the 

historic structures and districts in the park 

represent the activities of the National 

Park Service or the park’s concessioners. 

These resources, which include some of

the nation’s best examples of blending 

rustic architecture and other built features 

with a national park setting, are located at 

Rim Village and at park headquarters in 

Munson Valley. 

Historic Structures/Buildings Listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Rim Village. Rim Village Historic District 

was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1997. The historic

district, which includes seven contributing 

structures and other individual features 

that comprise a designed historic landscape in terms of form and function, are 

listed under Criterion A for their association with the historical development of 

Crater Lake National Park and Criterion C 

for their association with site planning and 

design by NPS landscape architects and as 

outstanding examples of rustic naturalistic 

design in the areas of architecture and 

landscape architecture. The structures and 

features were constructed over a 15-year 

period beginning in 1921. 

The seven historic structures in Rim 

Village are: Crater Lake Lodge, Sinnott 

Memorial Building, Plaza Comfort Station, 

Comfort Station behind the Cafeteria 

(Comfort Station No. 4), Kiser Studio, 

Community House, and a crenelated stone 

masonry wall that delineates the promenade and creates a parapet with three 

observaion bays of varying configurations 

that extend into the caldera. 

Individual features that are historically 

important to the rustic character of the 

designed landscape at Rim Village are 

listed by category. The features listed 

under the circulation category include 

roads and parking areas (vehicular 

circulation) and walkways and four hiking 

trails (pedestrian circulation) which begin 

at various points in the district. A promenade extending 3,450 linear feet along the 

edge of the caldera is the primary pedestrian circulation system for Rim Village. 

The features listed under vegetation 

include planting concepts, which illustrate 

the philosophy behind all plantings in the 

district, and plant materials, which are the 

material forms of that philosophy. Small

scale features include a variety of detail 

elements — free standing boulders, stone 

benches, and masonry details, such as

steps and curbing. 

Munson Valley. The Crater Lake 

superintendent’s residence at Munson 

Valley was designated a national historic 

landmark (NHL) in 1987 because it is an 

outstanding example of rustic architectural design. According to the National 

Park Service’s Architecture in the Parks 

National Historic Landmark Theme Study

(1986), the superintendent’s residence 

“remains an architectural gem – a remnant 

of an ambitious development project that 

gave a strong architectural identity to a 

large park.” 

The Munson Valley Historic District, 

which contains the park headquarters 

area, was listed in the National Register of

Historic Places in 1988 under criteria A 

and C. This nomination designated 18 

83
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

buildings that contribute to the significance of the district. The structures, which 

represent prime examples of rustic 

architecture, were built between 1926 and 

1949, although most were designed and 

constructed between 1928 and 1933. 

Subsequent landscape analyses have 

expanded on the significance of this 

district as a designed landscape and have 

established its historical significance under 

national register criteria A, B (for its 

association with significant persons), C, 

and D (for the significant information it 

has yielded or may be likely to yield). 

The 18 historic structures that contribute 

to the significance of the historic district 

include: administrative building, ranger 

dorm building, mess hall, warehouse,

machine shop, meat house, superintendent’s residence (national historic 

landmark), naturalist’s house, six 

employees’ residences, stone woodshed/ 

garage, hospital, transformer building, and 

comfort station. 

Watchman Lookout Station. The 

Watchman Lookout Station, located on an 

8,000-foot peak on the west side of Crater 

Lake, was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1988 under criteria A 

and C. Constructed during 1932 and 

designed as both a museum and fire 

lookout, the building is a unique example 

of rustic architecture as applied to a 

specialized building type. The National 

Register boundary extends 200 feet away 

from the lookout and trailside museum in 

all directions. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Considered/Determined Eligible for 

Listing in the National Register of

Historic Places 

Rim Drive. In June 2003 the Oregon state 

historic preservation officer determined 

that Rim Drive was eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

More specifics concerning contributing 

and non-contributing features will be 

available as work on the current Rim Drive 

cultural landscape report and a related 

corridor management plan for the 

Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway continues. 

Structures and features that contribute to 

Rim Drive’s significance include the 

roadway’s width and right-of-way, 

embankments, slopes, associated turnouts, 

and stone retaining and parapet walls. 

Contributing features included several 

trails (Castle Crest Wildflower, The 

Watchman, Mount Scott, Sentinel Point, 

and Discovery Point) already listed in the 

cultural landscape inventory. 

Jacksonville-to-Fort Klamath Military 

Wagon Road. In June 2003 the Oregon 

state historic preservation officer determined that the Jacksonville-to-Fort 

Klamath Military Wagon Road was eligible 

for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places. The Jacksonville-to-Fort 

Klamath Military Wagon Road was constructed in 1865 to improve transportation 

routes in the region. An intermittent, but 

still ongoing, archeological survey is aimed 

at documenting features of the main route 

and spurs totaling some 22 miles in the 

national park. The main route of the 

military wagon road parallels State 

Highway 62 in places, but some segments 

veer some distance away from the 

highway, especially the spurs to Rim 

Village and Thousand Springs. Segments 

of the historic road are observable in or 

near various developed areas of the park, 

84
Cultural Resources 

including Rim Village, Munson Valley, the 

abandoned Annie Spring campground, 

and Mazama Village. Potential characterdefining features include roadbed 

segments, retaining or embankment walls,

blazed trees, campsites, and artifacts 

associated with use of the road between 

1865 and 1915. 

Munson Valley Road. In June 2003 the 

Oregon state historic preservation officer

informed the National Park Service that it 

appears likely that the Munson Valley 

Road is eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places as a linear

historic district and that bridges associated 

with the road should be evaluated as 

contributing or non-contributing within 

that district. The Munson Valley Road 

extends from Annie Spring to Rim Village 

and is the same road described as the 

South Entrance Road in this document. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

To date the National Park Service has 

identified 13 cultural landscapes in Crater 

Lake National Park that are considered 

potentially eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. These 

landscapes include what are referred to as 

“parent” landscapes and “component” 

landscapes: 

 Parent/Component 

 Annie Spring

 Lost Creek Campground 

Munson Valley/Castle Crest 

Wildflower Trail, Munson Valley

(Bridle) Trail, Superintendent’s 

Residence 

Rim Drive/Grayback Road, Mount 

Scott Trail, The Watchman 

Rim Village/Garfield Peak Trails 

Wizard Island 

Of these landscapes, Munson Valley, Rim 

Drive, The Watchman, Castle Crest 

Wildflower Trail, and Rim Village have 

been documented with a preliminary 

statement of significance and an existing 

conditions site plan. The superintendent’s 

residence has been documented with a 

history narrative, full statement of

significance, analysis and evaluation, and a 

consensus determination of eligibility by 

the Oregon state historic preservation 

officer. The aforementioned landscapes 

are in fair condition with the exception of 

the Castle Crest Wildflower Trail that is 

considered to be in good condition and 

the Lost Creek Campground and Rim 

Village landscapes which are considered to

be in poor condition. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

The Crater Lake National Park museum 

collection consists of more than 200,000 

objects divided into two major 

components — the natural history 

collection and the cultural collection. The 

natural history collection consists of 

biological and geological objects, while the 

cultural collection consists of 

archeological, ethnological, historical, and 

archival objects. 

Lack of storage and workspace meeting 

National Park Service museum standards 

continues to frustrate efforts to improve 

care of and access to the collections. Due 

to limited staffing, the cataloging backlog 

continues to increase. 

Natural History Collection 

Collection and maintenance of 

documented natural history specimens 

and all associated records in the museum 

collection are designed to support the 

park’s research/resource management and 

interpretive programs. The natural history 

85
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

collection includes representative 

specimens of taxa found in the park, 

voucher specimens, and environmental 

monitoring samples. Currently, no 

paleontological resources have been 

identified. Hence, the natural history 

collection is comprised of biological and 

geological specimens. 

Biological Objects. The biological 

collections include Monera and Protista, 

plants and fungi, and animals. Collections 

made of the Monera and Protista, such as 

phytoplankton samples obtained in

association with the park’s lake research, 

comprise a significant part of the park’s 

museum collection. 

The Applegate Collection, the core of the 

park’s vascular plant herbarium, 

represents the baseline for the park’s 

vascular plants. In addition, the park’s 

museum collection includes ecosystem 

collections of plants and fungi from 

research projects in the park’s Sphagnum 

Bog and Pumice Desert areas and mosses 

collected during lake research projects 

since the 1930s. The museum collection 

contains more than 2,000 herbarium

sheets containing some 6,000 botanical 

specimens. 

The animal collection contains more than 

220 specimens of mammals, representing 

approximately 70% of the 52 mammal 

species known to occur in the park. The

bird collection contains more than 215 

specimens, representing approximately 

70% of the 112 bird species known to

occur in the park. The reptile and 

amphibian collection contains more than 

375 specimens, representing all of the 14 

reptiles and amphibians known to occur in 

the park. The fish collection contains more 

than 60 specimens, representing all of the 

five fish species known to occur in the 

park. The insect and arachnid collection 

contains about 1,500 insect and arachnid 

specimens representing approximately 750

taxa. In addition, the museum collection 

contains some 340 zooplankton samples 

and about 40 specimens of other 

invertebrates. 

Geological Objects. The park’s museum 

collection stores some 420 geological

specimens onsite. These consist of

representative samples of rock types and 

formations exposed in the park. The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) office in Menlo

Park, California, currently maintains the 

samples collected by and for Dr. Charles 

Bacon’s continuing research on the 

national park’s geologic history. Due to 

the size of the collection, it will continue to 

be stored and used outside the park unless 

a more suitable facility is found. Evidence 

indicates that other USGS research has 

resulted in the collection of geological 

specimens, in particular collecting done by 

Dr. Hiroki Kamata of the Vancouver, 

Washington, office. An estimated 2,000-

plus, uncataloged geological specimens 

collected under previous collection 

permits are housed by USGS in offsite 

repositories.

Cultural Collection 

The purpose of the cultural collection is to

preserve a portion of the national park’s 

cultural heritage and to increase 

knowledge and appreciation of that

heritage through park research, exhibits, 

and interpretive programs. This collection 

contains materials from the disciplines of

archeology, ethnology, and history (which 

includes archival/documentary material, 

photographs and negatives, decorative and 

fine arts, and historic objects). 

Archeological Objects. The museum

collection contains more than 20 

archeological objects, all occasional finds, 

86
Cultural Resources 

which are primarily prehistoric and of

mineral composition. 

Ethnographic Objects. The museum

collection contains several ethnographic 

objects — baskets of unconfirmed tribal 

origin, possibly from the Rogue River 

region. 

Historical Objects. Museum archival and 

manuscript collections include personal 

papers, organizational archives, assembled 

manuscript collections, resource 

management records, and subofficial 

records. 

The national park’s museum collection 

contains the assembled collection and 

personal papers of William Gladstone 

Steel, generally considered to be the park’s 

founder. This collection forms the core of 

the archival materials already in the 

museum collection. The Francis G. Lange 

Collection contains blueprints, tracings, 

drawings, sketches, correspondence, and 

photographs that highlight the rustic 

architecture at Crater Lake and other 

parks. While the museum collection

currently does not contain any 

organizational records, the archival 

collections of the Crater Lake Natural 

History Association, Crater Lake 

Community Club, or Mazamas would be 

appropriate collections to consider for 

inclusion. The museum collection

currently contains more than 500 

photographs and negatives, some 170

lantern slides, and more than 100 

booklets/handbills/reports compiled by 

various collectors. The museum collection 

also contains the theses of several 

individuals who completed research in the 

park. A large quantity of resource 

management records (defined as vital nonofficial records generated by NPS 

employees, volunteers, contractors, 

cooperating associations, and other 

institutions to record information on

cultural and natural resources for the 

purposes of reference or exhibition) that 

should become part of the museum 

archives is stored elsewhere in the park as 

well as at offsite locations. The museum 

collection contains some subofficial

records (defined as copies or duplicates of

documents that are useful for reference, 

administrative histories, interpretation, 

and research) as a portion of the collections of past NPS employees. The museum 

collection contains 13 paintings and 20 

framed photographs relating to historical 

figures and scenic views associated with 

the park’s history. The museum collection 

contains some 30 historic objects, includeing Steel’s signature stamp, wooden

benches constructed by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, conference table, and 

parts of the “Cleetwood,” the first boat 

used by explorers on the lake. 

LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES 

The List of Classified Structures (LCS) is a 

computerized, evaluated inventory of all 

historic and prehistoric structures having 

historical, architectural, or engineering 

significance in which the National Park 

Service has or plans to acquire any legal 

interest. Included are structures that 

individually meet the criteria of the

national register or are contributing 

resources of sites and districts that meet 

national register evaluation criteria. Also 

included are other structures — moved, 

reconstructed, and commemorative 

structures as well as structures achieving 

significance within the last 50 years — that 

are managed as cultural resources, because 

of management decisions that have been 

made pursuant to the planning process. 

The following structures (with the 

exception of the Stone Walls Around

Reservoir, Garfield Peak, all of these 

87
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

structures are individually listed in, or 

determined eligible for listing in, the 

national register or they are listed as

contributing resources of national 

register-listed sites and districts) are listed

in the park’s LCS. These include

Rim Village

Sinnott Memorial and Sinnott 

Memorial Plaque 

Kiser Studio

 Crater Lake Lodge 

 Mather Memorial 

Stone Guard Rail Behind Lodge 

Stone Curbs and Parapet Walls 

Stone Stairs in Auto Parking Area 

Walls and Stairs to Sinnott 

Memorial 

Plaza Comfort Station 

 Comfort Station behind the 

Cafeteria (Comfort Station No. 4)

 Community House 

Munson Valley

 Administration Building 

 Ranger Dormitory 

6 Employee’s Residences

 Superintendent’s Residence 

 Meat House 

 Mess Hall 

Road Culvert Head Walls 

 Trail Bridge 

 Rock Walls 

Lady of The Woods 

 Naturalist’s Residence 

 Comfort Station 

 Machine Shop 

 Transformer Building 

Garage and Woodshed 

 Hospital 

 Warehouse 

Rim Village and Munson Valley

 5 Drinking Fountains 

Rim Drive

Stone Retaining Walls and Pullouts 

Watchman Peak

 Watchman Fire Lookout 

 Stone Parapet Walls and Trail 

(Watchman Lookout) 

Garfield Peak

Stone Walls Around Reservoir 

As a result of recently conducted 

condition assessments, possible additions 

to the LCS include the Wineglass Patrol 

Cabin (constructed in 1934) and the 

Mount Scott Lookout (constructed in 

1952). Because the Goodbye Bridge 

(constructed in 1954) has been identified 

by personnel of the Historic American 

Engineering Record as the earliest gluelam bridge in the national park system, it is 

likely that this structure will be added to 

the LCS in the future.

88
NATURAL RESOURCES 

BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 

The flora of Crater Lake National Park is 

typical of the vegetation found throughout 

the Southern Cascades. Generally, the 

vegetation of the region reflects a mosaic 

of forested areas and open non-forested 

areas. Climate, topography, soil development, and fire history all affect the composition and distribution of existing plant 

communities. Because of this natural 

species diversity, the park is regarded by 

many as a sanctuary for native forest and 

meadow communities, with limited introductions of non-native species. Approximately 20,250 hectares (50,000 acres) of 

late seral forest exist throughout the park. 

Fire suppression and historic logging

activities have altered forest structure and 

species composition throughout portions 

of the park and surrounding areas. 

Crater Lake National Park ranges in elevation from about 3,800 feet in the southwest 

corner of the park to just over 8,900 feet at 

Mount Scott. Most of the rim area is situated near the 7,000 foot elevation level, 

although, the Watchman and Hillman 

Peak areas on the western side of the lake 

are slightly in excess of 8,100 feet. Vegetation grades from a mixed conifer forest 

dominated by ponderosa pine at the south 

entrance to high elevation mountain hemlock and whitebark pine forest at the rim. 

Other forest types include lodgepole pine,

white fir, Douglas fir, and shasta red fir. 

Ponderosa pine forest principally occurs 

on the southeastern edge and northeastern 

corner of the park, up to elevations of

5,500 feet. The ponderosa pine is 

commonly associated with white fir and in 

the lower elevations with sugar pine and 

some Douglas fir. Along the margin of

ponderosa pine communities, particularly 

at meadow edges where cold air tends to 

have a large ecological effect, lodgepole 

pine may be found in association with 

ponderosa pine. The white fir forest is 

concentrated in the southern portion of 

the Park and has 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. The Douglas-fir type is 

not a common type in the park and occurs 

in relatively inaccessible areas in the 

southwestern portion of the Park, where it 

occurs in a complex mixture with red fir, 

climax lodgepole, and white fir forests. 

Increasing in elevation, lodgepole pine 

forest type sometimes covers vast areas 

and is found from 5,000-6,500 feet and is 

associated with shasta red fir and 

mountain hemlock. 

Climbing still higher, to the very rim of 

Crater Lake, and up the slopes of the 

surrounding peaks, the forest becomes 

more scattered and the trees smaller and 

more stunted. Only a few species endure 

the low temperature, high winds, and deep

snows at these altitudes, the principal ones 

being mountain hemlock, and white-bark 

pine. Mountain hemlock stands are the 

highest elevation continuous forests at 

Crater Lake and become dominant at

about 6000 feet. Whitebark pine extends 

from about 7500 ft to the top of Mt. Scott, 

the highest point in the park (8,929 ft) and 

is more an open woodland than a forest. 

Whitebark pine is uncommon in the park 

and is in decline throughout its range due 

to a non-native pathogen that causes white 

pine blister rust in five-needle pines.

Information is being collected throughout 

the Cascades Range that will help land 

managers to develop appropriate 

89
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

management plans to provide for 

preservation of this species. 

The abundant and diverse vegetation of 

the park constitutes a large block of 

relatively undisturbed habitat that 

supports various populations of native 

wildlife species. The park has significant 

populations of Roosevelt elk, black tail 

deer, pronghorn, coyote, and porcupine. 

Periodic sightings of black bear, pine

marten, weasel, and mountain lion are 

reported in the summer months. A variety 

of other small animal species are seen in 

the backcountry of the Park. 

Soil properties are integral components of 

determining the species diversity, 

productivity, and regenerative capacity of 

vegetation types. Therefore soil resources 

are also included in this impact topic. The 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) completed inventory and 

mapping of the soils of Crater Lake 

National Park in 2001. Twelve soil types 

that fall into six general categories were 

identified within the park. The categories 

are: 1) soils on uplands, formed in air-fall 

deposited ash and pumice; 2) soils on

uplands, formed in air-fall deposited ash 

and pumice over glacial deposits; 3) soils in 

valleys, formed in ash flow deposits 

consisting of ash, pumice and cinders; 4) 

soils on cinder cones; 5) soils on upland 

meadows with intermingled forests; and 6)

soils in seeps and on stream terraces. In 

general, the soils have a low water holding 

capacity and nutrient levels. These soil 

conditions combined with a short, 

relatively dry growing season make 

reestablishment of vegetation very 

difficult. Soils are in general not highly 

erodible. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

A number of species may be affected by 

the alternatives that are considered 

threatened or endangered in Oregon, that 

inhabit, or for which potential habitat 

exists in the park.

Table 5: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Species 

Federal Status State Status 

Oregon Natural

Heritage

Program List* 

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis 

Threatened Threatened

California Wolverine 

Gulo gulo luteus 

Species of 

Concern 

Threatened List 2

Pacific Fisher

Martes pennanti pacifica 

Species of 

Concern 

Sensitive Species List 2 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Threatened Threatened List 2

Northern spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis caurina 

Threatened Threatened List 1

Peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

Endangered List 2

Northern Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis 

Species of 

Concern 

Sensitive Species List 2 

Bull Trout Threatened Sensitive Species List 1 

90
Natural Resources 

Species 

Federal Status State Status 

Oregon Natural

Heritage

Program List* 

Salvelinus confluentus

(Klamath River and Columbia River 

population segments) 

Crater Lake rockcress 

Arabis suffrutescens var. horizontalis 

Species of 

Concern 

Candidate List 1

Shasta arnica

Arnica vicosa

List 2

Pumice grapefern Botrychium pumicola Threatened List 1

*List 1 contains taxa that are endangered or threatened throughout their range or which are presumed extinct. 

The status of taxa on this list represents its status throughout its range. List 2 contains species that are threatened, 

endangered or possibly extirpated from Oregon, but are stable or more common elsewhere.

Canada Lynx 

The park has over 34,000 acres of potential

Canada lynx habitat, consisting of a 

mosaic of old growth stands providing 

denning sites and lodgepole forest and 

meadow foraging habitat. Although the 

park has conducted three years of 

extensive surveys for Canada lynx in the

park, none have been detected. There is 

evidence from the past suggesting that 

lynx previously foraged in the park. The 

Smithsonian Institute has a Canada lynx 

pelt in its collection that dates back to

1898. It was trapped along the Wood River 

just south of the park. Lynx sightings have

been reported in the Klamath Basin as 

recent as 2000, but have not been verified 

with other substantive evidence such as 

photos, tracks, or hair. 

California Wolverine and Pacific Fisher 

These species all have large home ranges, 

are capable of moving long distances, tend 

to avoid areas with human activity or 

development, and require relatively

undisturbed habitats that are uncommon 

outside of the park. Because of large-scale 

loss of natural habitats throughout both 

species’ ranges, the high-elevation 

coniferous forests of Crater Lake that 

provide forage, denning, and travel habitat 

for these small carnivores park may be

important to their distribution and 

abundance in Oregon. Although 

information on these species is limited, old

forest structure, including large woody 

debris for denning (both logs and snags), is 

an important structural characteristic of 

habitat for these animals. Ongoing surveys 

initiated over the past 5 years to determine 

if wolverines are present in the park have

only detected pine martens, although a 

reliable siting of a wolverine was made in

2000 by a state biologist visiting the park. 

Bald Eagle

There is a historic nest site on Wizard 

Island, and one currently active nest site 

along the shoreline of Crater Lake. Tour 

boats are restricted from areas on the lake 

that are near the nest site. The Klamath 

Basin has over 70 eagle nest sites and these 

birds forage in the park. Bald eagles are 

observed in the Park from early spring, 

April or May, to fall, usually sometime in 

October. None are present during the 

winter months. 

91
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 92

Northern Spotted Owl 

This old-growth dependent species is at 

the eastern end of its range in Crater Lake 

National Park. There are approximately 

32,260 acres of lower elevation mixed 

conifer forests that are considered suitable 

spotted owl habitat in the Park. This 

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. All currently 

known nest locations have been found 

within areas identified as potential habitat 

on the west and south sides of the park, 

but occasional sightings have been 

documented outside of these areas. The 

park conducts an annual monitoring 

program to assess the nesting and 

reproductive status of owl pairs living in 

the park. Since 1992, 17 owl pairs have 

been tracked. 

Northern Goshawk 

This hawk is rare in Crater Lake National 

Park. Little is known of the specific habitat 

requirements for goshawks in Crater Lake 

National Park but the following general 

forest management activities are helpful in 

conserving habitat for Northern 

Goshawks: (1) retain the upper canopy 

trees at known or suspected nest sites; (2) 

retain down wood and logs for prey, 

particularly squirrel species; and (3) 

manage stands for understory removal and 

canopy retention. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Peregrines nest on cliffs, often near water 

and forage on a diverse avian prey base. 

Most habitat and reported activity in the 

park are from within the caldera. One 

active peregrine nest site exists within the 

caldera. Tour boats are restricted from 

areas on the lake that are near the nest site. 

There are many potential nest sites 

available on the cliffs in the caldera. The 

park conducts annual monitoring of falcon 

habitat, to determine relative abundance 

within the park. 

Bull Trout

The bull trout is the only known fish 

species native to Crater Lake National 

Park. Bull trout are located only in Sun and 

Lost Creeks. Annie Creek is also within 

this species range and is considered bull 

trout habitat, although bull trout do not 

currently occur there. The park has an 

active restoration program in progress. 

This program has resulted in elimination 

of non-native brook trout from Sun Creek 

2000. Follow-up surveys indicate that bull 

trout are responding well in the wake of 

their restoration in the creek. 

Pumice Grapefern, Shasta Arnica, and 

Crater Lake Rockcress 

All three plants occur in isolated 

populations along the rim. Pumice 

grapefern is endemic to raw pumice-gravel 

substrates which are subject to harsh 

climatic extremes (intense sunlight, 

dessicating winds, cold nights, etc.). Shasta 

arnica occurs on dry talus slopes of the 

rim, often with an eastern aspect. Crater 

Lake rockcress is found in dry, rocky 

pumice and intermixed with sparse, open, 

mountain hemlock forest. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Crater Lake is near the midpoint of the 

Sierra Cascade Mountain province of the 

Pacific mountain system. The park is 

influenced by Pacific Ocean weather. The 

majority of storm fronts that pass the 

north Pacific Coast each winter will result 

in moisture at Crater Lake. Summer 
Natural Resources 

93

weather is generally mild with clear skies 

except for occasional thunderstorms, 

which seldom occur with enough force or 

volume to produce damaging rains or hail. 

Daytime summer high temperatures 

usually range from 60°F (15°C) to 70°F 

(21°C) and seldom exceed 85°F (29.4°C). 

Approximately 70% of the annual 

precipitation falls from November 

through March, with less than 6% from 

June through August. During the dry 

months — June, July, and August — an 

average of only five days will have precipitation greater than 0.10 inch. Snow has 

fallen every month of the year. Annual 

snowfalls can total over 800 inches, and 

long-lasting snow depths of 100 to 200 

inches accumulate. 

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. This is because 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. 

Annie Spring, near the Mazama campground, has been the park’s water supply 

since 1976. Water is pumped from the 

spring to storage facilities at Rim Village, 

Mazama Village, and Munson Valley. The 

source of water for Annie Spring is shallow 

groundwater originating as snowmelt; the 

spring’s output is reduced during years 

when the winter snowpack is low (Century 

West Engineering Corporation 1994). The 

average low flow is about 1,565,000 gpd, or 

2.4 cfs. Annie Creek joins with the Wood 

River and eventually flows into the Klamath River system south of the park. 

Crater Lake 

Crater Lake lies inside the caldera of 

Mount Mazama and is surrounded by 

steep-walled cliffs that range from 500 to 

2,000 feet above the lake’s surface. At 

1,943 feet, it is the seventh deepest lake in 

the world and the deepest in the United 

States and noted for its extreme water 

clarity and deep blue color. The lake has 

no surface outflows and only minor 

surface groundwater inflows as springs 

along the caldera walls. The main source 

of water for the lake is precipitation, 

averaging 70 inches per year. 

Results of the ongoing Crater Lake LongTerm Limnological Program indicate that 

Crater Lake is a complex and dynamic 

system. No unidirectional change in the 

parameters monitored (lake and spring 

water chemistry, nutrients, chlorophyll, 

primary productivity, phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, fish, water clarity, light penetration, and temperature) has been 

detected. The monitoring program has 

also provided valuable data and 

recommendations on a number of other 

management issues including the extent 

and significance of submerged 

hydrothermal resources (relative to a 

proposed geothermal power development 

along the park boundary), boat and 

automobile petroleum hydrocarbon inputs 

to the lake, water quality of springs 

entering the lake below developed areas 

along the caldera rim, and the potential 

impact of introduced fishes. 

AIR QUALITY 

Crater Lake National Park is a class I air 

shed designated by the 1977 Clean Air Act 

amendments. As a class I area, the park is 

subject to the most stringent regulations of 

any designation. Results from the park’s 

air quality monitoring indicate that the 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 94

 condition of the park’s airshed is good, 

one of the cleanest airsheds in the U. S. 

There is relatively little impact from fine 

particulates and visibility is high. The elevation and geography make the park susceptible to winds, which tend to disperse 

particulates and other pollutants. The 

clean air allows spectacular views of the 

surrounding Cascades and Klamath Basin. 

A major air quality concern is the pollutants from industrial areas introduced at 

Crater Lake in the form of acid rain and 

snow. These pollutants threaten both land 

and water resources, particularly the lake 

clarity.
VISITORS AND THE PARK

OVERVIEW

Visitors primarily come to Crater Lake 

National Park to view the lake. As one of 

the first national parks, Crater Lake was 

the focus of early NPS publicity efforts to 

promote visitation. Since the establishment of the park in 1902, Crater Lake has 

been accessible by automobile, and the 

park’s road system has enabled visitors to 

drive to scenic destinations within the 

park, including Annie Spring, Munson 

Valley, and parts of the crater rim. In 1917 

the Park Service issued an automobile 

guide map to the park’s features and 

successfully promoted visitation to the 

park in combination with travel on the 

Southern Pacific Railroad. Early 20th

century visitation to the park was also 

encouraged by the National Parks 

Highway Association with the 

development of an automobile tour path 

linking western national parks in a route 

that became known as the Park Highway. 

In combination with road accessibility the 

park also offered visitor accommodations 

at campgrounds and concessioner lodging 

which supported travel to Crater Lake 

National Park. 

Visitation to Crater Lake National Park in 

the early years was restricted by the 

relative isolation of the park and the long 

snowy winters that limited the travel

season to a few short months in the 

summer. Due to heavy snow loads, roads 

into the park were often not in condition 

for regular travel until July or August and 

were frequently closed by October. With 

the development of Rim Village at the 

crater in the 1920s, visitation to the park 

steadily increased. It was possible to drive 

completely around the lake beginning in 

1918 and visitors did so while the Rim 

Drive was being built. In the winter of 

1935 1936, the highway into the park from 

Medford and Klamath Falls was kept 

open, making the park accessible to

motorists the entire year for the first time 

in the park’s history. In the late 1930s, the 

Rim Road was extended and improved 

enhancing the visitors’ drive around the 

lake during the summer months. Weather 

continues to play a role in determining the 

extent of park visitation and shaping the 

visitor experience. 

The number of park visits continued to 

increase in the years before World War II, 

and visitor use of the park expanded to 

include winter snow play as well as

summer season activities of natureviewing, camping, hiking, and autotouring. Following the war, as visitation to 

the park returned to pre-war numbers, 

improvements were made to the park’s 

roads and to visitor accommodations. 

Annual park visitation reached a plateau of 

500,000 in the early 1960s but can fluctuate 

as much as 25% from year to year. 

Visitation did reach a high near 700,000 in 

the 1970s. In 2000 park visitation was 

432,993. 

Based on a continuation of existing trends 

in visitation, the number of visitors to the 

park is expected to increase slightly over 

the long term and continue to fluctuate 

from year to year. It is anticipated that the 

bulk of visitation to the park will continue 

to occur in June, July, and August and that 

most visits would continue to be less than 

four hours in duration. Any increase in 

annual visitation would likely result in 

more visitors during peak-use days within 

the peak period, and would continue to be 

concentrated between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 

95
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

P.M. Developed areas in the park, 

including Mazama Village, Munson

Valley, and Rim Village, would continue to 

be popular and could see increased use. 

Increases in annual visitation could also 

result in more visitor use on off-peak days. 

There could also be more visitation during 

the limited spring and fall shoulder 

seasons. 

Crater Lake National Pak is a vital element 

in the regional recreational environment. 

Many high quality recreational opportunities are available in or near the park 

and many visitors stop at the park as part 

of a north-south automobile trip. Seventyfive percent of visitors polled in the 2001 

visitor survey said their primary reason for 

visiting the area was to visit Crater Lake 

National Park (Crater Lake National Park 

Visitor Study, 2001). The most common 

sources of information visitors use to plan 

a visit to Crater Lake National Park are 

travel guides and tour books as well as 

word of mouth. Three major rivers, the

Rogue, Klamath, and Umpqua Rivers, flow 

through the region. To the east of the park 

seven wildlife refuges are located in the 

Klamath Basin. The area offers summer 

and winter attractions, including cultural 

events, boating and rafting, hiking, fishing, 

hunting, and skiing. Regional visitors tend 

to visit other areas for specific activities, 

but include Crater Lake in their itinerary. 

WHO VISITS THE PARK AND 

WHEN THEY COME 

In the summer of 2001, the University of 

Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit 

gathered demographic information about 

visitors to Crater Lake National Park. The 

survey was conducted August 3rd through 

the 9th in the summer of 2001. A total of 

656 visitor groups were contacted, 600 of 

these groups agreed to participate in the 

survey, and 484 questionnaires were

completed and returned for a response 

rate of 80.7%. The study found that a 

majority of visitors (71%) were from the 

states of Oregon, California, and 

Washington. International visitors 

represent 3% of the total park visitation. 

Slightly over one-third (36%) of

international visitors to the park are from 

Canada. The majority of visitors surveyed

(65%) indicated that they were either firsttime visitors to the park or had not visited 

the park within the past two to five years. 

Over half of all visitors to the park (59%) 

are older than 36 years of age. Children, 

ages 15 or younger, representing a fifth 

(20%) of the visiting public. At least 70% 

of visitors to the park identified

themselves as family groups, 14% as 

friends, and 8% as being by themselves. 

Less than 2% of park visitors indicated 

that they were with a guided tour group. 

The 2001 survey found that Crater Lake 

National Park is principally a day use area. 

Eighty-one percent of visitors to the park 

spend less than a day. For most visitors, 

the park is a stopover rather than a 

terminal destination area, however, 75% 

of visitors indicated that Crater Lake 

National Park was the primary reason for 

their visit to the region and 39% of 

respondents stay at least one night outside 

the park. Visitation to the park is highest

between Memorial Day and Labor Day. 

Fifty-six percent of visitors spend four or 

more hours in the park and 75% of all 

visits occur during a five-hour period in 

the middle of the day (10:00 A.M. to 3:00 

P.M.). Weather restricts access to the park 

during the winter months. Rim Drive is 

closed by snow usually from mid-October 

to early July. Vehicle access during the 

winter is maintained only from the south 

and west on Route 62 to Rim Village. Road 

closures, particularly between Munson 

Valley and the rim, are common during the 

96
Visitors and the Park 

winter and closures of up to three days are 

not unusual. 

DIVERSITY OF RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

The 2001 visitor survey profiled Crater 

Lake National Park visitors to better

understand the experiences that visitors 

sought and attained. Information was 

gathered on what activities visitors 

engaged in, places visited, areas of the park 

visited, the use and importance of 

interpretation and park orientation, visitor 

facilities and services, and the importance 

of selected visitor experience values.

The 2001 survey found that the most

common visitor activities are scenic 

driving (94%), viewing Crater Lake (71%),

and photography (63%). The least 

common activity is overnight backpacking. 

Other visitor activities included swimming, 

shopping, watching the orientation film at 

the visitor center, and hiking down to the 

lake at Cleetwood Cove. The most 

common activity during the winter is 

cross-country skiing and the least 

common winter activity is snowshoeing. 

The most visited places in the park are Rim 

Village (85%), West Rim Drive (70%), and 

Rim Village Visitor Center (61%). East 

Rim Drive receives about 25% less use 

than the West Rim Drive. Grayback Motor 

Nature Trail is the least used road. During 

the summer, there is moderate use of the 

short interpretive trails along the crater 

rim. Hiking, taking the boat tour, viewing 

the lake, picnicking, attending ranger-lead 

activities, nature study, and overnight 

backpacking were identified as less 

important, but desired activities for future 

visits to the park. 

VISITOR ACCESS AND 

CIRCULATION 

For the majority of visitors park roads 

mold and define the visitor experience. 

The 2001 visitor use survey indicates that 

Crater Lake National Park is primarily a 

day use area for approximately 81% of its 

annual visitors and that a stop at Crater 

Lake is a part of a north-south auto trip. 

Most visitors arrive at the park during the 

summer months and auto touring remains 

the predominant visitor activity. In the 

summer, automobile access to Crater Lake 

National Park from the north is via

Oregon Route 138, from the south the 

park is reached via Oregon Route 62 from

Medford and Klamath Falls. 

The park entrance at Annie Spring is 76 

miles from Medford and 56 miles from 

Klamath Falls. The most used entrance 

into the park is the South Entrance Road 

from Highway 62, followed by the North 

Entrance from Highway 97. The most used

exit from the park is the North Entrance to 

Highway 97. Both the south and north 

access roads lead to Rim Drive, a 33-mile 

road encircling the caldera rim. Numerous 

pullouts and/or parking areas along Rim 

Drive provide scenic lake views. The 

Pinnacles Road is a 6-mile spur road from 

Rim Drive that leads to an area of volcanic 

spires known as The Pinnacles. The 10-

mile North Entrance road crosses the 

Pumice Desert. The 4-mile South Entrance 

road follows Annie Creek Canyon. The 

3.5-mile gravel surfaced Grayback Drive 

diverges from East Rim Drive at Vidae 

Falls, crosses Grayback Ridge, and

connects with the Pinnacles Road at Lost 

Creek Campground. 

Rim Drive at Crater Lake National Park is 

linked to other Cascade Mountain 

volcanic areas by its 1997 designation by 

the Oregon Department of Transportation 

97
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

as part of the Volcanic Legacy Scenic 

Byway. The Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway 

joins the Shasta Volcanic Scenic Byway at 

Highway 97 at the Oregon border. These 

scenic byways connect Crater Lake 

National Park with Lassen Volcanic 

National Park in Shasta County, California 

and extend the “volcano to volcano” 

connection. In 1998, the Federal Highway 

Administration named Rim Drive an AllAmerican Road. Rim Drive receives one of

the highest visitor uses in the park. During 

the summer months scenic pullouts and 

parking areas along Rim Drive can become 

crowded. Parking areas subject to 

crowding include Cleetwood, Phantom 

Ship Overlook, and the Watchman. 

Because it is located at the only access 

point to the lakeshore, Cleetwood Trail 

parking is especially prone to congestion 

because boat tour participants and hikers 

compete for parking spaces. Parking at 

Rim Village and Mazama Village is also 

congested during the summer months. 

Almost one-half of visitors (48%) 

participating in the 2001 survey said it was 

unlikely that they would be willing to ride 

a shuttle bus rather than drive their own 

vehicle on Rim Drive. Forty-six percent of 

the visitors said they would be willing to 

ride a shuttle bus around Rim Drive if it 

included a park interpreter to inform them 

as they traveled around the lake. Although

most visitors indicated they had not visited

Crater Lake in the winter, 51% said they 

would be willing to pay a modest fee to 

take an over-snow vehicle to the rim in 

winter. 

Visitors can access a minimally altered 

environment from frontcountry trails. The 

main access to the backcountry is from the 

Pacific Crest Trail that bisects the park

north to south. The park has 

approximately 20 miles of frontcountry 

hiking trails, most of which are accessed 

from Rim Drive. Crater rim trails ascend 

Garfield Peak, the Watchman, and Mount 

Scott, which is the highest point in the 

park. There is moderate use of these frontcountry trails. The one-mile Cleetwood 

Trail receives more use than other rim 

trails because it provides the only access to 

the lake. Other short interpretive trails are 

located near Mazama Village at Godfrey 

Glen and Annie Creek. A short trail at 

Munson Valley, the Castle Crest Trail, 

introduces visitors to park flora. There is 

also a park headquarters historic walking 

tour available that involves a loop trail that 

goes past the Lady of the Woods. Twentysix miles of the Pacific Crest Trail traverse 

the park. The Pacific Crest Trail and the 

Bald Crater Loop trail are the only trails in 

the park that allows stock use. 

Backcountry trails, most originally built in 

the 1930s, crisscross the backcountry 

connecting with the Pacific Crest Trail. 

The most commonly hiked trails in the 

park are Cleetwood Cove Lake Trail, 

Watchman Peak, and Castle Crest 

Wildflower Trail. The least hiked trail is 

the Munson Valley Historical Trail. Other 

trails receiving moderate use are Wizard 

Island, Rim Trail, Sun Notch, and 

Pinnacles Trail (NPS, Crater Lake NP 

Visitor Study, 2001). Park facilities 

accessible to visitors with disabilities

include road scenic pullouts, the visitor 

information building, and some 

frontcountry trails, primarily at Rim 

Village. 

Boat tours on the lake were initiated in 

1907 to provide an opportunity for visitors 

to better experience the lake and caldera. 

The boat tour operation was moved from 

the Rim Village area to Cleetwood Cove in 

1960 to take advantage of a less steep grade 

and a southern exposure for the access 

trail to the lake. The Cleetwood Trail is 

about a mile long and provides the only 

access to the lake. From mid to late June 

98
Visitors and the Park 

through September the concessioner 

offers 1 1⁄2 hour commercial boat tours of 

the lake accompanied by an NPS 

interpreter. The boat tour begins at 

Cleetwood Cove and circles the inside of

the caldera with a stop at Wizard Island 

and a close-up look at a rock formation in 

the lake known as Phantom Ship. The 

concession-owned tour boats 

accommodate 48 passengers. There are 

seven boat tours a day. Limited parking for 

the tours is available at the rim, however 

the Cleetwood parking lot is often 

congested and many visitors park along 

Rim Drive when spaces in the parking lot 

are unavailable. 

Access to winter recreational 

opportunities at the rim, including crosscountry skiing and snow play on 

unplowed roads, occurs during the winter 

months. The Munson Valley Road to Rim 

Village is kept open during the winter 

months. Rim Village remains the focal 

point of visitor activity; however snow 

levels usually reduce lake-viewing 

opportunities. Viewing the lake from Rim 

Village in winter can be difficult because of 

snow levels and accumulated snow from 

plowing operations. Currently a large 

metal pipe culvert is placed on supports at 

the edge of the rim to create a tunnel 

through the snow bank allowing visitors a 

view of the lake. In heavy snowfalls the 

viewing window on the culvert can 

become obstructed. Snowmobiles are 

permitted on the North Entrance road. A 

snowmobile study conducted at the park 

in 1997 estimated that about 3,500 

snowmobile visitors entered the park from 

November to April that year. The park 

issues incidental business permits for

snowmobile and snow-cat tours along the 

North Entrance Road, as well as for crosscountry skiing operations within the park. 

EDUCATION/INTERPRETATION 

AND ORIENTATION

Education/interpretation and orientation 

to the park are provided throughout the 

year, however most interpretative 

activities occur during the summer. During 

the summer passive interpretation is 

provided at observation areas along the 

rim. Sinnott Memorial, on a precipitous 

cliff overlooking the lake, provides visitors 

with unobstructed views of Crater Lake. 

Interpretive talks are presented here 

during the summer. Two visitor centers, 

one at Munson Valley and one at Rim 

Village, provide orientation to the park 

during the summer. Interpretive activities 

also take place on boat tours operated by 

the park concessioner, and on ranger-led

walks and talks on frontcountry trails and 

at a campground amphitheater. 

Education/interpretation and orientation 

opportunities at the park are reduced 

during the winter. Winter orientation to 

the park is provided at the Visitor 

Information Building at Munson Valley. 

The only visitor facility open year-round 

at Rim Village is the concessioner -

operated cafeteria. Interpretative outreach 

programs are conducted throughout the 

year, with a primary focus during the 

winter when programs are made available 

to schools. 

SOUNDSCAPES AND 

SCENIC QUALITY 

The 2001 visitor survey asked respondents 

to rate the importance of ten selected park 

attributes. Attributes that received a high 

importance rating include natural quiet / 

sounds of nature and solitude. Eighty-nine 

percent of respondents to the 2001 visitor 

survey indicated that natural quiet and 

sounds of nature were either very or

extremely important park attributes that 

99
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

should be considered in preservation

planning for Crater Lake National Park. 

Seventy-five percent of participants stated 

that solitude was either a very or an 

extremely important park attribute. The 

predominant visitor activity at Crater Lake 

National Park is lake viewing. Ninety-four 

percent of respondents reporting 

sightseeing and scenic driving as very

important activities during their visit. In 

addition, 63% of visitors indicated that 

sightseeing and scenic driving would be 

important parts of any future visits to the 

park. 

Expansion of parking at Rim Village has 

resulted in an expanse of asphalt and a 

concentration of visitors at the rim. During 

the summer pedestrians at Rim Village are 

constantly exposed to the sight, sound, 

and smell of vehicle traffic and must cross 

traffic lanes and parking areas to reach 

lake viewpoints and scattered facilities. 

Rim Drive hugs the caldera rim for much 

of its length although there are quite a few

stretches where a view of the lake is not 

possible from the road. Development of 

the Rim Drive and its associated overlooks 

and pullouts at The Watchman, North 

Junction, Steel Bay, Cleetwood Cove, 

Grotto Cove, Skell Head, Cloudcap 

Overlook, Cottage Rocks, Sentinel Point, 

Reflection Point, Kerr Notch, Phantom 

Ship Overlook, and Discovery Point has 

concentrated lake- viewing opportunities 

and trail access to a few areas. Excellent 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes and scenic views are 

abundant in the backcountry, but a view of 

the lake is always shared with the sight and 

sounds of motor vehicle traffic.

100
OPERATIONS 

PARK OPERATIONS

Crater Lake National Park is managed by a 

park superintendent headquartered at 

Munson Valley. The superintendent is 

responsible for the day-to-day operations 

of the park and is supported by a 

concessions manager and secretary. 

Management of the park is organized into 

the following divisions: administration, 

resource and visitor protection, resource 

preservation and research, maintenance, 

and interpretation / cultural resources. 

Staff in each division is stationed at park 

headquarters. Satellite offices are also 

maintained by some divisions at Klamath 

Falls and at Ashland. 

Administrative functions, including 

payroll, budget and finance, procurement, 

contracting, property management, 

information technology services, and 

human resources, are accomplished at 

park headquarters. There are eight 

administrative personnel. 

The Resource and Visitor Protection 

Division manages for resource protection 

and visitor safety and experience. Responsibilities include various visitor management and resource protection duties, 

including enforcing laws, resolving 

disputes, providing emergency medical 

services, fighting structural fires, managing 

visitor use in the park, building and maintaining trails, educating visitors about park 

resources, and performing search-andrescue activities. Staff in this division also 

participate in resource management 

activities, including fire and wilderness

management. There are 12 permanent 

resource and visitor protection staff 

employees. Another 35 seasonal employees work for the division during the summer months, and about 50 volunteers 

support the work of this division 

throughout the year. 

The Resource Preservation and Research 

Division is responsible for preserving and 

managing the natural resources of the park 

and coordinating scientific research. They

are responsible for resource inventory, 

monitoring and evaluation, impacts mitigation, restoration, and wildlife management. Facilities necessary to support 

resources management activities and 

programs include office and storage space, 

vehicle parking, and employee housing. 

Eight permanent or term and approximately 10 seasonal Crater Lake employees 

are currently assigned to the Resource 

Preservation and Research Division. 

Several of the natural resource management staff also work at offices in Klamath 

Falls and Ashland, Oregon. 

Maintenance staff conducts preventive 

and corrective maintenance on park infrastructure and equipment. Park infrastructure includes water, wastewater treatment 

facilities, electric utilities, roads, parking, 

campgrounds, administrative and public 

buildings and structures within the park, 

and employee housing. All maintenance 

operations are based in Munson Valley. 

The Maintenance Division includes the 

following functions: 

 Buildings and utilities function 

maintains structures, housing, 

campgrounds, and park utility 

infrastructure. 

 Roads function has responsibility for 

preventive and corrective maintenance 

on NPS administered roads. An important function of this branch is snow

removal on park roads and responsibility for equipment maintenance. 

101
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 102

Facilities that support the needs of the 

maintenance staff include equipment and 

replacement parts storage, vehicle maintenance and repair shops, parts and 

supplies storage, warehouse facilities, 

boneyards, and office space. Approximately 20 permanent and 20 seasonal 

employees are currently assigned to the 

Facilities Management Division. 

Interpretation and Cultural Resources 

Management staff facilitates connections 

between the public and park resources 

through programs, exhibits, written material, and the park’s website. This staff also 

provides for the preservation and management of the park’s cultural resources, 

including historic structures, cultural 

landscapes, museum and archives 

collection, and archeological sites. 

Interpretive programs are presented in the 

park on a regular schedule during the 

summer months, and educational outreach 

programs are conducted throughout the 

year. Summer programs include ranger-led 

walks, talks, boat tours, and children’s 

activities. Snowshoe walks are conducted 

for the public and school groups during 

the winter. 

Facilities associated with interpretive 

programs include two visitor centers, one 

public museum with interpretive exhibits, 

one building for hosting programs and 

exhibits, and one amphitheatre. Other 

facilities include the park library and the 

museum and archives collection. One 

employee provides division management 

and is split between the disciplines of 

interpretation and education and cultural 

resources. Two full-time employees are 

currently assigned to interpretation and 

education, while the park historian and 

museum curator focus on cultural 

resource functions. Typically this division 

hires approximately 12 seasonal 

interpretive employees. A seasonal 

archeologist is hired when project funding 

is available. 

CONCESSION OPERATIONS 

All concession facilities and services at 

Crater Lake National Park take place at 

Rim Village, Mazama Village, and 

Cleetwood and are operated by a private 

concessioner. The park’s concessioner is 

Xanterra Parks and Resorts. Snacks, meals, 

and gifts are sold daily in Rim Village. 

During the summer season at Mazama 

Village, camper supplies, gifts, and snacks 

are sold. The summer season concession 

operations is generally from mid-May 

through mid-October. Depending on 

snow conditions, the concessioner may 

open earlier in the spring or stay open later 

in the fall. Traditionally, the concessioner 

generates more than 90% of its total sales 

during the summer season. In the winter, 

most concessioner facilities are closed by 

heavy snow. Although the road to Rim 
Operations 

103

Village is maintained and plowed by the 

park, the low visitation and frequent 

weather closures necessitate the reduction 

in the level of service at the rim. The 

cafeteria and gift shop, located in one 

multipurpose building, offer limited food 

and gift shop services, and also serve as the 

concessioner warehouse and storage 

facility. Winter hours at the Rim Village 

cafeteria and gift shop are 10:00 A.M. to 

4:30 P.M. snow conditions permitting. No 

concessioner-provided lodging is available 

in the park during the winter. 

Crater Lake Lodge, located at the crater 

rim, offers summer season accommodation and dining from mid-May to 

late September or mid-October. The lodge 

has 71 guestrooms and a 78-seat restaurant 

and bar. The concessioner employs 

approximately 240 staff, many of whom 

are housed in an employee dormitory on 

the east side of Rim Village. 

The concession operation at Mazama 

Village includes operation of the 213-site 

Mazama Campground and a camper 

services building providing a grocery and 

sundries store for camper supplies, coinoperated public showers and laundry, a 

commercial laundry, and limited snack 

food services. The store at Mazama Village 

is open from early June to mid-October. 

The camper services building serves as the 

concessioner’s only laundry facility for the 

lodge and the concessioner-constructed 

40-unit Mazama Village Motor Inn. Other 

concession-operated visitor services at 

Mazama Village include a gasoline station. 

Like Rim Village, Mazama Village is open 

only in the summer . Lodging at the motel 

is available from early June to midOctober. 

Cleetwood is on the north shore of Crater 

Lake and is accessed from Rim Drive. It is 

about 6 miles east of the North Junction 

where Rim Drive intersects the North 

Entrance Road. Cleetwood includes a 

parking area, a nonpermanent ticket sales 

structure, and a portable restroom at the 

rim. A trail descends the side of the caldera 

to the lake. The concessioner offers 

commercial boat tours of the lake 

accompanied by NPS interpreters. The 

concessioner owns and operates three 48-

passenger boats from mid- to late June 

through mid-September. There are seven 

scheduled boat tours, plus one trip to 

Wizard Island for passenger pickup. 

During the winter months the boats and 

other equipment are stored at docking 

facilities on Wizard Island. 

PARK INFRASTRUCTURE 

AND FACILITIES 

Crater Lake National Park’s List of 

Classified Structures (LCS) includes 38 

structures ranging from comfort stations 

to the Crater Lake Lodge. The LCS is an 

evaluated inventory of all historic and 

prehistoric structures that have historical, 

architectural and/or engineering 

significance within the park. Twelve listed 

structures are located at Rim Village. 

These include Kiser Studio Building, 

Sinnott Memorial, Comfort Station, Walls 

and Stairs to Sinnott Memorial, Sinnott 

Plaque, Stone Curbs and Parapet Walls, 

Stone Guard Rail behind Lodge, Mather 

Memorial Drinking Fountains, and Crater 

Lake Lodge. Twenty-two of the listed 

structures are located in the Munson 

Valley Historic District. These include the 

Administration Building, Ranger 

Dormitory (Steel Information Center), 

Mess Hall, Warehouse, Machine Shop, 

Meat House, superintendent’s residence, 

Naturalist’s Residence, six employee 

residences, garage and woodshed, 

hospital, Transformer Building, Comfort 

Station, and Lady of the Woods. Also 

located in Munson Valley is the main 

maintenance facility containing vehicle 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 104

repair and parking bays, shops, and 

equipment storage. Permanent housing is 

located at Steel Circle near the Munson 

Valley Historic District. There are seven 

duplex housing structures representing a 

total of 14 residences along Steel Circle as 

well as a community building. Across the 

South Entrance Road from Steel Circle is a 

group of eight duplexes with 16 residential 

units built in the 1970s and currently used 

primarily for seasonal housing known as 

Sleepy Hollow. Structures located on or 

near Rim Drive include Watchman Fire 

Lookout, Stone Parapet Walls and Trail at 

Watchman, and Stone Retaining Walls and 

Pull Outs along Rim Drive. 

Annie Spring, located near the Mazama 

campground, has supplied high-quality 

water to the park since the 1870s. Water is 

pumped from the spring to storage 

facilities at Rim Village, Mazama Village 

and Munson Valley. The park operates 

three water treatment facilities. Two are 

located under the bridge near the Annie 

Spring water intake and one is located at 

Lost Creek Campground. The two Annie 

Springs water treatment facilities serve 

Mazama Village, Munson Valley, and Rim 

Village. The Lost Creek Campground 

water treatment facility serves only Lost 

Creek Campground. The park operates 

two sewage treatment systems. One is 

south of Steel Circle and serves Park 

Headquarters and Rim Village. This 

system has four lagoons. The second 

sewage treatment system is located 

southeast of the Mazama Dormitory 

Complex and serves all of Mazama Village. 

This system has three lagoons. There is a 

septic system near Lost Creek Campground to serve Lost Creek Campground. 

Crater Lake National Park has approximately 84 miles of roads. The road system 

within the park is generally in fair 

condition. The system has some safety and 

operational issues, including areas that are 

difficult to clear of snow. Seventy miles of 

primary roads, of which the circuit around 

the rim accounts for a little over 32 miles, 

comprise the bulk of the road system. 

Secondary and paved service roads in the 

park amount to about 14 miles. The 

primary roads in the park were designed 

and constructed to provide visitor access 

to the park’s scenic features which are 

mostly concentrated along the rim of 

Crater Lake. In the winter snowplowing 

operations keep access to the rim open via 

Oregon Route 62 and the Munson Valley 

road to the rim. 

There are 97 miles of maintained hiking 

trails in the park. Of this total, 77 trail 

miles are designated backcountry trails, 

including 33 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail 

(PCT) which bisects the park from north 

to south. The remaining 20 miles of 

maintained trails are front-country trails. 

In addition to the maintained trails, there 

are also 63 miles of unmaintained 

backcountry trails. Trails are only 

maintained during the summer months. In 

the winter, when Rim Drive is covered 

with snow, it is used for cross-country 

skiing and in effect becomes a designated 

winter-use trail.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

Crater Lake National Park is located in 

southwest Oregon astride the Cascade 

Mountain Range. This rectangular shaped 

park is completely bordered by state and 

national forests. Rouge River National 

Forest abuts the park on the west and 

parts of the north and south sides. 

Umpqua National Forest forms the middle 

third of the park’s northern boundary. 

Winema National Forest borders the park 

on part of the north, almost all the east, 

and middle part of the south border. Sun 

Pass State Forest on southeast completes 

the public forest encirclement. Sky Lakes 

Wilderness (part of the Rouge River and 

Winema National Forests) is on the 

southern edge of the park and Mount 

Thielsen Wilderness (part of the Umpqua 

and Winema National Forests) lies to the 

north. 

Access to the park is via State Route 138 

through the north entrance or by State 

Route 62 from the west or south. The road 

from the north entrance and the crater rim 

road are open only during the summer 

season due to heavy snows. Highway 62 is

open year round. The Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail runs north and south 

through the park with side trails leading to 

Crater Lake. 

Most of the park is contained in westcentral Klamath County with small areas 

spilling over into Douglas and Jackson 

Counties. The communities in these

counties are closest to the park’s 

boundaries and serve as gateways to the 

park, providing a variety of goods and 

services for visitors to the park. The park’s 

location makes the three-county area the 

economic region under consideration for 

this planning effort. Any socioeconomic 

impacts from the action alternatives would 

have the most impact on these counties. 

Such impacts are marginalized farther 

from the park, 

Klamath Falls is the county seat of 

Klamath County and is about 50 miles 

south of the park via route 62 and US 97. 

Medford (county seat of Jackson County) 

is about 75 miles southwest of the park, 

traveling west and then southwest on 

route 62. Visitors traveling north and then 

west about 100 miles on route 138 reach 

Roseburg, also a county seat. These three 

cities are primary business, transportation, 

and service centers in their respective 

counties. 

A number of smaller unincorporated 

communities — Beaver Marsh, Diamond 

Lake, Fort Klamath, Prospect, and Union 

Creek — are much closer to the park. 

Beaver Marsh is northeast of the park

about 19 miles from the north entrance.1

 

The store and gas station have been closed

for over three years. Less that 150 people 

live in Beaver Marsh. Diamond Lake is a 

resort community about 5 miles north of 

the north entrance. The resort structures 

and summer homes are within the 

Umpqua National Forest on land leased 

from the U.S. Forest Service. Year-round 

residents are estimated to be less that 20. 

Fort Klamath is approximately six miles 

south of the park astride Highway 62.

There is a store and gas station. The 60 

permanent residents are joined by summer 

folks to increase the population to about 

200. Prospect is 12 miles south of Union 

Creek and about 20 miles from the park’s 

 1

 Mark, Steve. May 2003. E-mail communication

forwarded on May 27, 2003. Most of the 

information in this paragraph represents his 

personal knowledge of the area surrounding the 

park.

105
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

west entrance. A high school, several 

churches, a gas station, a store, and three 

restaurants are found here. This is the 

largest of the local gateway communities; 

having a population estimated at between 

200 and 250 persons. Union Creek is also a 

resort and summer home community 

located within Rogue River National 

Forest on leased federal land managed by 

the U.S. Forest Service. The historic resort 

complex contains a store and there is also 

a restaurant nearby. Some government 

housing is found within this community. 

Approximately 50 permanent residents 

live here. 

Population

The three counties in the affected region 

for socioeconomics are predominantly 

rural, with large areas in federal ownership 

as a national park and national forests 

(managed by the U.S. Forest Service). This

three-county area had a combined

population of more than 345,000 persons 

in the year 2000 (table 6). The three county 

seats accounted for 102,633 of these 

residents. The rest are scattered among 

many smaller communities. The 

population of the state of Oregon in 2000 

was more than 3.4 million, which ranked it

27th in the nation. The affected threecounty area contains about 10.1% of the 

state’s population. This area grew at a

much lower rate (15.6% compared to

20.4%) than the state as a whole during the 

1990s. Only Jackson County, with an

annual growth rate of 2.2%, led by 

Medford growing 34.5% over the decade, 

outpaced the state average (1.9%) for 

growth. Klamath and Douglas Counties 

had annual growth rates of only 1.0% and 

0.6%.

TABLE 6: AFFECTED AREA POPULATION FOR COUNTIES AND SELECTED TOWNS

Counties/Cities 1990 2000 % Change 

1990 to 2000

Annual rate 

of growth 

Douglas County 94,649 100,399 6.1% 0.6%

 Roseburg 17,032 20,017 17.5 1.6

 Jackson County 146,389 181,269 23.8 2.2

 Medford 46,951 63,154 34.5 3.0

 Klamath County 57,702 63,775 10.5 1.0

 Klamath Falls 17,737 19,462 9.7 0.9

 Three-County Region 298,740 345,443 15.6 1.5

 Oregon 2,842,321 3,421,399 20.4% 1.9%

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a and 1990a. 

106
Socioeconomic Environment 

MAJOR INDUSTRIES BY EARNINGS 

Earnings are the sum of wage or salary 

income and the net income from selfemployment. A person’s earnings 

represent the amount of income received

regularly before deductions for income 

taxes, social security, etc. In 2001, the most

important industries for earnings in 

Douglas County were Manufacturing, 

Local Government, and Health Care and 

Social Assistance. These industries

accounted for 44.2% of the total of $1.34 

billion in earnings by county residents. 

Earnings for Klamath County were 

concentrated to a somewhat lesser degree

(34.4% of the total of $0.79 billion) in 

these same three industry sectors. Jackson 

County had the most earnings at $2.82

billion; which represented 57% of all 

earnings in the three-county region. The 

largest sectors in Jackson County were 

health care and social assistance, retail 

trade, and manufacturing. The regional 

total earnings were $4.95 billion. Douglas 

County contributed $1.34 billion or 27% 

and Klamath County accounted for about 

16%, or $0.79 billion. 

Regionally, the top industry sectors were 

health care and social assistance (12.6% of 

the total), manufacturing (12.3% of the 

total), local government (11.5% of the 

total), and close behind is retail trade (at 

11.0% of the total). This region accounted 

for nearly 7.2% of Oregon’s 

$69,035,322,000 total earnings in 2001. 

MAJOR INDUSTRIES BY 

EMPLOYMENT 

The affected region provided nearly 

187,000 full- and part-time jobs in 2001. 

This figure represented about 9% of the 

state total of 2.1 million jobs. Retail trade, 

health care and social assistance, 

manufacturing, and local government 

were the sectors employing the most

workers (about 43% of the total) in the 

region. Retail trade accounted for the most 

positions in Klamath and Jackson 

Counties (12.1% and 15.9% of the total). 

Retail trade was a close second in Douglas 

County providing 6,365 jobs (11.9% of the 

total) verses manufacturing’s 6,365 (12.3% 

of the total). Over 55% of the region’s jobs 

were in Jackson County; less than 18% 

were in Klamath County. 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

Oregon had an unemployment rate in 1990 

that matched the national average 

unemployment rate of 5.6 % (see table 7). 

Unfortunately, each county had 

significantly higher unemployment rates. 

In fact, all three counties have had higher 

unemployment rates than the state and 

national averages for the selected years. 

The national average fell to 4.0% in 2000. 

However the next year it rose to 4.8%. 

Unemployment rose and fell for the three 

counties and Oregon during the 1990s and 

continued this pattern in 2000 and 2001. In 

2001 the state average and that of Jackson 

County both rose to 6.3%. Statewide, this 

unemployment rate represented about 

115,300 persons being out of work. For 

Jackson County, out of a workforce of 

91,900, nearly 5,800 people were looking 

for work but not finding suitable 

employment. Douglas and Jackson 

Counties’ unemployment figures rose to

9.0% (almost 4,000 people) and 9.5%

(nearly 2,700 people). With over 12,000 

persons out of work, the regional 

unemployment rate for 2001 was over 

7.5%, significantly higher than the state or 

national averages. 

107
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 7: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR SELECTED YEARS

Area 1990 1993 1995 1997 2000 2001

Douglas County 10.2% 11.8% 8.0% 8.8% 7.8% 9.0% 

Jackson County 6.8 8.6 6.5 7.6 5.3 6.3

Klamath County 9.1 10.9 7.4 9.8 8.1 9.5

Oregon 5.6 7.3 4.8 5.8 4.9 6.3

United States 5.6% 6.9% 5.6% 4.9% 4.0% 4.8% 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003 

POVERTY

The national average for persons living in 

poverty in 1989 was 13.1% (table 8.). This 

figure represented 31.7 million people out 

of a population of 242.0 million. The 

poverty rate for Oregon was more than 

seven-tenths of a percentage point lower, 

at 12.4%. Over the years shown, the 

poverty rate for Oregon was consistently 

lower than the national rates. For the 

selected years, the poverty rates in the 

three counties were all higher than the 

state rates. For the most part the poverty 

rates in the counties were also higher than 

the national figures. In 1999 poverty in the 

three counties ranged from one person in 

eight in Jackson County to one person in 

six in Klamath County. These figures 

represented more than 47,500 people 

living in poverty in the region. This region 

accounted for more than 12.5% of all 

people living in poverty in Oregon in 1999. 

TABLE 8: PERCENT OF PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY

Area 1989* 1993** 1995** 1997** 1999*

Douglas County

 14.9% 15.6% 16.0% 14.6% 13.1% 

Jackson County 13.2 14.4 14.6 13.8 12.5

Klamath County 16.7 17.1 17.2 15.9 16.8

Oregon 12.4 13.2 12.5 11.6 11.6

United States 13.1% 15.1% 13.8% 13.3% 12.4% 

 * = Census Data ** = Census Estimates 

 Source: US Census Bureau 

108
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
110
111

INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) mandates that environmental 

impact statements disclose the environmental effects of proposed federal actions. 

In this case, the proposed federal action 

would be the adoption of a general 

management plan for Crater Lake 

National Park. This “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter analyzes the 

potential effects of four management 

alternatives on cultural resources, natural 

resources, the visitor experience, park and 

concession operations, and the socioeconomic environment. By examining the 

environmental consequences of all 

alternatives on a relative basis, decisionmakers can decide which approach creates 

the most desirable combination of the 

greatest beneficial results with the fewest 

adverse effects on the park. 

The alternatives provide broad management directions. Because of the general 

nature of the alternatives, the potential 

consequences of the alternatives are 

analyzed in similarly general terms using 

qualitative analyses. Thus, this environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. 

Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park 

Service would conduct additional 

environmental analyses with appropriate 

documentation before implementing sitespecific actions. 

The existing conditions for all of the 

impact topics analyzed here were 

identified in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter. All of the impact topics are 

assessed for each alternative. For each 

impact topic, there is a description of the 

positive (beneficial) and negative (adverse) 

effects of the alternative, a discussion of 

the cumulative effects when this project is 

considered in conjunction with other 

actions occurring in the region, and a brief 

conclusion. 

The no-action alternative (continue 

current management) sets the baseline of 

existing impacts continued into the future 

against which to compare impacts of 

action alternatives. The three action 

alternatives were then compared to the 

no-action alternative to identify the 

relative magnitude and intensity of 

potential impacts that would occur as a 

result of changes in park facilities and 

management. At the end of each alternative there is a brief discussion of 

unavoidable adverse impacts; irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of 

resources; and the relationship of shortterm uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity. A brief summary of the 

impacts of each alternative was provided 

in table 6 at the end of the “Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative” 

chapter. 
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The planning team based the impact 

analysis and the conclusions in this 

chapter largely on information provided 

by experts in the National Park Service, 

park staff insights and professional

judgments, and on the review of existing 

literature and studies. The team’s method 

of analyzing impacts is further explained 

below. It is important to remember that it 

is assumed in the analyses that the 

mitigation measures described in the 

“Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter would be applied to

minimize or avoid impacts. If these 

measures were not applied, the potential 

for resource impacts and the magnitude of 

those impacts would increase over those 

described here. 

The environmental consequences for each 

impact topic were defined based on impact 

type, intensity, context, and duration. 

Cumulative effects also were identified, 

but are discussed later in this section. 

Effects can be either adverse or beneficial 

for the topic being analyzed and are 

referred to as impact type. The effects also 

can be direct or indirect. Direct effects are 

caused by an action and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

later or farther away, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

positively or negatively affected. Each

impact was identified as negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major in conformance with 

the criteria for these classifications 

provided below by impact topic. Because 

this is a programmatic document, the 

intensities were expressed qualitatively. 

Context refers to the setting or area within 

which an impact would occur, such as the 

affected region or locality. In this document most impacts are either localized 

(site-specific) or parkwide. Cumulative 

impacts are either parkwide or regional 

(e.g., biotic community impacts). 

Impact duration refers to how long an 

impact would last. The planning horizon 

for this general management plan is 

approximately 20 years. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration of 

the impacts: 

Short term: The impact would be

temporary in nature, lasting a year or 

less, such as impacts associated with

construction 

Long term: The impact would last more 

than one year and could be permanent 

in nature, such as the loss of soil due to 

the construction of a new facility 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL 

RESOURCES AND SECTION 

106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

In this environmental impact statement, 

impacts to archeological and ethnographic 

resources, historic structures/buildings, 

cultural landscapes, and museum 

collections are described in terms of type, 

context, duration, and intensity which is 

consistent with the regulations of the CEQ 

that implement the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. These 

impact analyses are intended, however, to 

comply with the requirements of both

NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In 

112
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

accordance with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) 

regulations implementing Section 106 of 

the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800, Protection of

Historic Properties), impacts were 

identified and evaluated by (1) 

determining the area of potential effects; 

(2) identifying cultural resources present 

in the area of potential effects that are 

either listed in or determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP); (3) applying the criteria of 

adverse effect to affected cultural 

resources either listed in or determined 

eligible for listing in the national register; 

and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations 

a determination of either adverse effect or 

no adverse effect must also be made for 

affected national register-listed or 

determined eligible cultural resources. An

adverse effect occurs whenever an impact 

alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the national 

register, e.g., diminishing the integrity of 

the resource’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by 

actions of an alternative that would occur 

later in time, be farther removed in 

distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). A 

determination of no adverse effect means 

there is an effect, but the effect would not

diminish in any way the characteristics of 

the cultural resource that qualify it for 

inclusion in the national register. 

CEQ regulations and the National Park 

Service’s Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and

Decision-making (Director’s Order No. 12) 

also call for a discussion of the 

appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an 

analysis of how effective the mitigation 

would be in reducing the intensity of a 

potential impact, e.g., reducing the 

intensity of an impact from major to

moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA 

only. It does not suggest that the level of 

effect as defined by Section 106 is similarly 

reduced. Although adverse effects under 

Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect 

remains adverse. 

A Section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections for archeological 

and ethnographic resources, historic 

structures/ buildings, and cultural 

landscapes (Section 106 determinations of 

effect are not provided for museum

collections because such resources are 

generally ineligible for listing in the 

national register). The Section 106 

summary is intended to meet the 

requirements of Section 106 and is an

assessment of the effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on 

cultural resources, based on the criterion 

of effect and criteria of adverse effect

found in the Advisory Council’s 

regulations. Future Section 106 

compliance would be completed as

warranted as individual actions are 

implemented. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Negligible − Impact is at the lowest levels

of detection – Barely measurable with no 

perceptible consequences, either adverse 

or beneficial, to archeological resources. 

For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

113
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Minor − Adverse impact: Disturbance of 

a site(s) results in little, if any, loss of

significance or integrity and the national 

register eligibility of the site(s) is

unaffected. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: 

Maintenance and preservation of a site(s). 

For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate − Adverse impact: Disturbance 

of a site(s) does not diminish the

significance or integrity of the site(s) to the 

extent that its national register eligibility is

jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: 

Stabilization of a site(s). For purposes of

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. 

Major − Adverse impact: Disturbance of a 

site(s) diminishes the significance and 

integrity of the site(s) to the extent that it is

no longer eligible to be listed in the 

national register. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: Active

intervention to preserve a site(s). For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Negligible − Impact(s) is at the lowest

levels of detection, barely perceptible and 

not measurable. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

no adverse effect. 

Minor − Adverse impact: Impact would 

not affect the character defining features 

of a National Register of Historic Placeseligible or listed structure or building. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Stabilization/preservation of character defining 

features in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. For

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate − Adverse impact: Impact 

would alter a character defining feature(s) 

of the structure or building but would not 

diminish the integrity of the resource to 

the extent that its National Register 

eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Rehabilitation of a structure or 

building in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. For

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Major − Adverse impact: Impact would 

alter a character defining feature(s) of the 

structure or building, diminishing the 

integrity of theresource to the extent that 

it is no longer eligible to be listed in the 

national register. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact:

Restoration of a structure or building in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. For purposes of

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. 

114
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Cultural Landscapes 

Negligible − Impact(s) is at the lowest

levels of detection – barely perceptible and 

not measurable. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

no adverse effect. 

 

Minor − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would not affect the character defining 

patterns and features of a National 

Register of Historic Places-eligible or 

listed cultural landscape. For purposes of

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Preservation of character defining 

patterns and features in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties With 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would alter a character defining pattern(s) 

or feature(s) of the cultural landscape but 

would not diminish the integrity of the 

landscape to the extent that its national

register eligibility is jeopardized. For

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact:

Rehabilitation of a landscape or its 

patterns and features in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties With 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Major − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would alter a character defining pattern(s) 

or feature(s) of the cultural landscape, 

diminishing the integrity of the landscape 

to the extent that it is no longer eligible to 

be listed in the national register. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Restoration of a 

landscape or its patterns and features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties With Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Negligible − Impact(s) would be barely 

perceptible and would neither alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor alter the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on Traditional 

Cultural Properties or TCPs (ethnographic 

resources eligible for listing in the national 

register) would be no adverse effect. 

Minor − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would be slight but noticeable but would 

neither appreciably alter resource 

conditions, such as traditional access or 

site preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the affiliated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect on TCPs would be no 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: Would 

allow access to and/or accommodate a 

group’s traditional practices or beliefs. For

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on TCPs would be 

no adverse impact. 

Moderate − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would be apparent and would alter 

resource conditions. Something would 

interfere with traditional access, site 

115
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the affiliated group’s 

practices and beliefs, even though the 

group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on TCPs would be 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: Would 

facilitate traditional access and/or 

accommodate a group’s practices or 

beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on TCPs would be 

no adverse effect. 

Major − Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would alter resource conditions. 

Something would block or greatly affect 

traditional access, site preservation, or the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs, to the extent that the survival of a 

group’s practices and/or beliefs would be 

jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect on TCPs would 

be adverse effect. Beneficial impact:

Would encourage traditional access 

and/or accommodate a group’s practices 

or beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on TCPs would be 

no adverse effect. 

Museum Collections 

Negligible – Impact(s) is at the lowest

levels of detection – barely measurable 

with no perceptible consequences, either

adverse or beneficial, to museum 

collection. 

Minor – Adverse impact: Would affect

the integrity of a few items in the museum 

collection but would not degrade the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation. Beneficial 

impact: Would stabilize the current 

condition of the collection or its 

constituent components to minimize 

degradation. 

Moderate – Adverse impact: Would 

affect the integrity of many items in the 

museum collection and diminish the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation. Beneficial 

impact: Would improve the condition of 

the collection or protect its constituent 

parts from the threat of degradation. 

Major – Adverse impact: Would affect

the integrity of most items in the museum 

collection and destroy the usefulness of 

the collection for future research and 

interpretation. Beneficial impact: Would 

secure the condition of the collection as a 

whole or its constituent components from 

the threat of further degradation. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The natural resource impact topics that 

are analyzed in this document include 

biotic communities, water resources, air 

quality, and threatened and endangered 

species. Information on known resources 

was compiled and compared with the 

locations of proposed developments and 

other actions. The impact analysis was 

based on the knowledge and best 

professional judgment of planners, 

resource specialists, data from park 

records, and studies of similar actions and 

impacts when applicable. The planning 

team qualitatively evaluated the impact 

intensities for all of the natural resource 

impact topics. 

Biotic Communities(vegetation, 

wildlife, soils) 

Negligible – The impact on biological 

communities, natural processes, soils, or 

species would be at the lower levels of 

detection or not measurable. 

Minor – The impact would be detectable 

and could affect the abundance or 

116
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

distribution of individuals in a localized 

area, but would not affect the viability of 

the local population or overall community 

size, structure, or composition. Changes to

natural processes would be limited and 

affect only a localized area. For soils, the

impact would change soil characteristics 

(e.g., soil profile, productivity) in a 

relatively small area and would not

increase the potential for erosion of

additional soil. 

Moderate – The impact would be clearly 

detectable and could have appreciable 

effect on the resource. This would include 

impacts that effect the abundance or

distribution of local populations, but

would not affect the viability of the 

regional population. Changes to 

community size, structure, or composition 

and ecological processes could be 

substantial and occur over a larger area. 

For soils, the impact would appreciably 

change soil characteristics (e.g., soil

profile, productivity) in specific area and 

would increase the potential for erosion of

additional soil. 

Major – The impact would be severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial. 

Impacts would have a substantial, highly 

noticeable, or widespread influence, 

affecting the abundance or distribution of 

a local or regional population to the extent 

that the population would not be likely to 

recover (adverse) or would return to a 

sustainable level (beneficial). Community 

size, structure, or composition and 

ecological processes would be highly 

altered and landscape level changes could 

be expected. For soils, the impact would 

appreciably change soil characteristics 

(e.g., soil profile, productivity) over an 

extensive area and would greatly increase 

the potential for erosion of additional soil.

Crater Lake and Water Resources

Negligible – The impact on water quality 

or the timing or intensity of flows would 

be at the lower levels of detection or not 

measurable. 

Minor – The impact would have 

detectable effects on water quality or the 

timing or intensity of flows. 

 

Moderate – The impact would have 

clearly detectable effects on water quality 

or the timing or intensity of flows and 

potentially would affect stream species.

Major – The impact would have severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial effects 

on water quality or the timing or intensity 

of flows and potentially would affect

stream species on a regional or watershed 

scale. 

Air Quality

Negligible – The impact would be at the 

lower levels of detection or not 

measurable. 

Minor – The impact would have a slight, 

localized effect on air quality or visibility. 

Moderate – The impact would have 

clearly detectable effects on air quality or 

visibility over a more widespread area of 

the park. 

Major – The impact would have severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial effects 

on air quality or visibility and potentially 

would affect the regional air shed. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Species 

For federally and state-listed species the 

following impact intensities apply. These 

117
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

definitions are consistent with the 

language used to determine effects on 

threatened and endangered species under 

the federal Endangered Species Act: 

no effect – when the proposed actions 

would not affect special status species or 

critical habitat 

not likely to adversely affect – when effects 

on special status species are discountable 

(i.e., extremely unlikely to occur) and or 

insignificant (not able to be meaningfully 

measured, detected, or evaluated) or 

completely beneficial 

likely to adversely affect – when any 

adverse effect to special status species may 

occur as a direct or indirect result of 

proposed actions and the effect is not 

discountable, insignificant or completely 

beneficial 

VISITOR USE 

The discussions of visitor use in this

document evaluate four aspects: (1) 

diversity of activities, (2) interpretation 

and orientation, (3) facilities and services, 

and (4) soundscapes and scenic quality. 

Analysis is conducted in terms of how the 

visitor experience might vary by applying 

different management zones in the 

alternatives. Analysis is qualitative rather 

than quantitative because of the 

conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

1. Analysis of effects on the diversity on

visitor activities is based on whether

there was a complete loss, addition, 

expansion, or a change in the number 

and range or availability of a 

recreational opportunity and how the 

application of management zones 

would affect group and individual 

opportunities. 

2. Analysis of interpretation and 

orientation is based on whether there 

would be a change in the availability of 

interpretive and educational 

information and education programs 

resulting from management zone 

application or other action. 

3. Analysis of visitor facilities and 

services discusses impacts on access to

visitor facilities and services provided

by the Park Service and commercial 

services in relation to management 

zone application and other actions. 

4. Analysis on visitor experience values is 

associated with visitor experience 

values based on whether there would

be a change in opportunities for 

solitude, tranquility, challenge, 

adventure and the freedom to travel 

throughout the park to experience 

primary resources and their natural 

and cultural settings, including scenic

quality, natural sounds, views, and 

night skies. 

For impacts to visitor use the following 

thresholds apply: 

Negligible: Visitors would not be affected 

or there would be no noticeable change in 

visitor experience or safety. Changes in the

natural sound environment would be so 

slight they would not be of any measurable 

or perceptible consequence to visitor 

experiences. 

Minor: Changes in visitor experience or 

safety would be detectable, although the 

changes would be slight. The changes 

would affect a relatively small number of 

visitors, be localized in area, or have barely 

perceptible consequences to the majority 

of visitors. A detectable change would 

occur to the natural sound environment, 

although the effects would be small,

localized and of little consequence to 

visitor experiences. 

118
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Moderate: Changes in visitor experience 

or safety would be readily apparent and 

would affect a relatively large number of 

visitors. A change in the natural sound

environment would be readily detectable, 

affecting the experience of a large number 

of visitors. 

Major: Changes in visitor experience or 

safety would be severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, highly noticeable, 

and would affect relatively large numbers 

of visitors. A change in the natural sound

environment would be obvious, be 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial, and affect the health of visitors, 

or cause a substantial, highly noticeable 

effect on the experience of large numbers 

of visitors. 

PARK AND CONCESSION 

OPERATIONS 

The impact evaluation was based on a 

qualitative evaluation of the effects on 

park and concession operations from

changes in providing visitor and 

administrative facilities, services, or 

programs under the alternatives. Impacts 

were determined by examining the affects 

of changes on staffing, infrastructure, 

visitor facilities and services and the role of

commercial operators in providing 

services. The intensity of the impact 

considers whether the impact would be

negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Impact intensities for the park and 

concession operations impact topic have 

been defined as follows:

Negligible Park and/or concession 

operations would not be

affected or there would be 

no measurable or 

perceptible change in 

operations.

Minor Changes in park and/or 

concession operations 

would be perceptible, 

although the changes would 

be slight and localized, and 

would not be expected to

have an overall effect on the 

ability of the park or 

concessioner to provide 

desired services and

facilities. 

Moderate Changes in park and/or 

concession operations 

would be readily apparent, 

would have appreciable 

effects on park or 

concession operations, and 

could have an effect on the 

ability of the park to 

provide some desired 

services and facilities. 

Major Changes in park and/or 

concession operations 

would be readily apparent 

and would highly reduce or 

increase the ability of the 

park or concessioner to

provide desired services 

and facilities. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Crater Lake National Park is a part of the 

socioeconomic environment of Douglas, 

Jackson, and Klamath Counties. 

Socioeconomic impacts for the threecounty area were determined based on 

applied logic, professional expertise, and 

professional judgment. Economic data, 

historic visitor use data, expected future 

visitor use, and future developments 

within the park were all considered in

identifying and discussing potential 

impacts. A mostly qualitative analysis is 

sufficient to compare the effects of 

alternatives for decision-making 

119
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 120

purposes. However, the estimated costs of 

various projects do provide basic 

quantitative measures of the direct 

economic impacts of each of the 

alternatives on the region. 

Changes in the three-county regional 

economy would include impacts on the regional socioeconomic base due to changes 

in park operations and other management 

or development actions. The socioeconomic base includes such factors as 

population, income, employment, 

earnings, etc. Park development and 

removal projects during the life of the 

general management plan would benefit 

the regional construction industry. 

Programmatic initiatives may require 

additional funding and/or personnel. 

Changes at the park may also affect the 

socioeconomic conditions of any of the 

local gateway communities. The size, 

configuration, and relative isolation of the 

park has led to only three separate and 

dispersed entrances being developed to 

provide automobile access to the park. 

Several small local communities are 

associated with each of the travel corridors 

to these access points. These communities 

provide some resort opportunities as well 

as limited range of goods and services for 

the visiting public. Impacts on concession 

operations within the park could occur 

and would probably be considered local 

impacts. 

Each alternative would have different 

staffing and budget needs, which could 

affect the adjacent communities and/or the 

region as a whole. For example, adding 

new staff positions at a particular location 

may lead to new hires seeking goods and 

services including housing in an associated 

community, these new expenditures 

provide limited benefits for the local 

economy. 

A recent study of the tourism spending by 

visitors to Crater Lake National Park 

provides some measure of the impact such 

spending has had on the three-county 

region. In 2001, visitors were found to 

have spent some $30.7 million within-in 

100 miles of the park. 2 The multiplier 

effects resulted in $34.3 million in direct 

sales; $11.5 million in personal income, 

$18.3 in value added and supported 863 

jobs. 3 To put these figures in perspective, 

visitor spending ($30.7 million) related to 

the park visits accounted for about 6% of 

total tourism spending in the three-county 

region in 2001.4

 During the same year, 

total personal income for the region 

amounted to over $8.4 billion, and the 

three-county work force consisted of 

164,225 persons of which 12,387 were 

unemployed. The economic impacts 

related to park visitors vary from year to 

year and are dependent upon the numbers 

of visitors coming to the park, their 

participation in various activities, their 

expenditure patterns, prices of goods and 

services, and changes in the park and 

surrounding communities that may affect 

visitor use of the park. 

Context, Intensity, 

and Duration 

Context, intensity, and duration of 

impacts compare the action alternatives to 

the no-action alternative. Context refers to 

the relative area within which impacts 

would occur. For the most part, impacts 

 

2

 Stynes, Daniel and Ya-Yen Sun. November 2002. 

Impacts of Visitor Spending on Local Economy: 

Crater Lake National Park, 2001. Department of 

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan 

State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. 

3

 Stynes, Daniel and Ya-Yen Sun. Multiplier effects 

are the result of money spent by tourists being recirculated within the local economy multiplying the 

effect of the direct expenditures. 

4

 Stynes, Daniel and Ya-Yen Sun. November 2002.
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts 

121

would affect the regional area (Douglas, 

Jackson, and Klamath Counties) or the 

local area (e.g., the Fort Klamath gateway 

community). 

Impact intensity is the degree to which a 

topic is positively or negatively affected 

(see impact thresholds below). Impacts on 

the socioeconomic environment were 

qualitatively evaluated and described for 

this analysis. However, cost estimates for 

additional development and increased 

staffing levels do provide a measure of the 

direct fiscal impact of each alternative. 

The duration of an impact is described as 

either short-term or long-term. Short-term 

impacts would last less than three years. 

Long-term impacts last more than three 

years (and some result in a permanent 

change in conditions). 

Socioeconomic Impact Thresholds 

The following four levels of description 

are used to evaluate and describe impacts 

on the socioeconomic environment. 

Negligible — No effects occur or the 

effects on socioeconomic conditions are 

below or at the level of detection. 

Minor — The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are small but detectable, and 

only affect a small number of firms and/or 

a small portion of the population. The 

impact is slight and not detectable outside 

the affected area. 

Moderate — The effects on 

socioeconomic conditions are readily 

apparent. Any effects result in changes to 

socioeconomic conditions on a local scale 

(e.g., a gateway community or a single 

county) within the affected area. 

Major — The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are readily apparent. 

Measurable changes in social or economic 

conditions at the county or three-county 

regional level would occur. The impact is 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial within the affected area. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA define a 

cumulative impact as “...the impact on the 

environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time.” Each cumulative impact 

analysis is additive, considering the overall 

impact of the alternative when combined 

with effects of other actions (inside and 

outside the park) that have occurred or 

would occur in the foreseeable future. 

These include ongoing and planned 

actions and projects in the park and 

surrounding lands: Cumulative impacts 

were determined by combining the 

impacts of each alternative with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Therefore, it was necessary to 

identify other ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable future projects at Crater Lake 

National Park and, if applicable, the 

surrounding region. The primary projects 

and actions that could contribute to 

cumulative effects are summarized below. 

 The combination of widespread 

logging and suppression of natural 

fires has affected the natural forest 

stands throughout portions of the park 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 122

and surrounding areas. Such changes 

may also have altered wildlife 

distribution, frequency, and use of 

habitat from that which existed prior 

to the Park's establishment. 

 Beneficial effects to late-successional 

forest species are expected from 

implementation of the President's NW 

Forest Plan (NFP). The plan includes 

development of a network of forest 

reserves across the Pacific Northwest 

to protect late-successional forest 

species where habitat conditions are 

relatively intact and provide for the 

regeneration of late-successional forest 

habitat where habitat is extremely 

limited and the associated plant and 

wildlife populations are low. 

 Past introduction of various nonnative fish species into Crater Lake and 

the park’s streams has altered the 

aquatic ecology and adversely affected 

bull trout, the only known fish species 

native to the park. Although Crater 

Lake was originally barren of fish, fish 

stocking took place between 1888 and 

1941. Of the number of species that 

were stocked, only kokanee salmon 

and rainbow trout still exist in the lake. 

Brook trout were introduced in park 

streams and persist where they have 

not been eliminated by park 

management. The park’s bull trout 

restoration program has recently 

culminated in the elimination of nonnative brook trout and reestablishment 

of bull trout in Sun and Lost Creeks. 

Some adverse effects to bull trout such 

as loss of individuals would likely 

occur. Appropriate mitigation is 

included as part of the restoration 

program to minimize the potential for 

adverse effects 

 Implementation of prescribed fire as 

part of the park’s recently approved 

Fire Management Plan would increase 

landscape and habitat diversity relative 

to fire and reduce the potential for 

catastrophic fire. Some adverse effects 

to wildlife such as loss of individuals or 

food sources may occur. Appropriate 

mitigation for sensitive species is 

included as part of that plan. 

 Ongoing trails rehabilitation and 

relocation would reduce localized 

resource impacts such as soil and 

vegetation loss and trampling and 

erosion. 

 Planned construction projects include 

replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield, 

improvement of the lagoon at Munson 

Valley, rehabilitation of Highway 62 

West, and rehabilitation of 

superintendent’s residence. 

 Other planned construction associated 

with implementation of the 1999 

Crater Lake National Park Visitor 

Services Plan (e.g., rehabilitate 

cafeteria building, relocate parking and 

road to area behind cafeteria building, 

convert existing parking lot to 

pedestrian open space, construct new 

visitor contact station for year-round 

information and interpretation). The 

1999 plan identifies the levels and 

kinds of NPS and concession visitor 

services and facilities within the 

developed areas of the park. These 

projects would have would have both 

adverse and beneficial localized 

effects. For instance, rehabilitation of 

the cafeteria building and relocation of 

rim parking would result in some 

disturbance to soils and vegetation 

within a previously impacted area, but 

would also restore historic visitor-use 

patterns on the rim. 
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts 

123

• Designation of Rim Drive as a Scenic 

Byway and All American Road and the 

potential nomination of the Rim Drive 

as a cultural landscape would likely 

enhance treatment of Rim Drive. 

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK 

RESOURCES OR VALUES 

In addition to determining the 

environmental consequences of the 

preferred and other alternatives, NPS 

policy (NPS 2001: Management Policies, 

section 4.1) requires analysis of potential 

effects to determine whether or not 

actions would impair resources of the unit. 

The fundamental purpose of the National 

Park System, established by the Organic 

Act and reaffirmed by the General 

Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a 

mandate to conserve park resources and 

values. NPS managers must always seek 

ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest 

degree practicable adverse impacts on 

park resources and values. However, the 

laws do give the NPS management 

discretion to allow impacts to park 

resources and values when necessary and 

appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a 

park, as long as the impact does not 

constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress 

has given the NPS management discretion 

to allow certain impacts within parks, that 

discretion is limited by the statutory 

requirement that the NPS must leave park 

resources and values unimpaired, unless a 

particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. The prohibited 

impairment is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of the responsible 

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of 

park resources or values, including 

opportunities that otherwise would be 

present for the enjoyment of those 

resources or values. An impact to any park 

resource or value may constitute an 

impairment. However, an impact would 

more likely constitute an impairment to 

the extent it affects a resource or value 

whose conservation is: 

 necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park; 

 key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or 

 identified as a goal in the Park’s 

General Management Plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS 

activities in managing the park, visitor 

activities, or activities undertaken by 

concessionaires, contractors, and 

others operating in the park. A 

determination of impairment is made 

in the “Environmental Consequences” 

section in the conclusion section for 

each resource impact topic.
IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Under alternative 1 archeological sites 

would be surveyed, inventoried, and 

evaluated under National Register of 

Historic Places criteria of evaluation to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register as staff and funding 

permit. All ground-disturbing activities 

would be preceded by site-specific 

archeological surveys, and, where 

appropriate, subsurface testing to

determine the existence of archeological 

resources and how best to preserve them. 

Known archeological resources would be 

avoided whenever possible. 

Although impacts to archeological sites 

would be monitored and efforts would be

undertaken to minimize or mitigate 

potential impacts from National Park 

Service actions, visitor activities, and 

natural causes, an unknown number of 

archeological sites would continue to be 

subject to negligible to minor long-term 

and permanent adverse impacts from 

current and ongoing visitor activities, such 

as unintentional disturbance, vandalism, 

and looting, erosion as a result of wildfire, 

wind, heavy snowmelt and runoff, and 

other climatic conditions

Cumulative Effects. In the past, the 

relative isolation of the national park and 

the lack of sufficient monitoring have 

provided opportunities for looters and 

vandals to engage in pot-hunting and 

intentional pilfering, and visitors, as well as 

natural erosion from fire, wind, heavy 

snowmelt and runoff, and other climatic 

conditions, have contributed to 

inadvertent disturbance of archeological 

resources. Because much of the park has 

not been surveyed and inventoried for 

archeological resources, decisions about 

site development have been made that, in 

hindsight, may not have been best for 

archeological resources. Such decisions 

included the placement and location of 

campgrounds, trails, roads, and other 

visitor use facilities, which may have been 

constructed on top of or near archeological resources. Current and ongoing 

National Park Service activities, such as 

prescribed burns, trails rehabilitation and 

relocation, replacement of a waterline 

from Munson Springs to Garfield Peak, a 

lagoon project at Munson Valley, and 

rehabilitation of State Highway 62 West, 

could potentially result in minor to 

moderate impacts to archeological 

resources. 

Actions under this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in the park and surrounding 

region, would contribute to cumulative 

negligible to moderate, long-term and 

permanent adverse effects to any overall 

cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion. Archeological investigations 

would be undertaken before development 

to ensure that archeological resources 

were understood and that they would not 

be damaged or lost as a result of National 

Park Service actions. However, an 

unknown number of archeological 

resources would be subject to negligible to 

minor, long-term and permanent adverse 

impacts under this alternative as a result of 

various National Park Service operations 

and actions, visitor activities, and natural 

causes. 

124
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with archeological resources. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on 

archeological resources would be no 

adverse effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Historic structures/buildings in the 

national park would continue to be 

surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated

under National Register of Historic Places 

criteria of evaluation to determine their 

eligibility for listing in the national register 

as National Park Service staff and funding 

permit. Historic structures/buildings listed 

in, or determined eligible for listing in, the 

national register would continue to be 

managed to preserve their documented 

values in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties and to support

National Park Service activities or visitor 

use. As a result, actions under alternative 1 

would generally have negligible to 

moderate long-term beneficial impacts on 

national register eligible structures and 

buildings. 

Rehabilitation of the superintendent’s 

residence, a national historic landmark 

located in Munson Valley, and its 

conversion for use as a science and 

learning center would result in adverse 

minor permanent impacts to the structure 

because some historic fabric (both exterior 

and interior) would be lost. However, 

rehabilitation and adaptive use of the 

structure would ensure its long-term 

preservation and thus have a moderate 

beneficial impact on the building. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past lack of 

appropriate preservation treatment, 

impacts of weathering and other natural 

phenomena, and adaptive use have 

resulted in the loss of some historic fabric 

to historic structures/buildings in the 

national park. Thus, the documented 

values of some historic structures/ 

buildings have resulted in cumulative 

minor to moderate adverse long-term and 

permanent effects. 

Actions under this alternative such as the 

rehabilitation of the superintendent’s

residence and comfort station no. 4, when 

combined with the impacts of implementing the recommendations of the 1999 

Visitor Services Plan, Crater Lake National 

Park (including among other things the 

rehabilitation of the Sinnott Memorial, 

Community House, Plaza Comfort 

Station, Kiser Studio, and Promenade at 

Rim Village) would contribute beneficial 

minor to moderate long-term effects and 

an adverse minor permanent impact to any 

overall cumulative effect on historic 

structures/buildings. 

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have negligible to 

moderate, long-term beneficial impacts on 

historic structures/buildings in the park 

because they would continue to surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and listed, as 

well as determined eligible, structures/ 

buildings would be managed to preserve 

125
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

their documented values in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties.

Rehabilitation of the superintendent’s 

residence, a national historic landmark 

located in Munson Valley, and its 

conversion for use as a science and 

learning center would result in adverse 

minor permanent impacts to the structure 

because some historic fabric (both exterior 

and interior) would be lost. However, 

rehabilitation and adaptive use of the 

structure would ensure its long-term 

preservation and thus have a moderate 

beneficial impact on the building. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with historic 

structures/buildings. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on historic 

structures/buildings would be no adverse 

effect. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Cultural landscapes in the national park 

would continue to be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria of 

evaluation to determine their eligibility for 

listing in the national register as National 

Park Service staff and funding permit. 

Multiple property national register

nomination forms for cultural landscapes, 

including (but not exclusively limited to) 

Munson Valley, Rim Drive, and Rim 

Village, would be prepared, and the 

National Park Service would recommend 

listing of these cultural landscapes in the 

national register. The National Park 

Service would implement resource 

management policies that preserve the 

natural resource values of these landscapes

as well as their culturally significant 

character defining patterns and features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties With Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Thus, 

the overall impacts to cultural landscapes 

under this alternative would be minor to 

moderate, long-term, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, lack of 

concern for the preservation of cultural 

landscapes in the national park has 

resulted in decisions about site 

development and resource management 

that, in hindsight, may not have been best 

for cultural landscape values and 

preservation. Such decisions include the 

placement and location of campgrounds, 

trails, parking lots, and other visitor use 

and administrative facilities (such as those 

at Rim Village) that have compromised 

some of the character defining patterns 

and features of the cultural landscapes in 

the national park. 

Actions under this alternative such as the 

recommendation that the Rim Village, Rim 

Drive, and Munson Valley cultural landscapes be listed in the national register and 

managed to preserve their documented 

values, when combined with the impacts 

of implementing the recommendations of 

the 1999 Visitor Services Plan, Crater Lake 

126
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

National Park (including among other 

things the rehabilitation of the Sinnott 

Memorial, Community House, Plaza 

Comfort Station, Kiser Studio, and 

Promenade and redesign of the picnic area 

in Rim Village) would have cumulative 

beneficial minor to moderate long-term 

effects on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the national park because 

they would continue to be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places and listed, as 

well as determined eligible, cultural 

landscapes would be managed to preserve 

their documented values in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties With Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values 

associated with cultural landscapes. 

 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on cultural 

landscapes would be no adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Native American groups regard Crater 

Lake and Mount Scott, as well as other 

sites in the park, as significant sacred sites 

or landscapes and important traditional 

use activity areas. National Park Service 

development and administrative/ 

maintenance operations, as well as

increasing visitor use of the national park, 

have interrupted and are continuing to 

interrupt access to ceremonial or gathering 

areas, thus generally having negligible to 

minor long-term adverse impacts on

ethnographic resources in the park. 

However, the National Park Service is 

currently undertaking consultation and 

coordination with the Klamath Tribes and 

other Native American groups to address 

these matters of mutual concern on 

parklands and encourage tribal members 

to participate in the preparation of 

programs, exhibits, replica artifacts, and 

literature to assist the park staff in 

accurately interpreting the cultural history 

of the early inhabitants of the park area. 

The National Park Service would continue 

to allow access to and/or accommodate 

the groups’ traditional practices and 

beliefs and facilitate reburial of ancestral 

remains, both those exposed by natural

weathering and those recovered from pothunters, under the provisions of the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). An ongoing 

traditional use/ethnographic study would 

enable the Park Service to carry out 

consultations more effectively to preserve 

and protect ethnographic resources in the 

national park. Therefore, actions under 

this alternative would generally have 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on ethnographic resources in the 

park because of the ongoing consultation 

and coordination activities between the 

National Park Service and the Klamath 

Tribes and other Native American groups. 

127
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Effects. National Park 

Service development and administrative/ 

aintenance operations, as well as 

increasing visitor use of the national park 

since its establishment, have had and are 

continuing to have cumulative adverse 

negligible to minor long-term effects on 

ethnographic resources. As sacred sites in

south-central Oregon have been lost over

time, those remaining in the park have 

become more significant to the Klamath 

Tribes and other affiliated Native 

American groups. Actions under this 

alternative such as ongoing consultations 

with the Klamath Tribes and other 

affiliated Native American groups to

address matters of mutual concern would 

contribute negligible to minor, long-term, 

beneficial effects to any overall cumulative 

impact on ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have negligible to minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on ethnoraphic resources in the national park 

because the National Park Service would 

continue ongoing consultation and 

coordination with the Klamath Tribes and 

other Native American groups to address 

matters of mutual concern in the national 

park and allow access to and/or accommodate the groups’ traditional practices 

and beliefs. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s estabishing legislation; (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. No Traditional 

Cultural Properties are affected by actions 

under this alternative. Thus, Section 106 

determinations are not necessary. 

Museum Collections 

Alternative 1 would not provide additional

storage and workspace meeting 

professional and National Park Service 

museum standards for the preservation 

and curation of, as well as access to, the 

park’s museum collections. Thus, this 

alternative would generally have minor 

long-term adverse impacts on the park’s 

museum collections. Some park-related 

museum collection materials would 

continue to be housed and managed by 

other organizational entities in offsite 

facilities where their condition is unknown 

and their ownership obscured. 

Cumulative Effects. Since the park was 

established the combination of limited 

staffing and lack of storage and workspace 

meeting professional and National Park 

Service museum standards have frustrated, 

and are continuing to hinder, endeavors to 

improve care of and access to the museum 

collections and address the everincreasing cataloging backlog. Thus, the 

park’s museum collections have been 

subjected to minor to moderate long-term 

adverse effects. Because existing condiions 

would not change, actions under this 

alternative would not contribute to the 

impacts of the aforementioned actions; 

thus, there would not be cumulative 

effects on museum collections under this

alternative. 

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have negligible to minor 

long-term adverse impacts on museum 

collections because of the lack of storage 

and workspace meeting professional and 

National Park Service museum standards 

128
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

and limited staffing to address the everincreasing cataloging backlog. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with museum collections. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Biotic Communities 

Continued maintenance of existing roads, 

trails, and structures and increasing visitor 

use could result in additional disturbance 

to vegetation and soils, such as soil 

compaction and erosion, trampling and 

loss of vegetative cover, and introduction 

and spread of non-native species. Wildlife

populations and habitat could also be

affected to varying degrees by continuing 

maintenance activities and visitor use that 

could affect natural movements of wildlife, 

habitat, and food sources. Most maintenance and visitor activities would continue 

to occur along existing trails, roads, and in 

the developed areas. These areas have 

been previously disturbed. Visitation is not

expected to increase appreciably and

would likely have little additional effect on 

the extent of impacts. The low incidence 

of collisions between vehicles and wildlife 

would not likely increase. Also, management actions to avoid or minimize the 

extent and severity of impacts would 

continue to be employed, such as localized 

restoration efforts, confining or directing 

use through use of signs, trails, and designated parking areas, and continued 

monitoring and early corrective action to 

address invasive non-native plants. 

Consequently, additional long-term 

adverse impacts would be minor. 

Winter recreational activities occur during 

the time when wildlife is stressed by cold 

weather and food shortages. Disturbance 

or harassment of wildlife during this 

sensitive time can have negative effects on 

individual animals, and in some cases 

populations, particularly when populations are low. Winter recreation such as 

snowmobiling and skiing can create added 

energetic stress in winter when most 

wildlife species are already stressed (NPS 

1999d). The effects of winter recreational 

activities in the park are unknown, 

although, disturbance would likely be 

limited because visitor use levels are 

expected to remain relatively low and 

would continue to occur within very 

limited areas within the park. The park 

service would initiate a long-term data 

gathering and monitoring program to

evaluate winter use and associated impacts 

to ensure long-term protection of park 

resources. Management actions, such as 

restrictions on off-trail use, specific area 

closures, increased patrols, visitor 

education, or limits on use or party sizes, 

would be taken as necessary to address 

impacts. Consequently, long-term impacts 

from continuing or increasing winter 

activities would be offset by increased 

protection measures that would benefit 

wildlife, although the extent of potential 

beneficial effects would likely be localized 

and minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative actions 

would contribute to both beneficial and 

adverse impacts to biotic communities. 

Some ongoing and future site-specific 

restoration work (e.g., trail relocation and 

rehabilitation and rim restoration following removal of the employee dorm on the 

129
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

rim) would have long-term benefits to 

resources by restoring vegetation and 

wildlife habitat. The fire management 

program may have short-term impacts on 

animal populations in the vicinity of any 

fire by eliminating cover, food sources, 

and habitat. However, in the long term, 

reintroducing fire would provide for 

greater habitat diversity and less catastrophic habitat loss. Fisheries management 

has reestablished the native fishery in Sun 

Creek. Other cumulative beneficial effects 

would occur outside the park from 

implementation of the NFP which is 

expected to provide for smaller, yet more 

stable and better distributed populations 

of late-successional forest species. Overall, 

these programs would result in major, 

long-term benefits. 

Fire suppression and historic timber 

harvest have adversely impacted lands 

surrounding the park. Impacts on biotic 

communities have been long term, major, 

and adverse primarily because of widepread alteration of forest structure, 

wildlife habitat, species composition and 

fragmentation of habitats. Proposed 

development projects within the park (e.g., 

replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield, rehabilitation 

of Highway 62 West) would have minor, 

site-specific, construction-related impacts 

based on implementation of best management practices such as erosion and 

sediment controls and revegetation. 

Overall the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in combination with 

the no-action alternative would have both 

long-term, major adverse and beneficial 

effects. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily because of the widespread 

logging and fire suppression on lands 

surrounding the park and beneficial 

impacts would be from restoration and 

protection programs affecting lands both 

action alternative would contribute a 

minor adverse increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on biotic communities, primarily in 

existing areas of concentrated use and 

development. Increased protection 

measures could result in minor benefits to 

wildlife during the winter. The past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions in combination with the no action 

alternative would have both long-term, 

major adverse and beneficial impacts. The 

no-action alternative would contribute a 

minor, adverse, and beneficial increment 

to the overall cumulative impact. 

In accordance with the criteria for 

determining impairment, there would be 

no major adverse impacts on resources or 

values, and there would be no impairment 

of resources or values associated with 

biotic communities, including vegetation, 

soils, and wildlife resources. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species 

Most maintenance and visitor activities 

would continue to occur along existing 

trails, roads, and in the developed areas. 

These areas have been previously 

disturbed. Visitation is not expected to 

increase appreciably and there would be 

no new development under this alternative. Also, NPS actions to manage and 

protect special status species would 

continue to be employed, such as monitoring and restoration programs and 

restrictions on visitor use near nest sites. 

Consequently, there would be no change 

in the habitat or disturbance to special 

status species within the park as a result of 

the no action alternative. 

130
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

As discussed under the biotic communities 

impact topic, the Park Service would 

initiate a long-term data gathering and 

monitoring program to evaluate winter use 

and associated impacts to ensure longterm protection of threatened and 

endangered species. Because of a number 

of factors such as limited occurrence, 

small populations, low densities, and/or 

low birth rates, these species are more

vulnerable to impacts than general wildlife

populations. Some species (lynx, 

wolverine, fisher) could benefit from

increased protection measures, although 

the extent of potential beneficial effects is

unknown. Greater beneficial effects would 

occur if for example, den sites were 

located and measures were taken to 

protect them from disturbance. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative actions 

would contribute to both beneficial and 

adverse impacts to threatened and

endangered species. Within the park, the 

fire management program would 

perpetuate the natural role of fire in 

preserving threatened and endangered 

species habitat and would reduce the

threat of catastrophic habitat loss. For 

instance, prescribed natural fires at Crater 

Lake tend 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. Some species would be

negatively influenced by fire management 

activities in the short term, due the 

possible loss of individuals or short-term 

alteration of suitable habitat, such as 

elimination of a multilayered understory in 

some locations that may result in suboptimal spotted owl habitat. However, species specific mitigation strategies would be

implemented for sensitive species to

minimize these effects. Although the 

park’s bull trout restoration program has 

had short-term adverse impacts due to the 

loss of some individual fish, the program 

has lead to the elimination of non-native 

brook trout and reestablishment of bull 

trout in Sun Creek. The NFP is expected 

to provide for smaller, yet more stable and 

better distributed populations of threatened and endangered late-successional 

forest species such as the northern spotted 

owl, which would also contribute 

beneficial effects. Overall, these programs

would adversely affect some individuals or 

habitat in the short-term, but would not 

likely adversely affect threatened and

endangered species in the long-term 

because long-term effects would be

beneficial. 

None of the threatened or endangered 

animal species are endemic to Crater Lake 

National Park, and the "threats" to their 

existence have largely occurred due to

land management activities elsewhere, 

such as old growth forest loss affecting 

northern spotted owls. Fire suppression 

and historic timber harvest have adversely

affected habitat and threatened and 

endangered species populations on lands 

surrounding the park primarily due to 

widespread alteration and fragmentation 

of forests. Park construction and 

rehabilitation proposals would not affect

most special status species because there 

would be no disturbance within known 

areas of occurrence or suitable habitat. 

Some inconsequential impacts such as 

localized disturbance to vegetation within 

suitable habitat could occur, but would 

not likely adversely affect any threatened 

and endangered species. Site-specific 

surveys would be conducted to determine 

if special status species were present and 

the park service would consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon 

Department of Natural Resources to

determine mitigation. 

131
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts of the above actions in conjuncttion with the no-action alternative would 

result in both long- and short term adverse 

and beneficial effects. The no-action 

alternative would not likely contribute to 

adverse effects on threatened or endingered species and could contribute beneficial long-term effects to the overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would not adversely affect and could 

beneficially affect threatened or 

endangered species. Thus this alternative 

may affect, but would not likely adversely

affect or result in impairment to any 

threatened or endangered species. Impacts 

of other actions in conjunction with the 

no-action alternative would result in both 

long- and short-term, adverse and 

beneficial effects. The no-action alternative would not likely contribute to 

adverse effects on threatened or 

endangered species and could contribute 

beneficial long-term effects to the overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Crater Lake

Minimizing development within the 

caldera and lake drainage would prevent 

addition of sediments, minerals, or 

contaminants that could reduce water 

quality. Current restrictions on access and 

boating would continue to minimize

contaminants that could reduce water 

quality. 

The long-term limnological program 

would continue to monitor a diverse array 

of chemical, physical, and biological 

properties of the lake and springs, 

including water chemistry, nutrients, 

secchi clarity, light transmission, 

temperature, light penetration, lake level, 

meteorological conditions, chlorophyll 

concentration, primary productivity, 

phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish. 

Long-term special studies would include 

global climate change, nutrient dynamics, 

and lake mixing. Most of the sample and 

data collection would continue to occur in 

the summer months when the lake is easily 

accessible. Occasional winter studies are 

also conducted. The program would 

continue to add devices capable of yearround sample and data collection to gain a 

better understanding of processes occurring during the winter months. Sample and 

data processing, along with data analysis 

and trend monitoring, would occur on a 

regular basis. Periodic program review by 

scientists from universities, the NPS, and 

other state or federal agencies has been 

incorporated into the long-term program. 

The latest review of the LTLMP was conducted by a panel of professional aquatic 

ecologists in 2000. Continued monitoring 

would result in long-term, negligible, 

beneficial impacts on water quality. 

Cumulative Impacts . Cumulative actions 

would contribute both adverse and beneficial impacts to water quality. 

 As called for in the Visitor Services Plan, 

only essential services would be provided 

at the rim. Included in this plan is the 

proposal to relocate the cafeteria parking 

behind the cafeteria. This would decrease 

the snow blown into the caldera during 

snowplowing and thereby decrease 

possible hydro carbons and vehicle related 

contaminants. The plan also calls for a 

reduction in the number of daily 

concession boat tours. 

In 2003 the park’s new concessioner 

replaced the aging tour boat fleet. This 

resulted in a major technological upgrade 

with conversion to improved fuel-injected 

4-stroke engines, which will operate more 

efficiently and cleanly. The new boats also

incorporated a number of other design 

132
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

133

features to prevent accidental fuel leakage 

or spills into the lake environment. The 

park is also closely tracking the developments in alternative fuels technology, i.e., 

fuel cell, to eventually enable a conversion 

to engines not reliant on fossil fuels. The 

fuel system servicing the boat dock has 

recently been upgraded to provide 

increased protection from fuel leaks and 

contamination to the lake. Access to the 

lake would continue to be provided by a 

single access. Water quality could benefit 

from these increased protection measures, 

although the extent of potential beneficial 

effects is unknown, but would likely be 

localized and minor. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have a negligible, long-term, 

beneficial effect on water quality within 

Crater Lake. In accordance with the 

criteria for determining impairment, there 

would be no major adverse impacts on 

water quality, and therefore no 

impairment of water quality. 

Water Resources 

Continued maintenance of existing roads, 

trails, and structures and a slight increase 

in visitor use would result in little new 

disturbance to vegetation and soils that 

could potentially contribute to increased 

turbidity or sedimentation of park waters. 

Increased visitation would lead to only a 

minimal increase in vehicles in the park 

and associated increase in deposition of 

petroleum products routed into drainages 

that could affect water quality. Effects on 

water quality would be negligible. 

A minimal increase in water use could 

occur from some increased visitation, 

although overnight accommodations, 

which utilize more water, would not 

increase. Water conservation efforts 

within the park would continue. Impacts 

on the quantity of water in Annie Creek 

would be negligible. Snowmobiles use 

along the North entrance road would 

continue. Snowmobiles raise concerns 

about long-term impacts from high 

pollution emissions. Emissions from 2-

stroke engine exhaust include monoxide, 

hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and 

particulate matter (NPS 1999e). These 

concerns include the possibility that 

accumulations of pollutants in the 

snowpack and resultant snowpack runoff 

may be having adverse impacts on water 

quality and associated aquatic systems, 

although impacts from snowpack runoff 

that is contaminated with snowmobile 

pollutants have not been found. Impacts 

on water quality are likely short term and 

localized along travel routes because of the 

low volume of use and because snowmobiles are restricted to the north entrance 

road, which does not follow near any 

streams. Although snowmobile use is not 

expected to appreciably increase, the Park 

Service would initiate a long-term data 

gathering and monitoring program to 

evaluate use and associated impacts as part 

of an overall winter recreational use study. 

Management actions to mitigate nonpoint 

source pollution would be implemented if 

necessary. Water quality could benefit 

from increased protection measures, 

although the extent of potential beneficial 

effects is unknown, but would likely be 

localized and minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. The geographical 

area included in the cumulative analysis 

for water resources is the park. All streams 

within the park, including Annie Spring, 

originate within the park. Effects on water 

quality and quantity outside the park from 

actions associated with this alternative 

would be negligible and likely not 

measurable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 134

The park’s fire management program may 

adversely impact water quality (e.g., 

sedimentation, erosion) due to the effects 

of fires, particularly high intensity fires. 

Park construction and rehabilitation 

proposals would also contribute to 

adverse impacts from increased surface 

runoff and erosion. Best management 

practices such as erosion and sediment 

controls would be employed to minimize 

these impacts. Impacts would be localized, 

short-term, and minor. Minor, localized, 

beneficial cumulative actions would 

include ongoing trails rehabilitation and 

relocation within the park that would 

reduce localized erosion and runoff. 

The replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield would likely 

reduce water loss by the system. 

Implementation of actions within the 

Visitor Services Plan would also reduce 

water use within the park. Reductions in 

water use would have a minor beneficial 

effect on water quantity in Annie Creek. 

Impacts of the above other actions in 

conjunction with the no-action alternative 

would result in localized, minor, adverse 

and beneficial impacts on water quality 

and minor, beneficial effects on water 

quantity in Annie Creek. The no-action 

alternative could contribute a negligible 

adverse impact on water quality and 

negligible decrease in Annie Creek water 

flow to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The water quality within the 

park would remain good and the noaction alternative would have a negligible 

adverse affect on water quality and 

quantity due to continuing maintenance 

activities and slight increase in visitation, 

but would not result in impairment to 

water resources. The impacts of other 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in localized, 

minor, adverse and beneficial impacts on 

water quality and quantity. The no-action 

alternative could contribute a negligible 

adverse impact on water quality and 

negligible increase in water use within the 

park to the overall cumulative impact. 

Air Quality 

Slight increases in visitation would lead to 

only a small increase in vehicles in the park 

and associated increase in vehicle 

emissions. The increase in emissions 

would be small and would not measurably 

change the air quality. Snowmobile use 

along the North entrance road would 

continue. Snowmobiles raise concerns 

about long-term impacts from high 

pollution emissions. Impacts on air quality 

are believed to be short term and localized 

along travel routes because of the low 

volume of use and lack of large 

congregation sites coupled with winds 

which tend to disperse particulates and 

other pollutants. The Park Service would 

initiate a long-term data gathering and 

monitoring program to evaluate use and 

associated impacts. Management practices 

to mitigate nonpoint source pollution 

would be implemented as necessary. Air 

quality could benefit from increased 

protection measures, although the extent 

of potential beneficial effects would likely 

be localized and negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. The park’s air 

quality is good with negligible effects from 

regional pollution sources outside of the 

park. Forest fires on surrounding lands 

could contribute particulates for limited 

periods of time. Degradation of air quality 

from the park’s Fire Management program 

could result in moderate short-term 

impacts, but the program would be in 

conformance with the Clean Air Act, 

Oregon State Smoke Management Plan, 

and the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

135

Park construction and rehabilitation 

proposals would cause localized increases 

in dust and emissions from construction 

vehicles and equipment, resulting in 

localized, short-term effects on air quality. 

The cumulative actions in conjunction 

with the no-action alternative would result 

in short-term, moderate, adverse impacts 

on air quality. The no-action alternative 

would contribute a negligible, adverse and 

possibly negligible, beneficial increment to 

the cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have a negligible, long-term, 

adverse effect on air quality from a small 

increase in vehicle use within the park. In 

accordance with the criteria for determining impairment, there would be no 

major adverse impacts on air quality, and 

therefore no impairment of air quality. 

The cumulative actions in conjunction 

with the no-action alternative would result 

in short-term, moderate, adverse impacts 

on air quality. The no-action alternative 

would contribute a negligible adverse and 

possibly negligible beneficial increment to 

the cumulative effect. 

VISITOR USE 

Diversity of Recreational Opportunity

The existing range of visitor experiences 

would continue unchanged. Activities 

identified by visitors as important, such as 

sightseeing, driving, camping, boat tours, 

and picnicking would continue to be 

available. Existing hiking opportunities on 

front and back country trails would 

continue during the summer months. 

Opportunities for winter activities (i.e., 

cross country skiing, snowshoeing) would 

continue unchanged at Rim Village and 

along Rim Drive in the winter months. 

Snowmobile opportunities would 

continue along the North Junction road in 

the winter. There would be no noticeable 

change in visitor experience or safety, 

therefore there would be no or negligible 

impacts on the diversity of visitor 

experience. 

Visitor Access and Circulation 

Access to and within the park would be 

unchanged. There would be no change in 

management practices to control or 

manage visitor access. The operation or 

the location of visitor entrances to the 

park or the road system used by visitors 

within the park would not change. Visitors 

would continue to enter the park from the 

north and south on Highways 62 and 138. 

Two-way traffic would continue on Rim 

Drive and on the Pinnacles Road. The 

Grayback Drive would remain open to 

motorized traffic. Scenic driving on the 

park’s road system, particularly yearround private vehicle access to caldera 

views of Crater Lake at Rim Village, would 

continue. Visitors would be able to drive 

from one area in the park to another 

during the late spring and early fall and 

would usually be able to be accommodated in existing parking areas. Munson 

Valley Road to Rim Village would 

continue to be cleared of snow in the 

winter. The amount of parking within the 

park would remain approximately the 

same as current availability. The number 

of visitors at peak periods currently causes 

parking congestion at popular Rim Drive 

overlooks, particularly Cleetwood Cove, 

the Watchman, and Phantom Ship. Traffic 

and parking congestion is also apparent at 

Rim Village and Mazama Village during 

the summer months. During congested 

periods, some visitors are deterred from 

stopping due to the inconvenient parking 

and choose to pass by rim pullouts and 

parking areas, particularly at Cleetwood 

Cove and the Watchman. Any increase in 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 136

congestion would detract from the visitor 

experience. Perceptions of full parking 

lots, many vehicles traveling park roads, 

and traffic noise are important factors in 

determining the quality of visitor’ 

experiences. Access to trailheads and 

opportunities for day hikes on front 

country trails along the rim, at Munson 

Valley, and at Mazama Village would not 

change. Front country hiking experiences 

could become crowded during the peak 

use summer months and change the 

character of this activity. Visitor surveys 

indicate that short trails are extremely 

important to a majority of visitors. Any 

increase in the use of frontcountry trails 

during peak periods, particularly along 

Cleetwood Cove would contribute to 

congestion and detract from visitor 

experience. Boat tours would continue at 

the same levels on the lake and some 

visitors may not be accommodated due to 

sold-out tours. Due to anticipated 

increases in visitor numbers, the change in 

visitor experience and safety in the way 

visitors access the park’s resources would 

be readily apparent, and would affect a 

relatively large number of visitors resulting 

in moderate long-term adverse impacts to 

visitor access. 

Education and Orientation

Current opportunities for information, 

interpretation, and education would 

continue at existing levels and locations. 

Visitor information would continue to be 

available throughout the year via personal 

contact, printed material, and the park’s 

web site. During the summer, visitors 

would continue to receive information 

about the park at two visitor centers. 

Visitor opportunities to learn about park 

resources would also continue through 

NPS interpretive programs on the 

concessioner-operated Crater Lake boat 

tours. Interpretive outreach programs 

including internet information would 

continue to be upgraded. A science and 

learning center would be developed at 

Munson Valley. Learning center opportunities would expand the range of 

interpretive opportunities but would likely 

affect a relatively small number of visitors, 

resulting in a minor, beneficial impact to 

the diversity of visitor experiences. During 

the winter, information and orientation to 

the park would continue at the visitor 

information building at Munson Valley. 

Access to interpretative and educational 

opportunities is important. Sixty-four 

percent of visitors to Crater Lake use the 

visitor centers, and 75% of visitors 

indicated that the availability of 

information and orientation at the visitor 

centers was very important to their park 

experience (Visitor Survey 2001). Over the 

long term, increased visitation to the park 

is anticipated during peak periods. 

Increased visitation could make it more 

difficult for some visitors to readily obtain 

park information or to participate in 

interpretive programs. Changes in visitor 

experience would be detectable, although 

the changes would be slight or have barely 

perceptible consequences to the majority 

of visitors, resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to visitor interpretive and 

educational opportunities. 

Visitor Facilities and Services

Visitor facilities and services would 

continue unchanged. Visitors would 

continue to camp at Mazama Campground 

and at Lost Creek Campground. Park 

roads and their associated pullouts and 

overlooks would be maintained and traffic 

circulation would be unchanged. Visitors 

would continue to receive park orientation 

and information at visitor contact centers 

at Munson Valley and at Rim Village and 

would continue to hike both front and 

back country trails. There would be no 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

137

loss, addition, expansion, or change in the 

number of park facilities. If visitor facilities 

were not reconfigured or expanded, some 

crowding along frontcountry trails or in 

developed areas might occur. Changes in 

use would be detectable, although the 

changes would be slight and localized, 

resulting in minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts to the visitor’s experience of park 

facilities. 

Soundscapes and Scenic Quality 

With anticipated increases in visitation the 

contribution of vehicle noise levels along 

park roads and at areas of concentrated 

visitor use, such as Rim Village, Mazama 

Village, and Cleetwood, would be 

expected to increase. Any increase in 

visitation and traffic along Rim Drive 

would further degrade the opportunity to 

experience solitude and tranquility while 

viewing the lake. 

A change in the natural sound environment would be readily detectable along 

transportation corridors and at popular 

overlooks, viewpoints and trailheads. The 

changes would affect a relatively large 

number of visitors but would be localized, 

resulting in minor long-term adverse 

impact on soundscapes along park roads. 

There would be no change in outstanding 

opportunities for visitors to experience the 

park’s primary resources in their natural 

and cultural settings. As crowding along 

Rim Drive escalates, there would be a 

change in the way many visitors perceive 

lake views. Because there would be readily 

apparent changes in viewing the lake 

under crowded conditions and the change 

would affect a relatively large number of 

visitors, a moderate long term adverse 

impact to the experience of enjoying 

scenic vistas at the caldera rim is expected 

under this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing 

projects, including development of frontcountry trails, reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, and adaptive reuse of historic 

structures in Munson Valley and Rim 

Village, have had long-term, major, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Reconfiguration of Rim Village would 

change the way visitors access views of the 

lake. A walk along the promenade would 

be possible without having to compete 

with vehicular traffic. A year-round visitor 

contact station at the rim would enable 

winter views of the lake for people of all 

abilities. Overall these projects have the 

potential to increase the diversity, of 

visitor experience, enhance the range of 

interpretative programs, expand access to 

park facilities, and to improve the quality 

of visitor experience values such as sounds 

of nature and scenic views. The major 

long-term beneficial impacts of the above 

other actions, when combined with the 

impacts of the no-action alternative would 

result in an overall major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts. The no-action alternative would contribute a minor to 

moderate adverse increment as well as a 

minor beneficial increment to the 

cumulative impacts to visitor experience. 

Conclusion. Overall, under alternative 1 

there would be minor to moderate longterm, adverse impacts to the visitor 

experience. There would also be minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts to visitors’ 

educational opportunities. The cumulative 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in major beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience. The noaction alternative would contribute a 

minor to moderate adverse and minor 

beneficial increment to the cumulative 

effect. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 138

OPERATIONS 

Park Operations 

Under the no action alternative, no 

staffing increase is anticipated. Park 

infrastructure, visitor facilities and services 

would remain unchanged. Park functions 

currently stationed in the park would 

remain in existing park facilities. Some 

office functions currently conducted in 

surrounding communities would 

continue. The relative distribution of 

disciplines across divisions would remain 

the same. 

The level of effort to protect park 

resources, maintain park facilities, and to 

provide for visitor enjoyment is 

anticipated to slightly increase. Park 

structures and infrastructure would 

continue to be supported from the central 

maintenance facility located at Munson 

Valley. Munson Valley Road to Rim 

Village would continue to be cleared of 

snow during the winter months and Rim 

Drive would continue to be plowed to 

allow summer season access as early in the 

spring as weather dictates. The park would 

continue to maintain year-round 

employee residences at Steel Circle and 

summer season residences at Sleepy 

Hollow at Munson Valley. Over the long 

term, the level of resource protection, 

visitor protection and safety, and the level 

of education and interpretive effort are 

expected to slightly increase. The level of 

staffing as well as the use of facilities and 

infrastructure would remain unchanged, 

resulting in a perceptible change in the 

ability of the park to provide desired 

services. These changes would be slight 

but detectable, resulting in minor, longterm, adverse impacts in park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing 

projects, including reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, adaptive reuse of historic 

structures in Munson Valley and Rim 

Village, upgrading the infrastructure at 

Cleetwood Cove, and highway road 

improvement projects on Highway 62, 

have had long-term moderate beneficial 

impacts on park operations. Overall these 

projects have the potential to have an 

appreciable effect on park operations and 

improve the ability of the park to provide 

desired services and facilities. Impacts of 

the above other actions in conjunction 

with the no-action alternative would result 

in moderate long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The no-action 

alternative would contribute a minor 

adverse increment to cumulative impacts 

to park operations. 

Conclusion. Overall, under alternative 1 

there would be minor long term adverse 

impacts to park operations. The 

cumulative actions in conjunction with the 

no-action alternative would result in 

moderate, long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts. The no-action alternative would 

contribute a minor adverse increment to 

cumulative impacts to park operations. 

Concession Operations 

Under the no-action alternative, existing 

commercial activities would continue 

unchanged, although the primary area of 

commercial activity would shift from Rim 

Village to Mazama Village. Necessary and 

appropriate commercial services to meet 

the needs of visitors and to enhance their 

enjoyment of the park would continue to 

be provided at Rim Village, Mazama 

Village and at Cleetwood Cove. There 

would be no change in the number or 

frequency of boat tours on the lake. 

Because commercial activities would not 

be affected and there would be no 

measurable change in operations under 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

139

alternative 1, there would be new impacts 

on concession operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions 

including restoration of the Crater Lake 

Lodge, reconfiguration of facilities at Rim 

Village, Mazama Village, and Cleetwood 

Cove have had moderate, long-term 

beneficial impacts on concessioner 

operations. The no-action alternative 

would not contribute to cumulative 

impacts on concession operations. 

 

Conclusion. Overall, under alternative 1 

there would be negligible long term 

adverse impacts to concession operations. 

The no-action alternative would not 

contribute to cumulative impacts on 

concession operations. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Park staffing remains relatively constant at 

75 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs). 

The park’s annual budget also remains the 

same ($4,027,000 in 2003) except for small 

increases due to inflation and the rising 

costs of goods and services utilized by the 

park. Facilities, park operations, and 

recreational uses are maintained. Current 

conditions and trends continue. Most 

facilities and services within the park 

would remain essentially the same as now. 

Without a long-term, comprehensive 

management plan, park managers would 

accommodate changing visitor use 

patterns, uses, and volumes, and changes 

in resource conditions, as they occurred or 

in response to pressure from various 

interest groups. The current upward trend 

in visitation continues. While visitation 

can and does fluctuate from year to year, 

the historic growth rate of approximately 

1.4% is assumed to continue for the life of 

this plan. 

Additional funding for specific currently 

authorized projects would amount to 

$7,906,900 ($6,402,900 federal dollars + 

$1,504,000 private dollars, see appendix 

C). These projects do not occur all at the 

same time but are phased in over a number 

of years. The impacts (e.g., increase in 

income, creation of jobs, etc.) on 

individual firms and employees could be 

short term, moderate to major, and 

beneficial for individuals and affected 

firms. However, impacts on the regional 

economy (with nearly $5.0 billion in 

earnings and about 187,000 jobs in 2001) 

as measured by economic indictors (e.g., a 

substantial increase in income or a 

decrease in unemployment or poverty, 

etc.) would be negligible. 

Crater Lake National Park would continue 

to be a substantial contributor to the 

regional economy and some local gateway 

communities’ economies as a result of jobs 

provided, and wages and operational 

expenditures by the National Park Service. 

In addition, the park serves as a key 

attraction for the local and regional 

tourism industry. The visiting public 

would continue to generate tourism 

related spending within the regional and 

local economies, which benefits businesses 

by generating income and providing 

employment opportunities. 

However, the three-county region would 

not be affected due to the size and diversity of the regional economy. Individual 

gateway communities may be affected by 

specific projects occurring in the park. 

However, the number and types of 

businesses located in the local gateway 

travel corridors are small. Since there are 

few local businesses that can be affected by 

the continuing operations of the park, and 

the park would continue to operate and be 

open to the public, and this alternative 

continues current policies and programs, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 140

no changes in the types or amounts of 

impacts would occur as the result of this 

alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Additional changes 

or shocks (either positive or negative) to 

the local and regional socioeconomic 

environment within which the park exists 

are not expected. No other actions that 

could have cumulative effects when 

combined with the impacts of the noaction Alterative have been identified 

during this planning process, which has 

included public participation and input. 

The park continues to be an important 

visitor attraction bringing visitors to the 

region resulting in tourism related 

expenditures in the area. Expenditures by 

the Park Service to operate and maintain 

the park continue to contribute positive 

direct benefits to the local and regional 

economies. In conjunction with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, no additional cumulative impacts 

are expected. 

Conclusion. The park’s staff levels and 

base budget would not change under the 

no-action alternative other than as a result 

of adjustments for inflation and rising 

labor and materials costs. Approved 

projects over and above regular operations 

of the park, which would be funded under 

the no-action alternative, would amount 

to about $7,906,900 in direct expenditures. 

These projects would be phased-in over a 

number of years, so impacts on individual 

firms and employees could be moderate to 

major, short term, and beneficial, but 

impacts on the regional economy would 

be negligible. The current range and level 

of impacts (tourism spending and park 

spending) on adjacent communities would 

continue to be beneficial providing 

income, employment, and business 

opportunities to the local and regional 

economy. 

The no-action alternative would continue 

to have a minor to moderate short-term 

beneficial impact on the socioeconomic 

climate of the gateway communities and 

regional area, primarily because of 

ongoing maintenance of facilities and 

programs and some limited development 

projects. The overall current level and 

types of impacts would remain the same. 

In the long-term, the park would continue 

to be an important visitor attraction and 

contributor to the tourism industry in the 

three-county region. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

impacts of major intensity that would 

result from implementing alternative 1. 

Alternative 1 would result in moderate 

adverse impacts to visitor access along Rim 

Drive and Mazama Village. The negligible 

and minor impacts are described in the 

foregoing analysis. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The vast majority of the park would be 

protected in a natural state and would 

maintain its long-term productivity. 

Adverse impacts on the park’s soils, water 

quality, and wildlife from continuing 

visitor activities could reduce the 

productivity of the park’s natural 

resources in localized areas over time.
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1– No Action 

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Construction materials and energy used 

would be irretrievably lost. There would 

also be an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources in terms of

funds expended on both labor and 

construction materials. Because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due

to visitor use in localized areas would be 

an irreversible commitment of resources. 

141
IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on archeological resources as those listed under 

alternative 1, although provision of more

diversified visitor experiences along the 

Rim Drive corridor, including development of new trails, picnic areas, and 

improved pullouts, parking areas, and 

overlooks, could have additional minor, 

long-term and permanent adverse impacts 

on archeological sites. Development of the 

new science learning center in the superintendent’s residence would also result in 

additional minor, long-term, and permanent adverse impacts on archeological 

sites. 

 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative 

1, although development projects and 

improvements along the Rim Drive 

corridor, as well as development of the 

new science learning center in the 

superintendent’s residence, would 

contribute minor, long-term, and 

permanent adverse effects to any overall 

cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on archeological resources as

those listed under alternative 1. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values 

associated with archeological resources. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on 

archeological resources would be no 

adverse effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Although implementation of alternative 2 

would generally have the same impacts on 

historic structures/buildings as those listed 

under alternative 1, rehabilitation and 

adaptive use of some historic structures/ 

buildings for new functions would have 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on those structures/ buildings. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would have the same 

cumulative effects on historic structures/ 

buildings as those listed under alternative 

1, although rehabilitation and adaptive use 

of some historic structures/buildings for 

new functions would contribute moderate, 

long-term, beneficial effects to any overall 

cumulative impact on historic structures/ 

buildings. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this

alternative would have the same impacts 

on historic structures/buildings as those 

listed under alternative 1, although 

rehabilitation and adaptive use of some 

historic structures/buildings for new

functions would have moderate, long142
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

term, beneficial impacts on those 

structures/ buildings. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with historic structures/ 

buildings. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on historic 

structures/buildings would be no adverse 

effect. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on 

cultural landscapes as those listed under 

alternative 1. Although development of 

new trails, picnic areas, and improved 

pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks in 

the Rim Drive corridor would have some

additional minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts on the Rim Drive cultural 

landscape. However, management of 

parking and road congestion along the 

road by defining and formalizing existing 

pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks 

would be expected to have minor, longterm, beneficial impacts on the Rim Drive 

cultural landscape because the historic 

character and general design features of 

the road corridor would be preserved. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same effects on cultural landscapes as 

those listed under alternative 1. Development projects and improvements along the 

Rim Drive corridor would contribute 

minor, long-term, adverse effects to any 

overall cumulative impact on the Rim 

Drive cultural landscape. However, 

improvements along the road to manage 

parking and road congestion would be 

expected to contribute minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts to preservation of the 

historic character and general design 

features of the road corridor. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 2 would generally have the 

same impacts on cultural landscapes as 

those listed under alternative 1. Although 

development projects and improvements 

along the Rim Drive corridor would 

contribute additional minor, long-term, 

adverse effects on the Rim Drive cultural 

landscape, improvement along the road to 

manage parking and road congestion 

would be expected to have minor, longterm, beneficial impacts on preservation of 

the historic character and general design 

features of the road corridor. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with cultural landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on cultural 

landscapes would be no adverse effect. 

143
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Ethnographic Resources 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed 

under alternative 1, although emphasis on 

expanded and diverse recreational and 

educational opportunities in the national 

park for visitors would have minor, longterm, adverse impacts on such resources. 

Although expanded visitor activities could 

result in intrusion on significant sacred 

sites or landscapes, important traditional 

use activity areas, and ceremonial practices, these impacts would be generally 

slight but noticeable. However, educational opportunities would be provided to

park visitors to heighten their awareness of

the importance of ethnographic resources 

and the need to respect tribal access to 

such sites as well as a group’s ceremonial 

practices. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative 2 would have the same cumulative effects on ethnographic resources as 

those listed under alternative 1. Emphasis 

on expanded and diverse recreational and 

educational opportunities for visitors, 

however, would contribute minor, longterm, adverse effects to any overall 

cumulative impacts on ethnographic

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on ethnographic resources as

those listed under alternative 1, although 

emphasis on expanded recreational 

opportunities would have minor, longterm, adverse impacts on such resources. 

There would no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. No Traditional 

Cultural Properties are affected by actions 

under this alternative. Thus, Section 106 

determinations are unnecessary. 

Museum Collections 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have beneficial, minor to moderate, longterm impacts on the park’s museum 

collections because the increased volume 

of the collections that would result from 

expanded park research activities, as well 

as acquisition of pertinent park-related 

collection materials not currently owned 

or managed by the National Park Service, 

would be stored in both onsite and offsite 

facilities that meet professional and 

National Park Service museum standards. 

Thus, provision for adequate storage and 

workspace would be provided to improve 

curation, protection, and access to the 

collections, and staffing would be 

upgraded to reduce the cataloging 

backlog. 

Cumulative Effects. Since the national 

park was established the combination of 

limited staffing and lack of storage and 

workspace meeting professional and 

National Park Service museum standards 

have hindered endeavors to improve care 

of and access to the park’s museum 

collections and address the everincreasing cataloging backlog, thus having 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts on such resources. Actions under 

this alternative, such as expansion of the 

collections and their storage in both onsite 

144
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

and offsite facilities, would contribute 

beneficial, minor to moderate, long-term 

effects to any overall cumulative impacts 

on the park’s museum collections. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 2 would have beneficial minor 

to moderate long-term impacts on the 

park’s museum collections. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with museum collections. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Biotic Communities 

The greater emphasis on research, 

partnering, and visitor education would 

greatly enhance the opportunities for 

positive effects on resources within the 

park. The following actions would 

potentially have localized minor to more 

widespread moderate, long-term, 

beneficial effects on biotic communities. 

The intensity of the effects would likely be 

greater over time as more knowledge of 

the resources is accumulated, partnerships 

expanded, and resource management 

actions were implemented that further 

preserved and restored native species, 

communities, and processes. 

Expanded opportunities for research and 

greater collaboration and communication 

between park resource staff and members 

of the scientific community would provide 

valuable information and working 

relationships relevant to managing and 

preserving the park’s resources. The 

quality and quantity of information would 

be enhanced, as would integration of 

research and data collection with 

resources management, which would 

contribute to more informed and better 

management decisions. Park management 

could become more proactive in

determining desired resource conditions 

and identifying and addressing potential 

impacts or threats. Research and the

information gained would allow for not 

only better management of resources 

within the context of the park, but within a 

broader regional and global ecological 

context as well. All these actions would 

indirectly contribute to improved resource 

conditions by enhancing the park service’s 

knowledge and capabilities for restoring 

and maintaining native species, 

communities, and processes. Some adverse 

impacts to resources from research 

activities such as vegetation and soil 

trampling could occur but would be 

localized and negligible.

Increased partnerships with the scientific 

community and others would provide a 

wider base of expertise to draw upon in 

making management decisions. Increased 

monitoring and restoration programs 

would also be possible through 

partnerships. 

Enhanced visitor education opportunities 

could also indirectly benefit native species, 

communities, and processes. Improved 

education and interpretation would 

increase the public’s appreciation, 

understanding, and stewardship for these 

resources, which may reduce the potential 

for visitor-related impacts. This broader 

base of public support and advocacy 

would also aid in accomplishing the park’s 

145
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

resource protection and preservation 

programs and initiatives.

Conversion of the Grayback Trail to nonmotorized use would have localized longterm benefits because of reduced noise 

along the trail corridor that may reduce 

disturbance of nearby wildlife species. 

Beneficial effects would likely be minor 

because of the relatively low levels of

motorized use that would be eliminated 

and the continued presence of hikers and

bikers along the corridor. Seasonal closure 

of a section of the Rim Drive to motorized 

use would have similar effects. 

Possible future implementation of 

alternative transportation systems would 

reduce or eliminate localized effects on 

vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat such 

as trampling and erosion that were 

described under the no action alternative. 

This would result in long-term, negligible 

to minor benefits. 

Adaptive use of existing buildings is 

expected to result in negligible new

resource impacts. These buildings are 

located in existing, previously disturbed 

developed areas. Construction and use of 

new facilities (i.e., picnic areas, short trails) 

and minor improvements of existing

pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks in 

frontcountry zones along the Rim Drive 

and other park roads would result in sitespecific loss of soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitat. There would also be

increased human disturbance to wildlife. 

Individuals, populations, and species vary 

in their sensitivity to disturbance and 

visitor use might disturb or displace some 

individual animals, particularly those 

species more sensitive to human 

disturbance. Certain wildlife may also 

become habituated to human presence or 

attracted to the increased food source 

visitors provide. Specific locations for new 

facilities have not been identified; 

however, siting them primarily in or 

adjacent to previously developed or 

disturbed sites within the park and 

avoiding sensitive resources such as

wetlands or whitebark pine stands, would 

minimize additional loss of vegetation, 

soils, and habitat and disruption to 

wildlife. Long-term adverse impacts would

be localized and minor. Mitigation 

measures such as topsoil salvage, erosion 

control, and revegetation would minimize 

construction impacts. 

 

Administrative and office functions

relocated from the park to nearby 

communities would be housed in existing 

structures if possible. However, if new 

buildings were necessary, construction 

activities would have short-term effects on 

soils and vegetation. Depending on

whether of not facilities were built on 

previously disturbed sites, the long-term 

adverse effects with mitigation would be 

negligible to minor. 

Winter recreational activities occur during 

the time when wildlife are stressed by cold 

weather and food shortages. Disturbance 

or harassment of wildlife during this 

sensitive time could have negative effects 

on individuals animals, and in some cases 

populations, particularly when 

populations are low. Winter recreation, 

such as snowmobiling and skiing, could 

create added energetic stress in winter 

when most wildlife species are already 

stressed (NPS 1999d). The effects of 

winter recreational activities in the park 

are unknown, although, disturbance 

would likely be limited because visitor use 

levels are expected to remain relatively low 

and would continue to occur within 

limited areas within the park. Snowmobiling would also be restricted to current 

levels. The park service would initiate a 

long-term data gathering and monitoring 

146
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

147

program to evaluate winter use and 

associated impacts to ensure long-term 

protection of park resources. Management 

actions, such as restrictions on offtrail use, 

specific area closures, increased patrols, 

visitor education, or limits on use or party 

sizes, would be taken as necessary to 

address impacts. Wildlife could benefit 

from increased protection measures, 

although the extent of potential beneficial 

would likely be localized and minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

on biotic communities from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for alternative 1 (no-action alternative). 

Overall cumulative impacts would be longterm, and both major adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily because of the widespread 

logging and fire suppression on lands 

surrounding the park and beneficial 

impacts would be from restoration and 

protection programs affecting lands both 

within and outside of the park. The 

preferred alternative’s contribution to 

adverse cumulative impacts would be 

minor. However, actions under alternative 

2, particularly increased research, partnering, and visitor education, would promote 

the further protection, maintenance, and 

restoration of native communities. Therefore, alternative 2 would also contribute a 

minor to moderate, beneficial effect to the 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The greater emphasis on 

research, partnering, and visitor education 

under this alternative would indirectly 

contribute to improved resource 

conditions within the park, potentially 

having localized minor to more widespread moderate, long-term, beneficial 

effects on biotic communities. Long-term 

adverse impacts from construction and 

use of new facilities would be localized 

and minor. Biotic communities would not 

be impaired by the actions proposed under 

this alternative. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term 

and both major, adverse, and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would be primarily 

because of the widespread logging and fire 

suppression on lands surrounding the 

park, and beneficial impacts would be 

from restoration and protection programs 

affecting lands both within and outside the 

park. Alternative 2’s contribution to 

adverse impacts would be minor and its 

contribution to beneficial effects minor to 

moderate. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Species 

Similar to impacts discussed under biotic 

communities, greater emphasis on 

research, partnering, and visitor education 

under this alternative would also enhance 

the opportunities for positive effects on 

threatened and endangered species and 

their habitat within the park through 

increased knowledge and better informed 

management. Any research proposals 

would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis 

so that potential adverse effects to these 

species or their habitats could be 

avoided. 

Some inconsequential changes to habitat 

or loss of individual sensitive plant species 

might occur from new development or use 

as described below. New facilities would 

be limited and small in scale. They would 

primarily be placed within currently 

developed or previously impacted areas or 

corridors, or where human use is already 

occurring, thus minimizing the potential 

for adverse effects. Site-specific surveys 

would be conducted before implementing 

specific actions to determine if special 

status species existed in any proposed 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 148

project area. If any were located or if an 

action occurred within suitable habitat, the 

National Park Service would consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Oregon Department of Natural Resources 

to determine mitigation measures to avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts on the species. 

As discussed under the biotic communities 

impact topic, the Park Service would 

initiate a long-term data gathering and 

monitoring program to evaluate winter use 

and associated impacts to ensure longterm protection of threatened and endangered species. Because of a number of 

factors, such as limited occurrence, small 

populations, low densities, and/or low 

birth rates, these species are more 

vulnerable to impacts than general wildlife 

populations. Some species (lynx, wolverine, fisher) could benefit from increased 

protection measures, although the extent 

of potential beneficial effects is unknown. 

Greater beneficial effects would occur if 

for example, den sites were located and 

measures were taken to protect them from 

disturbance. 

Based on the nature of the actions being 

proposed along with a commitment to 

conduct surveys, consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon 

Department of Natural Resources, and 

implementation of appropriate mitigation 

measures, this alternative would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on threatened 

and endangered species. However, 

alternative 2 could result in some adverse 

effects on some threatened or endangered 

species. (Further rationale is provided 

below by individual species.) 

Canada lynx, California Wolverine, and 

Pacific Fisher. Although the park has 

conducted extensive surveys for Canada 

lynx and wolverine in the park, none have 

been detected. All these species require 

large expanses of land relatively free from 

human use. Because of the extent of 

suitable habitat within the park, new 

development and associated visitor use 

would likely occur within or near suitable 

habitat, which would incrementally 

contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. Increased human noise and activity 

could disturb and displace these species. 

However, development would be located 

primarily in nonwilderness areas in or 

adjacent to existing developed areas and 

roadways. Because of the existing development and use in these areas, adjacent 

habitat would not be readily used and 

would probably be avoided by these 

species. Some new backcountry trail links 

would be established to connect into the 

park’s backcountry network of trails. 

These new trails would be zoned for low 

levels of use, would require only minimal 

clearing of vegetation and, would impact a 

relatively small area, potentially affecting 

only a small fraction of these species’ 

territory or the extent of suitable habitat. 

Bald Eagle. There would be little if any 

adverse impact on the primary food 

sources (fish and carrion) of the bald eagle. 

No new development or use would occur 

near the existing nest site along the Crater 

Lake shoreline. Tour boats would continue to be restricted from areas on the 

lake that are near the nest site. The primary area for potential nest sites for this 

species would likely be within the caldera. 

Potential new development along the rim, 

such as trails and picnic areas, could affect 

potential nest site habitat. However, new 

development would affect little of the 

overall amount of suitable habitat along 

the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new 

development, surveys would be completed 

to identify suitable habitat and locate nest 

sites. New development would be sited 

and designed to avoid impacts to nesting 

eagles. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

149

Northern Spotted Owl. Current management practices that would continue 

under alternative 2 include protecting 

identified nest sites from human activities. 

Although new development and associated use could be located within patches 

of old growth stands identified as suitable 

habitat, no development would occur near 

known nest sites or within associated 

protective buffer zones. Most development would be in or adjacent to existing 

developed areas and roadways, thus 

minimizing the likelihood of disturbance. 

Conversion of the Grayback Trail to nonmotorized use could reduce disturbance to 

a known owl nest site because of reduced 

noise along the trail corridor, although the 

nest is located over 1.2 miles away from 

the road. 

Northern Goshawk. Development of 

frontcountry facilities along roadways 

(e.g., picnic and parking areas, trails) could 

result in the loss of goshawk habitat, 

primarily where facilities were located in 

forested habitats. These developments 

would impact a relatively small area and 

would potentially affect only a small 

fraction of any nesting pair’s much larger 

territory or the extent of suitable habitat. 

Surveys to locate nest sites would be 

completed prior to facility construction 

and those sites avoided. 

Peregrine Falcon. Peregrines are known 

to be sensitive to disturbances such as 

human presence above their nest site. No 

new development would be located in or 

above the area of the one known nest site 

within the caldera. Tour boats would also 

continue to be restricted from areas on the 

lake that are near the nest site. New 

development such as trails or picnic areas 

along the rim could result in visitor use 

above some caldera cliff faces that could 

provide potential nest sites. However, new 

development would affect very little of the 

overall amount of suitable habitat along 

the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new 

development, surveys would be completed 

to identify suitable habitat and locate nest 

sites. New development would be sited 

and designed to avoid impacts to nesting 

falcons. 

Bull Trout. Some frontcountry development could occur within the Sun and Lost 

Creek drainage basins near the Grayback 

and Rim Drive Road intersection and the 

Lost Creek campground. Runoff from 

areas disturbed by construction could lead 

to increased sedimentation that could 

affect bull trout habitat in Sun Creek. 

Design and location of facilities would 

take into consideration such parameters as 

soil types, slopes, and vegetative cover in 

order to minimize disturbance and 

potential runoff. A vegetative buffer would 

be maintained between facilities and creek 

headwaters. Best management practices 

such as erosion and sediment controls and 

revegetation would be implemented to 

eliminate or reduce both short- and longterm impacts. 

Conversion of the Grayback Trail to 

nonmotorized use could have localized 

long-term benefits because the elimination 

of vehicles would reduce erosion that 

could affect bull trout habitat in Sun 

Creek. Beneficial effects would likely be 

negligible because of the relatively low 

levels of motorized use and associated 

impacts that would be eliminated. The 

park would continue to take actions to 

stabilize and minimize areas of erosion 

along this trail. 

 

Pumice Grapefern, Shasta Arnica, and 

Crater Lake Rockcress. The location of 

these plants would continue to be protected and the populations monitored. 

Because of the limited new development 

and use along the rim that would occur, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

disturbance to populations of these plants 

would be negligible. For example, some 

small loss of habitat or individual plants 

might occur where new picnic areas or 

trails along the rim were developed. However, locations for any new development 

or trails would be surveyed for the presence of these species, and measures to

avoid or minimize adverse impacts would 

be implemented. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on threatened and endangered species 

from land uses and activities in the park 

and surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for alternative 1 (noaction alternative). Overall cumulative 

impacts would be both adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily due to land management 

activities in the region. Park programs 

would adversely affect some individuals or 

habitat in the short term, but would not 

likely adversely affect threatened and

endangered species in the long term 

because long-term effects would be

beneficial. Alternative 2 could contribute 

some adverse effects on threatened or

endangered species but could also 

contribute beneficial long-term effects to 

the overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Greater emphasis on

research, partnering, and visitor education 

under this alternative would enhance the

opportunities for positive effects on

threatened and endangered species and 

their habitat within the park. New development could result in small, localized 

reductions in habitat. The survey, avoidance, mitigation, and consultation actions 

that the Park Service would take would 

help ensure that this alternative would 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on

threatened and endangered species. 

Alternative 2 could result in some adverse 

effects on threatened or endangered

species but would not result in impairment 

to these species. Alternative 2 could

contribute some adverse effects on 

threatened or endangered species but 

could also contribute beneficial long-term 

effects to the overall cumulative impacts. 

Crater Lake

Impacts to Crater Lake, as in alternative 1, 

would be minimized by proactive management actions to prevent contamination to 

the lake. Development within the caldera 

and lake drainage would be minimal, 

preventing the addition of sentiments, 

minerals or contaminants that could 

reduce water quality. Park operations 

such as snowplowing would continue to 

be managed to minimize addition of 

contaminants to the lake ecosystem. 

Current restrictions on access and boating 

would continue. 

The Crater Lake Long-Term Limnological 

Program would continue its interdisciplinary monitoring and research program. 

The program would continue to inform 

management of the lake’s status, variability, and trends. And contributes to the 

scientific understanding of Crater Lake 

and other large-lake and ocean ecosystems. This alternative expands the 

research and monitoring programs of the 

park through expanded partnerships and 

the establishment of the new science and 

learning center. Expanded research 

efforts would include 

• modeling ecosystem components and 

interactions among biological, 

physical, and chemical processes,

including food web interactions and 

the impacts of introduced fish 

• optical studies of the lake to include 

the effects of abiotic and biotic 

particles lake clarity 

• paleo-limnological studies 

150
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

• studies of benthic and nearshore 

communities 

Expanded research and monitoring would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts to 

the water quality of Crater Lake. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative actions 

would contribute both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to water quality. 

 As called for in the Visitor Services Plan, 

only essential services would be provided 

at the rim. Included in this plan is the 

proposal to relocate the cafeteria parking 

behind the cafeteria. This would decrease 

the snow blown into the caldera during 

snowplowing and thereby decrease 

possible hydro carbons and vehicle related 

contaminants. 

Improvements in boating technology by 

conversion of research and tourboats to 4-

stroke motor or direct fuel injection would 

also prevent contaminants that could 

reduce water quality. Personal watercraft 

would continue to not be allowed on the 

lake, and access to the lake would continue to be provided by a single access. 

Water quality could benefit from these 

increased protection measures, although 

the extent of potential beneficial effects is

unknown, but would likely be localized 

and minor. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have a negligible, long-term, 

beneficial effect on water quality within 

Crater Lake. In accordance with the 

criteria for determining impairment, there 

would be no major adverse impacts on

water quality, and therefore no 

impairment of water quality. 

Water Resources 

The construction or rehabilitation of 

facilities would have the potential to 

impact water quality through ground 

disturbance, which would result in 

increased surface runoff and erosion. 

However, due to the limited extent of

proposed developments and implementation of mitigation measures, such as silt 

fences, erosion control blankets, mulch, 

and revegetation to control impacts,

increased sedimentation and turbidity 

would be temporary and negligible. 

Relocation of some park administration 

functions outside the park would likely 

have little effect on water use in the park 

because the existing building would be 

used for other functions. Adaptive use of 

existing buildings is expected to have a 

negligible effect on water use within the 

park. New overnight use by a small number of visiting researchers, scientists, and 

artists would be accommodated in existing

facilities. This is expected to result in a 

negligible, if any, increase in overall water 

demand. Incorporation of water saving 

features into facilities would be expected 

to offset most of the increased use. 

 

Under this alternative, snowmobile use 

would be restricted to existing use levels. 

Similar to alternative 1 (no-action alternative), because snowmobiles raise concerns 

about long-term impacts from high

pollution emissions, the Park Service 

would initiate a long-term data gathering 

and monitoring program to evaluate use 

and associated impacts as part of an 

overall winter recreational use study. 

Management actions to mitigate nonpoint 

source pollution would be implemented if 

necessary. Water quality could benefit 

from increased protection measures, 

although the extent of potential beneficial 

151
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 152

effects would likely be localized and 

minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

on water resources from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for alternative 1 (no-action alternative). 

The park’s fire management program 

might adversely impact water quality (e.g., 

sedimentation, erosion) due to the effects 

of fires, particularly high intensity fires. 

Park construction and rehabilitation 

proposals would also contribute to 

adverse impacts from increased surface 

runoff and erosion. Best management 

practices such as erosion and sediment 

controls would be employed to minimize 

these impacts. Impacts would be localized, 

short-term, and minor. Minor beneficial 

cumulative actions would include ongoing 

trails rehabilitation and relocation within 

the park that would reduce localized 

erosion and runoff. 

The replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield would likely 

reduce water loss by the system. Implementation of actions within the Visitor 

Services Plan would also reduce water use 

within the park. Reductions in water use 

would have a minor beneficial effect on 

water quantity in Annie Creek. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative 2 would result in localized, 

minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts on 

water quality and minor beneficial effects 

on water quantity in Annie Creek. 

Alternative 2 would contribute a negligible 

adverse impact on water quality and 

negligible decrease in water quantity in 

Annie Creek to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have a 

negligible adverse effect on water quality 

due to construction activities and a 

negligible effect on Annie Creek water 

quantity. Water quality could benefit from 

increased protection measures, although 

the extent of potential beneficial would 

likely be localized and minor. Water 

resources would not be impaired by the 

actions proposed under this alternative. 

The cumulative actions in conjunction 

with alternative 2 would result in shortand long-term negligible to localized, 

minor adverse and beneficial impacts on 

water quality and quantity. Alternative 2 

would contribute a negligible, adverse 

impact on water quality and negligible, 

decrease in water quantity in Annie Creek 

to the overall cumulative impact. 

Air Quality 

Seasonal closure of a portion of the Rim 

Drive and closure of the Grayback Trail to 

motorized use would benefit air quality 

because of reduced vehicular emissions in 

these areas. Beneficial effects would be 

localized and negligible because of the 

relatively low levels of motorized use that 

would be eliminated. 

There would be some short-term, 

localized impacts on air quality resulting 

from particulates or machinery fumes 

generated during construction, removal, 

or rehabilitation of facilities under some 

alternatives. Mitigation measures such as 

watering and revegetation of disturbed 

areas, requiring machinery to meet 

emission standards, would be employed. 

Effects would be short term and negligible, 

lasting only during the construction 

period. 

Under this alternative, snowmobile use 

would be restricted to existing use levels. 

Similar to alternative 1 (no-action 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

153

alternative), because snowmobiles raise 

concerns about long-term impacts from 

high pollution emissions, the Park Service 

would initiate a long-term data gathering 

and monitoring program to evaluate use 

and associated impacts as part of an 

overall winter recreational use study. 

Management practices to mitigate 

nonpoint source pollution would be 

implemented as necessary. Air quality 

could benefit from increased protection 

measures, although the extent of potential 

beneficial would likely be localized and 

negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

on air quality from actions in the park and 

surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for the no-action alternative. The park’s air quality is very good 

with negligible effects from regional 

pollution sources outside of the park. 

Forest fires on surrounding lands could 

contribute particulates for limited periods 

of time. Degradation of air quality from 

the park’s fire management program could 

result in moderate short-term impacts, but 

the program would be in conformance 

with the Clean Air Act, Oregon State 

Smoke Management Plan, and the Oregon 

Visibility Protection Plan. Park construction and rehabilitation proposals would 

cause localized increases in dust and 

emissions from construction vehicles and 

equipment, resulting in localized shortterm effects on air quality. The cumulative 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in short-term, 

negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on 

air quality. Alternative 2 would contribute 

a negligible, short-term adverse and 

negligible, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. Long- term, beneficial 

impacts to air quality within the park 

would be minor. Short-term construction 

related impacts would be negligible. Air 

quality would not be impaired by the 

actions proposed under this alternative. 

The cumulative actions in conjunction 

with alternative 2 would result in shortterm moderate adverse impacts on air 

quality. Alternative 2 would contribute a 

negligible, short-term, adverse, and 

negligible, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect. 

VISITOR USE 

Diversity of Recreational Opportunity

Under alternative 2 there would be a 

focused range of visitor experiences 

emphasizing research, learning, and more 

in-depth experience of park resources. 

Visitors would have opportunities to 

participate in guided field trips, seminars, 

and workshops. This focused learning 

environment would enable park 

interpreters and partnering researchers to 

convey a broader range of information and 

involve park visitors in hands-on learning 

experiences about both natural and 

cultural park resources. In frontcountry 

areas at Munson Valley, Rim Village, and 

along Rim Drive, there would be 

expanded opportunities to experience the 

rustic designed architecture of park 

buildings and roads in their cultural 

settings. 

Existing recreational opportunities would 

remain, including scenic driving, front 

country and back country hiking, 

picnicking, and nature viewing. Winter 

activities, including snow-camping, crosscountry skiing, and snowshoeing would 

continue as would snowmobile access 

along the north entrance road to North 

Junction. Use of snow coach access would 

be encouraged on the North Entrance 

road. Greater diversity of visitor use along 

Rim Drive would be provided by 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 154

seasonal closures of sections of East Rim 

Drive during the autumn shoulder season, 

allowing visitors an opportunity to 

experience the primary resource of the 

park in ways other than driving, as new 

(nonmotorized) uses would be 

encouraged in areas that have space to 

accommodate them. Nonmotorized 

recreational opportunities would be 

available along Grayback Drive. 

Because there would be an addition in 

recreational opportunities (seasonal nonmotorized use along Rim Drive) and an 

expansion of existing educational / 

interpretive programs (in-depth, focused 

educational field trips and seminars), the 

change in the diversity of visitor 

experience would be highly noticeable, 

exceptionally beneficial, and would affect 

relatively large numbers of visitors, 

resulting in a major beneficial impact on 

the diversity of visitor opportunity. 

Visitor Access and Circulation 

Under alternative 2 the road system would 

continue to be accessible during peak 

visitor use times in the summer months. 

Traffic congestion, especially along Rim 

Drive during the summer season, would be 

managed by improving existing pullouts, 

parking areas, and overlooks. If warranted 

by future crowding, shuttles and other 

alternative transportation systems would 

be used to alleviate congestion along Rim 

Drive between Cleetwood Cove and Rim 

Village. A feasibility analysis would 

determine whether the shuttle would be a 

concession, Park Service operated, or a 

service contract. There would be some 

change to motor vehicle accessibility to 

portions of east Rim Drive during the 

shoulder autumn season when portions of 

East Rim Drive would be closed to 

motorized traffic on an experimental basis 

resulting in reduced motorized access. 

Grayback Drive would be closed to 

motorized traffic throughout the year. 

Private vehicle access to the rim in the 

winter would continue. Snowmobile 

access and permits for snow coach tours 

would continue on the North Entrance 

Road to North Junction. Because there 

would be no noticeable change in the way 

visitors experience the park in the winter, 

there would be negligible impacts to 

visitor accessibility to park resources 

during the winter season. Overall, changes 

in motorized accessibility in the park 

would be detectable, localized in area, and 

of short duration affecting a relatively 

small number of visitors resulting in 

minor, long-term, adverse impacts to 

motorized accessibility. 

New trails would be developed in localized frontcountry areas along the park’s 

road system. There would be new hiking 

and biking opportunities along East Rim 

Drive during the autumn. Improvements 

to existing front country hiking trails and 

development of new front country trails 

would result in greater trail accessibility. 

Visitor surveys indicate that short trails are 

extremely important to a majority of 

visitors. Expansion of frontcountry trails, 

the addition of seasonal nonmotorized 

hiking and biking opportunities along East 

Rim Drive, and the addition of year-round 

hiking and/or skiing, snowshoeing, and 

biking opportunities along Grayback 

Drive would be readily apparent. Ninetythree percent of visitors responding to the 

2001 Visitor Survey indicated that short, 

frontcountry trails were either very 

important or extremely important. 

Because front country trail access would 

be expanded and new front country nonmotorized trail opportunities would be 

added an exceptionally beneficial impact 

on trail accessibility would normally be 

expected, however because visitation to 

the park during the fall shoulder season is 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

considerably reduced from peak use these

additions and expansions of nonmotorized trail opportunities would affect a 

relatively small number of visitors

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on trail accessibility. 

Education and Orientation 

 Under alternative 2 existing passive

interpretive opportunities would continue 

and interpretive programs and educational 

services would increase in number and in 

depth of information. Opportunities to 

participate in educational programs would 

increase with the development of a science 

and learning center at Munson Valley. 

Partnerships with universities, museums, 

other agencies, and researchers would 

expand the breadth and depth of

knowledge of park resources and enrich 

interpretive programs. Visitors would have 

the opportunity to participate in a wide 

variety of educational programs such as 

focused guided field trips, workshops, and 

seminars. Interpretation of park resources 

would be provided by researchers guiding 

special indepth tours, participatory field 

trips, and seminars. Park interpreters

would provide research-based programs. 

Guided hikes and interpretation on 

concession-operated boat tours would 

focus on participatory, learning 

experiences for visitors. New and

expanding sources of information about 

park resources would be available to park 

visitors and would be conveyed in a 

broader context as technology advanced 

and new educational venues developed. 

Because the variety and range of interpretive programs would increase and expand, 

the change to visitor opportunities to

participate in educational and interpretive 

programs would be highly noticeable. 

These changes in the interpretive program 

would affect relatively large numbers of 

visitors, resulting in a major, long-term, 

beneficial impact on visitors’ opportunities 

to participate in interpretive programs. 

Visitor Facilities and Services

Opportunities for visitors to access and 

use park facilities and services would 

increase. New and expanded uses of park 

facilities would open some park buildings 

and structures for visitor use and 

enjoyment. Visitors would gain new 

opportunities to experience east Rim 

Drive and its associated pullouts and 

overlooks without vehicular traffic during 

the fall. Grayback Drive would provide 

non-motorized opportunities year-round. 

Participation in workshops and seminars 

conducted in park buildings and other 

structures would expand and change 

visitor use of park facilities. These changes 

would be highly noticeable, a relatively 

large numbers of visitors would be 

affected, and the changes would be 

exceptionally beneficial. Therefore 

alternative 2 would have a major, 

beneficial, long-term impact on the 

visitor’s experience of park facilities and

services. 

Soundscapes and Scenic Quality

Development of frontcountry trails would 

occur in localized areas along the park’s 

transportation corridor resulting in

detectable, localized, but small changes to 

the natural sound environment in these

areas. This would result in negligible longterm, adverse impacts to soundscapes at 

park trailheads. Closing portions of East 

Rim Drive to vehicular traffic in the

autumn shoulder season would enhance 

the natural soundscape along this portion 

of the lake caldera. This change would be

detectable, although the change would 

affect a relatively small number of visitors 

and would be localized in area resulting in 

resulting in minor beneficial long-term 

155
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

impacts to soundscapes along east Rim 

Drive. 

With the seasonal closure of East Rim 

Drive in the fall, visitor opportunities to 

sightsee in the park would experience a 

change during that season. Scenic views of 

the lake without the intrusion of vehicular 

traffic would be possible. During peak use 

periods in the summer opportunities for 

visitors to sightsee in the park, including 

motorized sightseeing along Rim Drive, 

would remain unchanged. There would be 

a noticeable change in visitor experience 

in viewing the lake in the autumn. This 

change would be highly noticeable, but 

would affect a relatively small number of 

visitors and be localized in area, resulting 

in a minor, beneficial impact on visitor 

opportunities to sightsee and enjoy the 

park’s scenic views. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing

projects, including development of frontcountry trails, reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, and adaptive reuse of historic 

structures in Munson Valley and Rim 

Village, have had long-term, major, 

beneficial impacts on the visitor 

experience. Reconfiguration of Rim 

Village would change the way visitors 

access views of the lake at Rim Village. A 

walk along the promenade would be

possible without having to compete with 

vehicular traffic. A year-round visitor

contact station at the rim would enable 

winter views of the lake for people of all 

abilities. Overall these projects have the 

potential to increase the diversity, of 

visitor experience, enhance the range of 

interpretative programs, expand access to

park facilities, and to improve the quality 

of visitor experience values such as sounds 

of nature and scenic views. The impacts of 

the above other actions, when combined 

with the impacts of the no-action 

alternative would result in a major, longterm, beneficial impact. Alternative 2 

would contribute a minor to major, 

beneficial increment to cumulative 

impacts to the visitor experience, because 

alternative 2 would add new and expanding existing visitor opportunities. Alternative 2 would also contribute minor, longterm adverse increment to cumulative 

impacts due to the seasonal closure of East 

Rim Drive. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have a 

major beneficial impact on the diversity of

visitor experience. Under this alternative 

visitors would experience minor, longterm, adverse impacts on vehicular access 

with the seasonal closure of East Rim 

Drive but would gain minor to moderate, 

long- term, beneficial impacts on 

frontcountry trails accessibility. There 

would be major beneficial impacts to

visitor enjoyment of educational and 

interpretive programs and access to park 

facilities and services. Opportunities for 

visitors to enjoy scenic views would be 

expanded along the caldera rim resulting 

in minor beneficial impacts to scenic 

viewing opportunities. The cumulative 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in an overall 

major, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Alternative 2 would contribute a minor to 

major beneficial increment to cumulative 

impacts to the visitor experience, because 

this alternative would add new and 

expanding existing visitor opportunities. 

Alternative 2 would also contribute a 

minor, long-term, adverse increment to 

cumulative impacts due to the seasonal 

closure of East Rim Drive.

156
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

157

OPERATIONS 

Park Operations 

Under alternative 2 existing buildings and 

facilities would be adaptively used for new 

functions and uses. Researchers and 

scientists would stay in the park yearround increasing all season use of park 

buildings. Use of park facilities is expected 

to be constant but short term with 

frequent turnover, necessitating increased 

maintenance responsibilities in preparing 

and maintaining park buildings for and in 

use. Maintenance of year-round 

residences at Steel Circle and summer 

season residences at Sleepy Hollow in 

Munson Valley would continue. Park 

maintenance staff would continue to 

support park operations from the central 

maintenance facility located at Munson 

Valley. Munson Valley Road to Rim 

Village would continue to be cleared of 

snow during the winter months and Rim 

Drive would continue to be plowed to 

allow summer season access as early in the 

spring as weather dictates. Because 

changes in the ability of the park to 

provide desired services and facilities 

would be small but perceptible, minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts to park 

operations would be expected under 

alternative 2. 

To accommodate new and expanded 

visitor use, some park functions that are 

not, of necessity, park resource-based, 

would be relocated outside the park in 

surrounding communities. Fewer 

employees would reside in the park and 

more staff functions would be accomplished outside the park boundary. This 

action would disperse the staff and 

associated inconveniences in communication and coordination among employees 

would be expected to occur. This would 

be offset by increased telecommunication 

efficiency and reliability. Locating staff in 

surrounding communities would also 

contribute to increased efficiencies in 

developing partnerships and would 

contribute a moderate beneficial impact 

on park operations. Different options for 

accommodating operations outside the 

park would be studied before implementing any actions. Actions that propose 

purchasing additional property outside the 

boundary would require additional 

authorization. Staff functions would shift 

to a greater emphasis on research, 

education, and interpretation. There 

would also be an increased need for 

maintenance operations to maintain yearround use of park facilities and to manage 

frequent turnover of park residential 

spaces. Because changes in park operations would be readily apparent and would 

have an appreciable effect on the ability of 

the park to provide new services and 

facilities, there would be moderate, 

beneficial impacts on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing 

projects including reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, adaptive reuse of historic structures in Munson Valley and Rim Village, 

upgrading infrastructure at Cleetwood 

Cove, and highway road improvement 

projects on Highway 62, have had longterm moderate beneficial impacts on park 

operations. Overall these projects have the 

potential to have an appreciable effect on 

park operations and improve the ability of 

the park to provide desired services and 

facilities. Impacts of the above other 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in moderate, 

long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts. 

The no action alternative would 

contribute a moderate, beneficial, and 

minor adverse increment to cumulative 

impacts to park operations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 158

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would result in 

moderate, beneficial impacts on park 

operations. Cumulative actions in conjunction with the no-action alternative 

would result in a moderate, long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impact. Alternative 2 

would contribute a moderate, beneficial 

and minor, adverse increment to 

cumulative impacts to park operations. 

Concession Operations 

Under alternative 2 impacts on concession 

activities would be similar to alternative 1. 

Relative to the no-action alternative, there 

would be no measurable or perceptible 

change to concession operations under 

alternative 2, resulting in no new impacts 

on concession operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions, including restoration of the Crater Lake Lodge, 

and ongoing actions, such as reconfiguration of park facilities at the rim and at 

Mazama Village, have had a beneficial 

impact on concessioner activity. Consolidation of concession activity at Mazama 

and the closeness of Mazama Village to 

Oregon State Highway 62 facilitate 

concession operations and inventory 

staging. These actions would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts. 

Alternative 2 would not contribute to 

cumulative impacts on concession 

operations. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have 

negligible, long-term adverse impacts and 

would not contribute to cumulative 

impacts on concession operations. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The emphasis of this alternative is to 

manage the park and its resources to 

provide greater opportunities for visitors 

to experience diverse recreational, 

educational, and research opportunities. 

Some additional staff persons (5.5 FTE) 

would be hired. Changes to the park’s 

infrastructure are called for to support this 

shift in park emphasis. The park’s base 

budget would be increased by $700,380.

Development projects (such as building 

new trails and backcountry camping sites, 

improving roadways, pullouts, parking 

areas, etc.) require the expenditure of 

additional funds for development in the 

amount of $4,743,000 – which is $943,000 

more than the no -action alternative.

These monies spent over the life of the 

plan for various projects would provide 

some impacts (e.g., increase in income, 

creation of jobs, etc.) to individual firms 

and workers which would be moderate to 

major, short term, and beneficial. Impacts 

on the economic indicators within the 

affected area described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter would be negligible 

because of the relative size of the regional 

economy (approximately $5.0 billion in 

earnings and about 187,000 jobs in 2001) 

and the phasing of the projects over the 

next 15 to 20 years. 

The pattern of increasing visitation is 

expected to continue. Concession services 

may be expanded to cover additional tours 

or research partnerships. Providing 

additional facilities and programs would 

encourage more visitor use at the parks. 

The amount of additional use is indeterminate at this time. However, this 

increased use could result in some 

additional spending within the gateway 

communities or region, which would 

benefit some retail establishments, 

restaurants, or motels in the travel 

corridors. 

Moving some administrative or 

operational functions to areas outside the 

park as the need for space increased would 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2– Preferred Alternative 

159

 result in the purchase or long-term lease 

of land and building(s) and/or the 

construction of new buildings in gateway 

areas. New facility construction would 

result in a short-term, positive impact on 

the regional economy, mostly affecting the 

construction sector of the economy. The 

purchase of privately owned land on a 

willing-buyer/willing-seller basis would 

benefit both the private landowner and the 

Park Service. Land or real estate 

acquisition by the federal government 

would result in some long-term loss of 

local real-estate tax revenue. However, the 

amount of property tax revenue lost to the 

three counties would be minor compared 

to the tax revenues collected by Douglas 

County (tax revenues $ 58.2 million in 

2002/03), Jackson County (tax revenues 

$148.1 million in 2002), and Klamath 

County (tax revenues of about $37 million, 

2002). Acquisition of other federally 

owned land for these purposes would not 

result in any change in real estate taxes.

Improving facilities within the parks 

would further contribute positive 

economic benefits – in the form of direct 

spending – to the growing regional 

economy. More visitors might result in 

additional tourism-related spending 

within the region and gateway towns 

,increasing business opportunities, 

income, and employment. The need for 

housing for additional park staff combined 

with the increasing desirability of living in 

the gateway communities might add to the 

demand for local housing and other locally 

provided goods. Hiring additional staff 

would result in a small increase in the local 

population that would contribute to the 

overall growth in the gateway communities. As described above, in conjunction 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, the preferred 

alternative would have minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on the 

socioeconomic climate of the local 

gateway communities, but these benefits 

would be negligible at the three-county 

regional level. 

Cumulative Impacts. Additional changes 

or shocks (either positive or negative) to 

the local and regional socioeconomic 

environment are not expected. No other 

actions that could have cumulative effects 

when combined with the impacts of 

alternative 2 have been identified during 

this planning process. In conjunction with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, no additional cumulative 

impacts are expected. 

Conclusion. An increase in park staffing 

levels by 5.5 full-time FTE’s, along with a 

budget increase to $4,727,380 (current + 

leasing + staffing) would have a moderate 

impact on the local gateway communities’ 

economies and a negligible impact on the 

regional economy. Additional employees 

would likely purchase some goods and 

services from within the gateway 

communities. 

Approximately $4,743,000 would be spent 

over the life of the plan on various 

projects, an increase of only $943,000 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

These expenditures could result in 

moderate to major, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on individual firms and employees 

(increased business and profits, increased 

employment opportunities, increased 

income, etc.). Overall impacts on the 

regional economy (effects on the 

economic indicators of income, 

unemployment rate, poverty rate, etc.), 

however, would be negligible because of 

the size and the phasing of the projects 

over the next 15 to 20 years. These 

projects might encourage some increased 

visitation to the parks, with beneficial 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 160

effects on the region and adjacent 

communities in terms of increased visitor 

expenditures for locally provided goods 

and services. 

Moving some administrative functions and 

park employee housing outside the parks 

as space requirements dictate would result 

in the purchase or long-term lease of land 

and the construction of buildings in local 

gateway areas, with short-term, beneficial 

impacts on the local economy, mostly 

affecting the construction sector and a few 

landowners. The purchase of privately 

owned land (on a willing-buyer/willingseller basis) by the federal government 

would result in some long-term loss of 

local real-estate tax revenue. However, the 

amount of property tax revenue lost to the 

three counties would be minor compared 

to the tax revenues collected by the three 

counties. Acquisition of other federally 

owned land for these purposes would not 

result in any change in real estate taxes. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

impacts of major intensity that would 

result from implementing alternative 2. 

Moderate adverse effects on park 

operations would occur due to increased 

maintenance and management operations. 

The negligible and minor impacts are 

described in the foregoing analysis. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

THE MAINTENANCE AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The vast majority of the park would be 

protected in a natural state and would 

maintain its long-term productivity. 

Disturbance of soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitat from visitor use and 

constructing facilities would reduce the 

long-term productivity of the environment 

in localized areas. Greater emphasis on 

research, partnering, and visitor education 

would indirectly contribute to improved 

resource conditions and the long-term 

productivity of the environment. 

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Construction materials and energy used 

would be irretrievably lost. There would 

also be an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources in terms of 

funds expended on both labor and 

construction materials. Because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due 

to development and visitor use in localized 

areas would be an irreversible 

commitment of resources.
IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Implementation of alternative 3 on 

archeological resources would generally 

be the same as those listed under 

alternative 1, although the additional 

construction of trails to introduce visitors 

to a diverse range of ecosystems and

terrain, could have some additional 

impacts on archeological sites. If known 

archeological resources could not be 

avoided, the range of potential adverse 

effects to archeological resources would 

be negligible to moderate depending upon 

the extent to which the resources were 

affected. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative 

1. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on archeological resources as

those listed under alternative 1, although 

the additional construction of trails could 

have some additional impacts on archeological sites. If known archeological 

resources could not be avoided, the range 

of potential adverse effects to archeological resources would be negligible to 

moderate depending upon the extent to 

which the resources were affected. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values 

associated with archeological resources. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on 

archeological resources would be no 

adverse effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have the same impacts on historic 

structures/buildings as those listed under 

alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would have the same 

cumulative effects on historic 

structures/buildings as those listed under 

alternative 1. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 3 would have the same impacts 

on historic structures/buildings as those 

listed under alternative 1. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with historic structures/ 

buildings. 

161
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on historic 

structures/buildings would be no adverse 

effect. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on 

cultural landscapes as those listed under 

alternative 1, although provision for 

dispersed and expanded recreational 

opportunities and development of new 

trails to introduce visitors to a diverse 

range of ecosystems could result in

additional impacts on the park’s cultural 

landscapes. If known resources could not 

be avoided, the range of potential adverse 

impacts to cultural landscapes would be 

negligible to moderate depending upon 

the extent to which the resources were 

affected. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on cultural 

landscapes as those listed under 

alternative 1, although provision for 

decentralized recreational opportunities 

and development of new trails could result 

in additional cumulative effects on the 

park’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on cultural landscapes as those 

listed under alternative 1, although 

provision for decentralized recreational 

opportunities and development of new 

trails to introduce visitors to a diverse 

range of ecosystems could result in

additional impacts on the park’s cultural 

landscapes. If known resources could not 

be avoided, the range of potential adverse 

impacts to cultural landscapes would be 

negligible to moderate depending upon 

the extent to which the resources were 

affected. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with cultural landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on cultural 

landscapes would be no adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Implementation of alternative 3 would 

generally have the same impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed 

under alternative 1, although emphasis on 

visitor enjoyment of the diverse and 

unique natural environment of the 

national park could have some barely 

perceptible or measurable, and hence 

negligible, impacts on such resources. 

Provision for a wider range of visitor 

experiences could result in some intrusion 

on sacred sites or landscapes and

important traditional use activity areas and 

thus have minor adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources., because the 

impacts would be noticeable but would 

neither appreciably alter resource 

conditions nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the affiliated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative 

effects to ethnographic resources resulting 

162
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

from implementation of this alternative 

would be similar to those described for 

alternative 1, with the addition of minor 

adverse impacts associated with provisions 

for wider ranges of visitor experience. 

However, the minor adverse impacts 

associated with such provisions would 

represent a very small incremental 

increase in any overall adverse cumulative 

effect. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative generally have the same 

impacts on ethnographic resources as

those listed under alternative 1, although 

emphasis on a wider range of visitor

experiences to enjoy the diverse and 

unique natural environment of the 

national park could have some minor 

adverse impacts on such resources. 

Section 106 Summary. No Traditional 

Cultural Properties are affected by actions 

under this alternative. Thus, Section 106 

determinations are unnecessary. 

Museum Collections 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have beneficial minor to moderate longterm impacts on the park’s museum 

collections because adequate staffing and 

space would be provided for their curation 

and storage and they would be stored in an 

on-site facility that met professional and 

National Park Service museum standards. 

Although adequate storage and workspace 

would be provided to improve curation 

and protection of the collections and 

staffing would be upgraded to reduce the 

cataloging backlog, park-related collection 

materials not currently owned or managed 

by the National Park Service would 

generally not be acquired. Access to the 

collections, both for NPS and non-NPS 

researchers, would be limited by 

availability of museum staff to assist in use 

of the collections. 

Cumulative Effects. Since the national 

park was established the combination of 

limited staffing and lack of storage and 

workspace meeting professional and 

National Park Service museum standards 

have hindered endeavors to improve care 

of and access to the museum collections 

and address the ever-increasing cataloging 

backlog. Thus, the park’s museum 

collections have been subjected to minor 

to moderate long-term adverse impacts. 

Actions under this alternative, such as

provision of adequate space to curate and 

store the park’s museum collections in an 

on-site facility that met professional and 

National Park Service museum standards 

and adequate staffing to reduce the 

cataloging backlog, would contribute 

beneficial minor to moderate long-term 

effects to any overall cumulative impacts 

on the park’s museum collections. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 3 would have beneficial minor 

to moderate long-term impacts on the 

curation and protection of the park’s 

museum collections because adequate 

space would be provided for their curation 

and storage in an on-site facility that met 

professional and National Park Service 

museum standards. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the 

cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

163
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with museum collections. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Biotic Communities 

Construction and use of new facilities (i.e., 

picnic areas, short trails) in frontcountry 

zones along the Rim Drive and other park 

roads would result in site-specific loss of

soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. 

There would also be increased human 

disturbance to wildlife. Individuals, 

populations, and species vary in their 

sensitivity to disturbance and visitor use 

might disturb or displace some individual 

animals, particularly those species more 

sensitive to human disturbance. Certain 

wildlife may also become habituated to 

human presence or attracted to the 

increased food source visitors provide. 

Specific locations for new facilities have 

not been identified; however, siting them 

primarily in or adjacent to previously

developed or disturbed sites within the 

park and avoiding sensitive resources such 

as wetlands or whitebark pine stands, 

would minimize additional loss of 

vegetation, soils, and habitat and 

disruption to wildlife. Long-term adverse 

impacts would be localized and minor. 

Mitigation measures such as topsoil 

salvage, erosion control, and revegetation 

would minimize construction impacts. 

Increased monitoring and restoration 

programs would be implemented to

ensure that impacts from additional 

frontcountry development and more

dispersed visitor use would be minimized 

and sensitive resources such as whitebark 

pine stands protected. 

Increased contact with visitors could 

indirectly benefit native species, communities, and processes. There would be 

greater opportunity to enhance the 

public’s appreciation, understanding, and 

stewardship for these resources, which 

may reduce the potential for visitor related 

impacts. This broader base of public 

support and advocacy would also aid in 

accomplishing the park’s resource 

protection and preservation programs and 

initiatives. Beneficial effects would likely 

be localized and minor. 

Winter recreational activities occur when 

wildlife are stressed by cold weather and 

food shortages. Disturbance or harassment of wildlife during this sensitive time 

can have negative effects on individual 

animals, and in some cases populations, 

particularly when populations are low. 

Winter recreation such as snowmobiling 

and skiing can create added energetic 

stress in winter when most wildlife species 

are already stressed (NPS 1999d). The 

effects of winter recreational activities in

the park are unknown, although, 

disturbance would likely be limited 

because visitor use levels are expected to 

remain relatively low and would continue 

to occur within very limited areas within 

the park. However, some increase in 

snowmachine use could occur due to 

grooming of the North Entrance Road. 

The Park Service would initiate a longterm data gathering and monitoring 

program to evaluate winter use and 

associated impacts to ensure long-term 

protection of park resources. Management 

actions, such as restrictions on off-trail 

use, specific area closures, increased 

patrols, visitor education, or limits on use 

or party sizes, would be taken as necessary 

to address impacts. Consequently, longterm impacts from continuing or 

increasing winter activities would be offset 

by increased protection measures that 

would benefit wildlife, although the extent 

of potential beneficial effects would likely 

be localized and minor. 

164
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on biotic communities from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for alternative 1 (no-action alternative). 

Overall cumulative impacts would be longterm, and both major adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily because of the widespread 

logging and fire suppression on lands 

surrounding the park and beneficial 

impacts would be from restoration and 

protection programs affecting lands both 

within and outside of the park. Alternative 

3’s contribution to both adverse and 

beneficial cumulative impacts would be 

localized and minor. 

Conclusion. Long-term adverse impacts 

from construction and use of new facilities 

would be localized and minor. Increased 

contact and education of visitors and 

possible implementation of protection

measures to mitigate winter use impacts 

could have minor benefits to resources. 

Biotic communities would not be impaired 

by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts would be long-term, 

and both major adverse and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would be primarily 

because of the widespread logging and fire 

suppression on lands surrounding the 

park and beneficial impacts would be from 

restoration and protection programs

affecting lands both within and outside of 

the park. Alternative 3’s contribution to 

both adverse and beneficial cumulative 

impacts would be localized and minor. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Species 

Similar to impacts discussed under biotic 

communities, increased monitoring and 

restoration programs and increased 

contact with visitors would enhance the 

opportunities for positive effects on

threatened and endangered species. Some 

inconsequential changes to habitat or loss 

of individuals might occur from new

development or use as described below. 

New frontcountry facilities would be

relatively small in scale, but would be

constructed in more locations under this 

alternative. They would primarily be 

placed within currently developed or

previously impacted areas or road 

corridors, where human use is already 

occurring, thus minimizing the potential

for adverse effects. Site-specific surveys 

would be conducted before implementing 

specific actions to determine if special 

status species existed in any proposed 

project area. If any were located, or if an 

action occurred within suitable habitat, the 

National Park Service would consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Oregon Department of Natural resources 

to determine mitigation measures to avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts on the 

species. 

As discussed under the biotic communities 

impact topic, the park service would 

initiate a long-term data gathering and 

monitoring program to evaluate winter use 

and associated impacts to ensure longterm protection of threatened and 

endangered species. Because of a number 

of factors such as limited occurrence, 

small populations, low densities, and/or 

low birth rates, these species are more

vulnerable to impacts than general wildlife

populations. Some species (lynx, 

wolverine, fisher) could benefit from

increased protection measures, although 

the extent of potential beneficial effects is

unknown. Greater beneficial effects would 

occur if for example, den sites were 

located and measures were taken to 

protect them from disturbance. 

165
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Similar to alternative 2, development 

proposed under alternative 3 may affect, 

but would not be likely to adversely affect 

special status species for the following 

reasons: 

Canada lynx, California Wolverine, and

Pacific Fisher. Although the park has 

conducted extensive surveys for Canada 

lynx and wolverine in the park, none have 

been detected. All these species require 

large expanses of land relatively free from 

human use. Because of the extent of 

suitable habitat within the park, new 

development and associated visitor use 

would likely occur within or near suitable 

habitat, which would incrementally 

contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. New frontcountry development and trails would result in more 

dispersed use. This increased human noise

and activity could disturb and displace 

these species. However, development and 

trails would be located in nonwilderness 

areas, primarily in or adjacent to existing 

developed areas and road corridors. 

Because of the existing development and 

use in these areas, adjacent habitat would 

not be readily used and would probably be 

avoided by these species. New development and use would affect only a very 

small portion of suitable habitat within the 

park. 

Bald Eagle. There would have little if any 

adverse impact on the primary food

sources (fish and carrion) of the bald eagle. 

No new development or use would occur 

near the existing nest site along the Crater 

Lake shoreline. Tour boats would 

continue to be restricted from areas on the

lake that are near the nest site. The 

primary area for potential nest sites for this 

species would likely be within the caldera. 

Potential new development along the rim, 

such as trails and picnic areas, could affect 

potential nest site habitat. However, new 

development would affect very little of the 

overall amount of suitable habitat along 

the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new 

development, surveys would be completed 

to identify suitable habitat and locate nest 

sites. New development would be sited 

and designed to avoid impacts to nesting 

eagles. 

Northern Spotted Owl. Current 

management practices that would 

continue under alternative 2 include 

protecting identified nest sites from

human activities. Although new

development and associated use could be 

located within patches of old growth

stands identified as suitable habitat, no 

development would occur near known 

nest sites or within associated protective 

buffer zones. Most development would be

located in or adjacent to existing developed areas and roadways, thus minimizing 

the likelihood of disturbance. 

Northern Goshawk. Development of

frontcountry facilities along roadways 

(e.g., picnic and parking areas, trails) could 

result in the loss of goshawk habitat, 

primarily where facilities were located in

forested habitats. These developments 

would be impact a relatively small area and 

would potentially affect only a small 

fraction of any nesting pair’s much larger 

territory or the extent of suitable habitat. 

Surveys to locate nest sites would be

completed prior to facility construction 

and those sites avoided. 

Peregrine Falcon. Peregrines are known 

to be sensitive to disturbances such as 

human presence above their nest site. No 

new development would be located in or 

above the area of the one known nest site 

within the caldera. Tour boats would also 

continue to be restricted from areas on the

lake that are near the nest site. New 

development such as trails or picnic areas 

166
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

along the rim could result in visitor use 

above some caldera cliff faces that could 

provide potential nest sites. However, new 

development would affect very little of the 

overall amount of suitable habitat along 

the rim or within the caldera. Prior to new 

development, surveys would be completed 

to identify suitable habitat and locate nest 

sites. New development would be sited 

and designed to avoid impacts to nesting 

falcons. 

Bull Trout. Some frontcountry development could occur within the Sun Creek 

drainage basin along Grayback Trail and 

Rim Drive. Runoff from areas disturbed by

construction could lead to increased 

sedimentation that could affect bull trout 

habitat in Sun Creek. Design and location 

of facilities would take into consideration 

such parameters as soil types, slopes, and 

vegetative cover in order to minimize

disturbance and potential runoff. A 

vegetative buffer would be maintained 

between facilities and creek headwaters. 

Best management practices such as

erosion and sediment controls and 

revegetation would be implemented to 

eliminate or reduce both short- and longterm impacts. Use of the Grayback Trail 

would not change and the park would 

continue to take actions to stabilize and 

minimize areas of erosion along this trail. 

Pumice Grapefern, Shasta Arnica, and 

Crater Lake Rockcress. The location of 

these plants would continue to be 

protected and the populations monitored. 

Because of the greater potential for new 

development and use along the rim under 

this alternative, loss of habitat or 

individual plants could occur. These plants 

exist in distinct locations and locations for 

any new development or trails would be 

surveyed for the presence of these species 

and measures to avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts would be implemented. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on threatened and endangered species 

from land uses and activities in the park 

and surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for alternative 1 (noaction alternative). Overall cumulative 

impacts would be both adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily due to land management 

activities in the region. Park programs 

would adversely affect some individuals or 

habitat in the short-term, but would not 

likely adversely affect threatened and

endangered species in the long-term 

because long-term effects would be

beneficial. Alternative 3 could contribute 

some adverse effects on threatened or

endangered species but could also 

contribute beneficial long-term effects to 

the overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. New development and more 

dispersed use could result in small, 

localized reductions in habitat and 

disturbance to individuals. The survey, 

avoidance, mitigation, and consultation 

actions that the Park Service would take 

would help ensure that this alternative 

would avoid or minimize adverse effects 

on threatened and endangered species. 

Alternative 3 could result in some adverse 

effects on threatened or endangered

species but would not result in impairment 

to these species. Alternative 3 could

contribute some adverse effects on 

threatened or endangered species but 

could also contribute beneficial long-term 

effects to the overall cumulative impacts. 

Crater Lake

Alternative 3 seeks to allow a greater range 

of visitor opportunities to the extent that 

resources continue to be protected. 

Impacts on Crater Lake would generally 

be the same as those listed under 

alternative 1 (no-action alternative).

167
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Minimizing development within the 

caldera and lake drainage would prevent 

addition of sentiments, minerals, or

contaminants that could reduce water 

quality. Current restrictions on access and 

boating would continue to minimize 

contaminants that could reduce water 

quality. 

The long-term research and monitoring 

program would continue. Continued 

monitoring would result in long-term 

beneficial impacts on water quality. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on Crater Lake as 

those listed under alternative 1. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on Crater Lake as those listed 

under alternative 1. This alternative would 

have a negligible, long-term, beneficial 

effect on water quality within Crater Lake. 

In accordance with the criteria for determining impairment, there would be no 

major adverse impacts on water quality, 

and therefore no impairment of water 

quality. 

Water Resources 

The construction or rehabilitation of 

facilities and more dispersed visitor use

would have the potential to impact water 

quality through ground disturbance, 

which would result in increased surface 

runoff and erosion. However, due to the 

limited extent of proposed developments 

and implementation of mitigation 

measures such as silt fences, erosion 

control measures, designated trails, and 

revegetation to control impacts, increased 

sedimentation and turbidity would be 

temporary and negligible. 

Under this alternative, grooming the 

North Entrance Road to accommodate 

snow coaches could increase use of both 

snow coaches and snowmobiles, although, 

use volumes would not be expected to 

increase appreciably. Similar to alternative 

1 (no-action alternative), because 

snowmobiles raise concerns about longterm impacts from high pollution 

emissions, the Park Service would initiate a 

long-term data gathering and monitoring 

program to evaluate use and associated 

impacts as part of an overall winter 

recreational use study. Management 

actions to mitigate nonpoint source 

pollution would be implemented if 

necessary. Additional impacts from some 

increased use would be mitigated by

increased protection measures. Water 

quality could benefit from increased 

protection measures, although the extent 

of potential beneficial effects would likely 

be localized and minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on water resources from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for alternative 1 (no-action alternative). 

The park’s fire management program may 

adversely impact water quality (e.g. 

sedimentation, erosion) due to the effects 

of fires, particularly high intensity fires. 

Park construction and rehabilitation 

proposals would also contribute to 

adverse impacts from increased surface 

runoff and erosion. Best management 

practices such as erosion and sediment 

controls would be employed to minimize 

these impacts. Impacts would be localized, 

short-term and minor. Minor beneficial 

cumulative actions would include ongoing 

trails rehabilitation and relocation within 

the park that would reduce localized 

erosion and runoff. 

168
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

The replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield would likely 

reduce water loss by the system. Implementation of actions within the visitor 

services plan would also reduce water use 

within the park. Reductions in water use 

would have a minor beneficial effect on 

water quantity in Annie Creek . 

The impacts of other actions described 

above in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative 3 would result in localized, 

minor adverse and beneficial impacts on 

water quality and minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on water quantity in 

Annie Creek. Alternative 3 would

contribute a negligible adverse impact on 

water quality and negligible decrease in 

water quantity in Annie Creek to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have a 

negligible adverse effect on water quality 

due to construction activities and a

negligible effect on Annie Creek water 

quantity. Water quality could benefit from 

increased protection measures, although 

the extent of potential beneficial would 

likely be localized and minor. Water 

resources would not be impaired by the 

actions proposed under this alternative. 

The cumulative actions in conjunction 

with alternative 3 would result in shortand long-term negligible to minor adverse 

and beneficial impacts on water quality 

and quantity. Alternative 3 would 

contribute a negligible adverse impact on 

water quality and negligible decrease in 

water quantity in Annie Creek to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Air Quality

Implementation of a shuttle system would 

result in an incremental reduction in

traffic and thus emissions along the Rim 

Drive and the roadway between the rim 

and Mazama. This would likely result in 

localized, negligible beneficial effects on 

air quality. 

There would be some short-term, 

localized impacts on air quality resulting 

from particulates or machinery fumes 

generated during construction, removal, 

or rehabilitation of facilities under some 

alternatives. Mitigation measures such as 

watering and revegetation of disturbed 

areas, requiring machinery to meet 

emission standards, would be employed. 

Effects would be short-term and 

negligible, lasting only during the 

construction period. 

Under this alternative, grooming the 

North Entrance Road to accommodate 

snowcoaches could increase use of both 

snowcoaches and snowmobiles, although, 

use volumes would not be expected to 

increase appreciably. Similar to alternative 

1 (no-action alternative), because 

snowmobiles raise concerns about longterm impacts from high pollution 

emissions, the Park Service would initiate a 

long-term data gathering and monitoring 

program to evaluate use and associated 

impacts as part of an overall winter 

recreational use study. Management 

actions to mitigate nonpoint source 

pollution would be implemented if 

necessary. Additional impacts from some 

increased use would be mitigated by

increased protection measures. Air quality 

could benefit from increased protection 

measures, although the extent of potential 

beneficial would likely be localized and 

negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on air quality from actions in the park and 

surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for the no-action 

alternative. The park’s air quality is good 

with negligible effects from regional 

169
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

pollution sources outside the park. Forest 

fires on surrounding lands could contribute particulates for limited periods of time. 

Degradation of air quality from the park’s 

fire management program could result in 

moderate short-term impacts, but the 

program would be in conformance with 

the Clean Air Act, Oregon State Smoke 

Management Plan, and the Oregon 

Visibility Protection Plan. Park construction and rehabilitation proposals would 

cause localized increases in dust and 

emissions from construction vehicles and 

equipment, resulting in localized, shortterm effects on air quality. The cumulative 

actions in conjunction with the no-action 

alternative would result in short-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts on air quality. 

Alternative 3 would contribute a negligible 

short-term, adverse, and negligible, longterm, beneficial increment to the 

cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. Long- term beneficial 

impacts to air quality within the park

under this alternative would be negligible.

Short-term construction related impacts 

would be negligible. Air quality would not 

be impaired by the actions proposed under 

this alternative. The cumulative actions in 

conjunction with alternative 3 would 

result in short-term moderate adverse 

impacts on air quality. Alternative 3 would 

contribute a negligible, short-term, 

adverse, and negligible, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative 

effect. 

VISITOR USE 

Diversity of Recreational Opportunity 

Under alternative 3 visitors would 

experience the entire range of visitor 

experiences through recreational 

opportunities and educational programs. 

Scenic driving, front and back country 

hiking, camping, and picnicking, nature 

viewing, and boat tours would be available 

to a greater diversity of user groups.

Visitor use would be dispersed in an

expanded front country and park visitors 

would find increased opportunities for 

high-quality recreation activities and 

experiences. Additional hiking and 

picnicking opportunities would be 

developed in frontcountry areas along the 

park’s road system and new hiking and 

biking opportunities would be available 

along east rim drive between Cleetwood 

Cove and Kerr Notch. More park facilities 

would be open to use enabling visitors to 

experience the park’s cultural resources in 

their rustic setting. Additional backcountry trails and camping opportunities 

would be explored. Winter access to Rim 

Village and winter activities including 

snow camping, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing would continue as would 

snowmobile access along the North

Entrance Road to North Junction. Use of 

snow coach access would be encouraged 

on the North Entrance Road. Motorized 

recreational opportunities would be 

available along Grayback Drive. Because 

the change in the diversity of visitor 

experience would be highly noticeable, 

exceptionally beneficial, and would affect 

relatively large numbers of visitors, 

alternative 3 would have a major, 

beneficial impact on the diversity of visitor

opportunity. 

Visitor Access and Circulation 

 Under alternative 3 motorized accessibility would change with the closure of 

one lane of Rim Drive between Cleetwood 

Cove and Kerr Notch to vehicular traffic. 

Rim Drive would accommodate one-way 

traffic between these points. Road access 

to Rim Village during the winter would be 

maintained. Traffic congestion during the 

summer season, particularly along Rim 

170
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

Drive, would be managed by improving 

existing pullouts, parking areas, overlooks 

and by the addition of a transportation 

shuttles. A feasibility analysis would 

determine whether the shuttle would be a 

concession, Park Service operated, or a 

service contract. These rider-optional 

shuttles would operate between Rim 

Village and Cleetwood Cove and between 

Mazama Village and Rim Village. At peak 

visitor periods, interpretive and 

educational information and orientation 

to the park would be provided for shuttle 

riders. Other roads in the park, including 

Grayback Drive, would remain accessible 

for motorized travel. Loss of two-way 

motorized access to East Rim Drive would 

be readily apparent, but would 

inconvenience a relatively small number of 

visitors desiring to travel in both directions 

along East Rim Drive between Cleetwood 

Cove and Kerr Notch, resulting in 

negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts to the motorized visitor

experience of the park. 

Relative to the no-action alternative there 

would be no change in winter access to the 

park. Visitors would continue to have 

private vehicle access to Rim Village in the 

winter, and snowmobile access would 

continue on the North Entrance Road. 

Snowcoach use would also be encouraged 

on the North Entrance Road. No change 

in winter access would result in no to

negligible impacts to winter vehicular 

access to the park. 

Access to trailheads and opportunities for 

day hikes on front country trails along the 

park’s road system would be expanded. 

New trails would be developed in 

localized front country areas along the 

park’s road system. These trails would be 

located to introduce visitors to a diverse 

range of ecosystems and terrain and to 

accommodate ability and experience 

levels. In addition, one-lane of Rim Drive 

between Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch 

would be closed to private vehicles to offer 

new opportunities for nonmotorized 

activities. Closure of sections of East Rim 

Drive would improve front country 

caldera rim hiking opportunities. There 

would be an associated and detectable 

change in visitor safety resulting from

multiple use of East Rim Drive between 

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch where 

the roadway would be shared by vehicles, 

hikers, and bicyclists. Overall, improvements to existing frontcountry hiking trails 

and development of new frontcountry 

trails would result in greater trail 

accessibility, and visitor surveys indicate 

that short trails are important to most 

visitors. 

Because frontcountry trail access would be 

expanded, there would be detectable 

changes in visitor hiking and biking 

experiences. These changes would affect a 

relatively large number of visitors but 

would be localized in areas, resulting in 

minor, beneficial impacts to visitor 

experience of trails accessibility. Overall 

changes in visitor access and circulation 

would be readily apparent and would 

affect a relatively large number of visitors, 

resulting in a moderate, beneficial impact 

on visitor access and circulation. 

Education and Orientation 

Relative to the no-action alternative, 

alternative 3 would result in changes in the 

availability and focus of interpretive and 

educational information and education 

programs. Education and interpretation 

would focus on minimizing impacts, 

leaving no trace, and acquisition of skills 

for outdoor recreation. Educational 

programs would be in suites to provide 

appropriate levels of education and 

interpretation for a variety of groups. 

171
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Some orientation and education efforts 

could occur offsite in local hotels and/or 

on tours to prepare visitors for and foster 

stewardship to groups on their way to and 

within the park. Interpretive programs 

would stress the natural and cultural 

resources of the park in a regional 

recreational setting. Many interpretive 

opportunities at the park would be selfdirected or self-serve and contact with 

park interpretive staff would necessitate 

visitors stopping at Visitor Information 

Building or at Rim Village. Changes in 

interpretive programs would be detectable 

and would affect a relatively large number 

of visitors resulting in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on visitor 

opportunities to participate in interpretive 

programs.

Visitor Facilities and Services 

Opportunities for visitors to access and 

use park facilities and services would 

increase. New and expanded uses of park 

facilities would open some park buildings 

and structures for visitor use and enjoyment. Visitors would gain opportunities to

enjoy a hiking or biking experience on east 

Rim Drive. Grayback Drive would

continue to provide motorized opportunities year-round. These changes in visitor 

experience of park facilities would be

highly noticeable and would affect a

relatively large numbers of visitors, 

resulting in a major beneficial impact on 

visitor experience of park facilities and 

structures. 

Soundscapes and Scenic Quality

Development of frontcountry trails would 

occur along the park’s transportation, 

corridor resulting in detectable changes to 

the natural sound environment in these

areas which would result in minor, longterm, adverse impacts to soundscapes at 

park trailheads. 

Relative to the no-action alternative, there 

would be no change in views of the lake. 

Scenic views from the caldera rim would 

continue to be shared with vehicular 

traffic. There would be small but 

detectable changes in visitor ability to 

enjoy scenic views of the park’s natural 

and cultural resources. Increases in frontcountry areas along the park’s transportation corridors would open more frontcountry opportunities for visitors to enjoy 

scenic views. This change would affect a 

relatively small number of visitors and be

localized in nature, resulting in minor, 

long-term beneficial impacts to opportunities to enjoy scenic views in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing 

projects, including development of frontcountry trails, reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, and adaptive use of historic 

structures in Munson Valley and Rim 

Village have long-term, major, beneficial 

impacts on the visitor experience. Past 

actions, such as the completion of the 

Cleetwood Trail and the development of 

the Castle Crest and Godfrey Glen Trails, 

have increased visitor access to front 

country trails. Reconfiguration of Rim 

Village would change the way visitors 

access views of the lake at Rim Village. A 

walk along the promenade would be

possible without having to compete with 

vehicular traffic. Opportunities to 

participate in interpretive programs would 

expand with the use of historic structures 

at Munson Valley, and a year-round visitor 

contact station at the rim that would 

enable winter views of the lake for people 

of all abilities. Overall these projects have 

the potential to increase the diversity of 

visitor experience, enhance the range of 

interpretative programs, expand access to

park facilities, and improve the quality of 

172
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

visitor experience values such as sounds of 

nature and scenic views. The impacts of 

the above other actions, when combined 

with the impacts of the no-action 

alternative would result in an overall 

major, long-term beneficial impact. 

Alternative 3 would contribute a moderate 

to major beneficial increment to cumulative impacts to visitor experience, because 

Alternative 3 would increase and expand 

existing visitor opportunities. Alternative 3 

would also contribute minor to moderate, 

long-term adverse increment to cumulative impacts due to a reduction in the 

range of interpretive programs and 

impacts on soundscapes at some park 

trailheads. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have a 

major beneficial impact on the diversity of

the visitor experience. Under alternative 3

visitors would experience minor, longterm, adverse impacts on vehicular access 

with the closure of East Rim Drive to twoway traffic, but would gain minor, longterm, beneficial impacts with frontcountry 

trails accessibility. Because interpretative 

programs would primarily focus on “leave 

no trace” ethics and there would be less 

emphasis on educational programs, there 

would be a reduction in the range of 

interpretive programs, resulting in 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to 

visitor enjoyment of interpretive 

programs. Access to park facilities and 

services would increase, resulting in a 

major beneficial impact to visitor’s 

enjoyment of park facilities. There would 

be minor long term adverse impacts to 

visitors’ perceptions of soundscapes. 

Opportunities for visitors to enjoy scenic 

views would be expanded resulting in 

minor beneficial impacts to scenic viewing 

opportunities. 

Cumulative actions in conjunction with 

alternative 3 would have an overall major 

long-term beneficial impact. Alternative 3

would contribute a moderate beneficial 

increment to cumulative impacts to visitor 

experience, because alternative 3 would 

increase and expanding existing visitor 

opportunities. Alternative 3 would also 

contribute minor to a moderate, longterm, adverse increment to cumulative 

impacts due to a reduction in the range of 

interpretive programs and impacts on 

soundscapes at some park trailheads. 

OPERATIONS 

Park Operations 

Under Alternative 3 existing buildings and 

facilities would remain and some may be 

adaptively used for new functions and 

uses. Development of new frontcountry 

trails, closure of a portion of Rim Drive to

two-way traffic, and adaptive use of 

historic structures for visitor use would 

increase the level of maintenance required 

to support these new visitor activities. 

Year-round residences at Steel Circle and 

summer season residences at Sleepy 

Hollow at Munson Valley would continue 

to be maintained. Park maintenance staff 

would continue to maintain park roads, 

utilities, and structures. The Munson

Valley Road to Rim Village would 

continue to be cleared of snow during the 

winter months, and Rim Drive would 

continue to be plowed to allow summer 

access as early in the spring as weather 

dictates. 

Most park functions would remain in the 

park. Staff functions would shift to a

greater emphasis on resource protection 

and interpretation. There would also be an 

increased need for maintenance operations to maintain expanded front country 

trails and visitor services. Changes in park 

operations would be perceptible but 

would not be expected to have an overall 

173
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

detrimental effect on the ability of the park 

to provide desired services and facilities, 

resulting in minor, adverse impacts to park 

operations.

Cumulative Impacts. Past facility development, particularly at the rim, has 

affected park operations. Ongoing actions, 

including scaling back development at Rim 

Village and improving parking and circulation, have impacted park operations. 

Overall these projects have the potential to 

have a moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on park operations and improvement in the ability of the park to provide 

desired services and facilities. Impacts of

the above other actions in conjunction 

with the alternative 3 would result in 

moderate long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Alternative 3 would contribute a 

minor adverse increment to cumulative 

impacts to park operations. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

minor, adverse impacts to park operations. 

Cumulative actions in conjunction with 

alternative 3 would result in moderate 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative 3 would contribute a minor, 

adverse increment to cumulative impacts 

to park operations. 

Concession Operations

Relative to the no-action alternative, there 

would be a change to concessioner 

activities under alternative 3. There would 

be a moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on concession operations. 

Increased partnering with commercial 

operators would provide for additional 

opportunities. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions, 

including restoration of the Crater Lake 

Lodge, and ongoing actions, such as 

reconfiguration of park facilities at the rim 

and at Mazama Village have had an impact 

on concessioner activity. Consolidation of 

concession activity at Mazama and the 

closeness of Mazama Village to Oregon 

State Highway 62 would facilitate 

concession operations and inventory 

staging, resulting in readily apparent 

changes in concession operations that 

would have a long- term, moderate, 

beneficial impact on concessioner 

operations. Impacts of the above other 

actions in conjunction with alternative 3 

would result in an overall moderate, longterm beneficial cumulative impact. 

Alternative 3 would contribute a 

moderate, adverse increment to 

cumulative impacts on concession 

operations.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

a moderate, long-term adverse impact on 

concession operations. Cumulative actions 

in conjunction with alternative 3 would 

result in an overall moderate, long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impact. Alternative 3 

would contribute a moderate adverse 

increment to cumulative impacts on

concession operations. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

This alternative emphasizes that the full 

range of recreational opportunities and 

educational experiences be offered to a 

most diverse public. The widest possible

range of visitor groups is sought out to

acquaint, educate, and foster an appreciation of the natural environment in a more 

diverse park clientele. Most current 

facilities continue to be used and maintained. Historic structures and fabric are 

preserved without adaptive reuse. Trails 

are developed to provide access to a broad 

range of the park’s ecosystems and 

environments. Partnerships with other 

public and private entities are fostered to 

provide a wide range of educational and 

174
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

interpretative services to the public. Some 

interpretative activities and opportunities 

occur outside the park. Staffing levels 

increase for ranger and interpretative 

activities adding 5.5 full-time FTE’s. A 

transit system is evaluated and possibly 

developed to provide access for the public 

to some areas of the park. A base operating 

budget of $5,454,900 is needed to fund this 

alternative. 

Achieving these changes in park 

operations requires the expenditure of 

additional funds in the amount of 

$3,934,000 – which is $134,000 less than 

the no-action alternative. These funds are

spent over the life of the plan for various 

projects provide some impacts (e.g., 

increase in income, creation of jobs, etc.) 

to individual firms and workers which 

would be moderate to major, short term, 

and beneficial. Impacts on the economic 

indictors within the affected area would be

negligible because of the relative size of the 

regional economy (approximately $5.0 

billion in earnings and about 187,000 jobs 

in 2001) and the phasing of the projects 

over the next 15 to 20 years. 

Commercial businesses/concessions, such 

as tours, would continue within the park 

and such businesses would be encouraged 

to provide interpretative information and 

services to park visitors. Any expansion of 

these businesses would provide additional 

employment opportunities. 

The pattern of increasing visitation is 

expected to continue. Providing additional 

programs, services, and outreach would 

encourage more visitor use at the parks. 

The amount of additional use is indeterminate at this time. Also, attracting more 

visitors and offering visitor programs 

outside the park may result in additional 

tourism-related spending within the 

region and gateway towns, increasing

business opportunities, income, and 

employment which would benefit some 

retail establishments, restaurants, or 

motels in the travel corridors. 

The need for additional staff may increase 

the need for housing. Combined with this, 

the increasing desirability of living in the 

gateway communities adds to the demand 

for local housing and other locally 

provided goods. Hiring additional staff 

results in a small increase in the local

population that contributes to the overall 

growth in the gateway communities. As 

described above, in conjunction with 

other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, alternative 3 would 

have minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic 

climate of the local gateway communities 

but these changes in benefits are negligible 

at the three-county regional level. 

Cumulative Impacts. Additional changes 

or shocks (either positive or negative) to 

the local and regional socioeconomic 

environment are not expected. No other 

actions that could have cumulative effects 

when combined with the impacts of 

alterative 3 have been identified during 

this planning process, which has included 

public participation and input. In 

conjunction with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, no 

additional cumulative impacts are 

expected. 

Conclusion. An increase in park staffing 

levels by 5.5 full-time employees would 

have a moderate impact on the local 

gateway communities’ economies and a 

negligible impact on the regional 

economy. Additional employees would 

likely purchase some goods and services

from within the gateway communities. 

175
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Approximately $3,934,000 (in addition to 

ongoing actions and projects) would be 

spent over the life of the plan on various 

projects, and an increase of only $134,000 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

These expenditures could result in 

moderate to major, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on individual firms and employees 

(increased business and profits, increased

employment opportunities, increased 

income, etc.). Overall impacts on the 

regional economy (effects on the 

economic indicators of income, 

unemployment rate, poverty rate, etc.), 

however, would be negligible because of 

the size and the implementation (timing) 

of the projects over the next 15 to 20 years. 

The actions of this alternative may 

encourage some increased visitation to the 

parks, with beneficial effects on the region 

and adjacent communities in terms of 

increased visitor expenditures for locally 

provided goods and services. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

There would be no unavoidable adverse 

impacts of major intensity that would 

result from implementing alternative 3. A 

reduction in the range of interpretive 

programs would result in moderate long 

term adverse impacts to visitor enjoyment 

of interpretive programs. An increase in 

concessioner staffing to maintain and 

operate the shuttle system would result in 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

concession operations.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The vast majority of the park would be 

protected in a natural state and would 

maintain its long-term productivity. 

Disturbance of soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitat from visitor use and 

constructing facilities would reduce the 

long-term productivity of the environment 

in localized areas. Increased contact with 

visitors could indirectly contribute to 

improved resource conditions and the 

long-term productivity of the 

environment. 

 

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Construction materials and energy used 

would be irretrievably lost. There would 

also be an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources in terms of

funds expended on both labor and 

construction materials. Because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due

to development and visitor use in localized 

areas would be an irreversible 

commitment of resources.

176
IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 4 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on 

archeological resources as those listed 

under alternative 1. Although the resource 

preservation emphasis of this alternative 

could be expected to have some negligible 

to minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

archeological sites, removal of nonessential buildings could have some 

negligible to minor, long-term and 

permanent, adverse impacts on such 

resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative 

effects to archeological resources would 

be similar to those described for alternative 1, with the addition of minor 

beneficial impacts resulting from the 

resource preservation emphasis of this 

alternative and some negligible to minor, 

long-term and permanent, adverse impacts 

on such resources resulting from removal 

of nonessential buildings. The minor 

beneficial impacts, as well as the negligible

to minor, long-term and permanent 

adverse impacts associated with

implementation of this alternative would, 

however, be a small component of any 

overall cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on archeological resources as

those listed under alternative 1, although 

resource preservation emphasis could be

expected to have some negligible to minor 

long-term beneficial impacts on 

archeological sites. 

 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with archeological resources. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on archeological resources would be no adverse 

effect. 

Historic Structures/Buildings 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have impacts on historic structures/ 

buildings that are similar to those listed 

under alternative 1. Alternative 4 would 

have minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on historic structures/ 

buildings because they would be subjected 

to less wear and tear as a result of reduced 

adaptive use, modifications, and winter 

use and appropriate preservation

treatments would be determined for all 

historic structures in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards in 

consultation with the Oregon state historic 

preservation officer and the historic

preservation community. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, 

documented values of some historic 

structures/buildings in the park have been 

subjected to cumulative adverse, minor to 

moderate, long-term, and permanent 

impacts. Actions under this alternative 

would have impacts on historic structures/ 

buildings that are similar to those listed 

under alternative 1 (including, among 

177
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

other things, application of appropriate 

preservation treatments for all historic 

structures, would contribute beneficial, 

minor to moderate, long-term effects to 

any overall cumulative impact on historic 

structures/buildings. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 4 would have minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on historic structures/buildings. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with historic structures/ 

buildings. 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on historic 

structures/buildings would be no adverse 

effect. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes 

in the park because the Munson Valley, 

Rim Village, and Rim Drive cultural 

landscapes would be managed as cultural 

heritage zones to maximize preservation of 

their significant documented values and 

features. Although this alternative would 

have a minor to moderate, long-term,

adverse effect on Rim Drive, because a 

portion of the road would be closed to 

vehicular traffic and thus alter historic use 

of the road, rehabilitation of most pulloffs, parking areas, and overlooks along 

the roadway to their original designed 

appearance would have minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on the Rim Drive cultural landscape. 

Removal of nonhistoric structures and 

facilities throughout the park would 

generally have minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the park. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past lack of 

concern for the preservation of cultural 

landscapes in the park has resulted in

minor to moderate long-term adverse 

impacts on such resources because 

decisions about site development and 

resource management have compromised 

some of the character-defining patterns 

and features as well as the documented 

values of cultural landscapes. Actions 

under alternative 4, such as management 

of the Munson Valley, Rim Village, and 

Rim Drive cultural landscapes as cultural 

heritage zones, and removal of nonhistoric 

structures and features, would contribute 

beneficial minor to moderate long-term 

effects to any overall cumulative effect on 

cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would have minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the park because the 

Munson Valley, Rim Village, and Rim 

Drive cultural landscapes would be 

managed as cultural heritage zones to 

preserve their documented values, and 

nonhistoric structures and facilities would 

be removed throughout the park. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

178
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

179

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of 

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with cultural landscapes. 

 

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on cultural 

landscapes would be no adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed 

under alternative 1. However, emphasis on 

natural resource preservation and 

restoration and reduction of human 

presence on the natural landscape could 

be expected to have negligible to minor, 

beneficial, long-term impacts on such 

resources. Emphasis on natural resource 

preservation/restoration and reduction of 

human presence on the natural landscape 

could be expected to reduce intrusion on 

sacred sites or landscapes and important 

traditional use activity areas, thus resulting 

in some negligible to minor, beneficial, 

long-term improvement in ethnographic 

resource conditions and access to and/or 

accommodation of various groups’ 

traditional practices or beliefs relating to 

such sites. 

Cumulative Effects. National Park 

Service development and administrative/ 

maintenance operations, as well as 

increasing visitor use of the national park 

since its establishment, have had and are 

continuing to have cumulative adverse, 

negligible to minor effects on ethnographic resources. As sacred sites in southcentral Oregon have been lost over time, 

those remaining in the park have become 

more significant to the Klamath Tribes and 

other affiliated Native American groups. 

Actions under this alternative such as 

natural resource preservation and restoration and reduction of human presence on 

the natural landscape would contribute 

negligible to minor long-term beneficial 

effects to any overall cumulative effect on 

ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this 

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on ethnographic resources as 

those listed under alternative 1. However, 

emphasis on natural resource preservation/restoration and reduction of human 

presence on the natural landscape could 

be expected have negligible to minor 

beneficial long-term impacts on such 

resources. 

There would be no adverse impacts on 

resources or values whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the national park’s establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural 

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of 

the national park, or (3) identified as a goal 

in this General Management Plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. No Traditional 

Cultural Properties are affected by actions 

under this alternative. Thus Section 106 

determinations are unnecessary. 

 

Museum Collections 

Implementation of this alternative would 

have beneficial minor to moderate longterm impacts on the park’s museum 

collections because the increased volume 

of the collections that would result from 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

as acquisition of pertinent park-related 

collection materials not currently owned 

or managed by the National Park Service, 

would be stored in an offsite facility that 

met professional and National Park 

Service museum standards. Thus, 

provision for adequate storage and 

workspace would be provided to improve 

curation, protection, and access to the 

collections, and staffing would be 

increased to reduce the cataloging 

backlog. 

Cumulative Effects. Since the national 

park was established the combination of 

limited staffing and lack of storage and 

workspace meeting professional and 

National Park Service museum standards 

have hindered endeavors to improve care 

of and access to the museum collections 

and address the ever-increasing cataloging 

backlog, thus having minor to moderate 

long-term adverse effects on such 

resources. Actions under this alternative 

such as expansion of the collections and 

their storage in an offsite facility that meets 

professional and National Park Service 

museum standards and provision for 

adequate storage, workspace, and staffing 

to improve curation, protection, and 

access to the collections would contribute 

to beneficial, minor to moderate, longterm effects to any overall cumulative 

effect on the park’s museum collections. 

Conclusion. Implementation of 

alternative 4 would have beneficial, minor 

to moderate, long-term impacts on the 

park’s museum collections. There would 

be no adverse impacts on resources or 

values whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

national park’s establishing legislation, (2) 

key to the cultural integrity or 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national park, or (3) identified as a goal in 

this General Management Plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be 

no impairment of resources or values 

associated with the park’s museum 

collections. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Biotic Communities 

The following actions would potentially 

have localized minor to more widespread 

moderate long-term beneficial effects on 

biotic communities. The intensity of the 

effects would likely be greater over time as 

more knowledge of the resources is 

accumulated, partnerships expand, and 

resource management and restoration 

actions are implemented that further the 

preservation and restoration of native 

species, communities, and processes. 

Removing facilities and restoring areas to 

more natural conditions and routing trails 

away from sensitive areas such as wetlands 

would reduce impacts to biotic 

communities. 

Expanding resource management 

programs, data collection, resource staff, 

and partnering would indirectly contribute to improved resource conditions 

by enhancing the Park Service’s knowledge and capabilities for restoring and 

maintaining native species, communities, 

and processes. 

Emphasizing visitor activities that have 

low environmental impact and focusing 

interpretive programs on resource 

stewardship would also indirectly 

contribute to improved resource 

conditions by reducing the potential for 

visitor related impacts. 

Closing roads (i.e., portion of Rim Drive, 

Grayback Road) could reduce road kills, 

180
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

disturbance to wildlife, and off-road 

driving and associated impacts to roadside 

resources (e.g., soils, vegetation). 

Eliminating snowmobiling along the 

North Entrance Road and winter plowing 

to the rim would seasonally reduce use 

and disturbance to wildlife in these areas

and could enhance wildlife migration 

patterns. The plowed road corridor would 

be less of an impediment to wildlife

movement (e.g., elk, deer, bear). 

Although snowmobiling would no longer 

be allowed, other winter recreational 

activities can create added energetic stress 

in winter when most wildlife species are 

already stressed. The Park Service would 

initiate a long-term data gathering and 

monitoring program to evaluate winter use 

and associated impacts to ensure longterm protection of park resources.

Management actions, such as restrictions 

on off-trail use, specific area closures, 

increased patrols, visitor education, or

limits on use or party sizes, would be taken 

as necessary to address impacts. 

Adaptive use or removal of existing 

buildings is not expected to result in new 

resource impacts. These buildings are 

located in existing, previously disturbed 

developed areas. Park functions relocated 

from the park to nearby communities 

would be housed in existing structures if

possible. However, if new buildings were 

necessary, construction activities would 

have short-term effects on soils and 

vegetation. Depending on whether of not

facilities were built on previously 

disturbed sites, the long-term, adverse 

effects with mitigation would be negligible 

to minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on biotic communities from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for the no-action alternative. Overall 

cumulative impacts would be both long 

term, minor to major, adverse, and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would be 

primarily because of the widespread 

logging and fire suppression on lands 

surrounding the park and beneficial 

impacts would be from restoration and 

protection programs affecting lands both 

within and outside the park. Alternative 4’s 

contribution to these adverse impacts 

would be negligible to minor. However, 

actions under alternative 4, particularly 

reduced development and enhanced 

resource management programs, would 

promote the further protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of native 

biological communities. Therefore, 

alternative 4 would also contribute a 

minor to moderate beneficial effect to the 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The greater emphasis on

reduction in development and expanded 

resource management programs and 

restoration in the park along with 

increased visitor education under this 

alternative would contribute to improved 

resource conditions within the park, 

potentially having localized minor to more 

widespread moderate, long-term, 

beneficial effects on biotic communities. 

Biotic communities would not be impaired 

by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts would be long-term, 

and both major adverse and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would be primarily 

because of the widespread logging and fire 

suppression on lands surrounding the 

park and beneficial impacts would be from 

restoration and protection programs, 

affecting lands both within and outside the 

park. Alternative 4’s contribution to 

adverse impacts would be minor and its 

181
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

contribution to beneficial effects minor to 

moderate. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Species 

Alternative 4 emphasizes preservation of 

native species and restoration of disturbed 

areas. A number of actions would reduce 

the extent of impacts from development 

and human presence in the park. There 

would be fewer buildings and facilities in

the park. Grayback Trail could be 

removed and a large section of Rim Drive

would be closed to motorized use. 

Eliminating snowmobiling along the 

North Entrance Road and winter plowing 

to the rim would seasonally reduce use 

and disturbance to wildlife in these areas

and could enhance wildlife migration 

patterns and habitat for winter carnivores 

(e.g., wolverine, fisher, lynx). A long-term 

data gathering and monitoring program 

would evaluate winter use and associated 

impacts to ensure long-term protection of 

threatened and endangered species. 

Overall, alternative 4 would have a 

beneficial effect on threatened and 

endangered species and their habitat. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on special status species and their habitat 

from land uses and activities in the park 

and surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for alternative 1 (noaction alternative). Adverse impacts would 

occur primarily because of the alteration

and fragmentation of forests surrounding 

the park due to the persisting impacts of 

logging and fire suppression. Restoration 

and protection programs affecting lands 

both within and outside of the park may 

have adverse short-term effects, but would 

not be likely to adversely affect special 

status species over the long-term. 

Alternative 4 would contribute beneficial 

long-term effects to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Greater emphasis on

resource evaluations, surveys, monitoring, 

and facility removal and restoration would 

enhance the opportunities for positive 

effects on threatened and endangered

species and their habitat within the park. 

Thus, alternative 4 would not be likely to 

adversely affect and would not result in 

impairment to these species. Alternative 4 

would contribute beneficial long-term 

effects to the overall cumulative impacts. 

Crater Lake

Alternative 4 emphasizes the preservation 

of natural resources. In addition to the 

current preservation actions – minimizing 

development with the caldera and lake 

drainage, and restricting access and 

boating as in alternative 1 – the park would 

seek to restore the natural systems of

Crater Lake. Winter plowing to the rim 

would stop, except for spring opening. 

Vehicular access to the rim would be via 

snow coach. Minimizing snow plowing to 

the rim would begin to restore natural 

deposition processes and would minimize 

potential hydrocarbons and other vehicle 

caused pollutants. 

Snowmobile access along North Junction 

Road would be stopped. Snowmobiles 

raise concerns about long-term impacts 

from high pollution emissions. Emissions

from 2-stroke engine exhaust include 

monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, 

and particulate matter (NPS 1999e). These 

concerns include the possibility that 

accumulations of pollutants in the snow 

pack and resultant snow pack runoff may 

be having adverse impacts on water quality 

and associated aquatic systems, although 

impacts from snow pack runoff that is 

contaminated with snowmobile pollutants 

182
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

have not been found. Impacts on water 

quality are likely short term and localized 

along travel routes because of the low 

volume of use and because snowmobiles 

are restricted to the north entrance road, 

which does not follow near any streams. 

Although snowmobile use is not expected 

to appreciably increase, the Park Service 

would initiate a long-term data gathering 

and monitoring program to evaluate use 

and associated impacts as part of an 

overall winter recreational use study. 

Management actions to mitigate no point 

source pollution would be implemented if 

necessary. Water quality could benefit 

from increased protection measures, 

although the extent of potential beneficial 

effects is unknown, but would likely be 

localized and minor. 

The long-term program would expand to 

monitor a diverse array of chemical, 

physical, and biological properties beyond 

those in alternative 1. Most of the sample 

and data collection would continue to

occur in the summer months when the 

lake is easily accessible. Occasional winter 

studies are also conducted. The program 

would continue to add devices capable of 

year-round sample and data collection to 

gain a better understanding of processes 

occurring during the winter months. 

Emphasis would be on ensuring that all 

research is as non-manipulative as

possible. Sample and data processing, 

along with data analysis and trend 

monitoring, would occur on a regular 

basis. Results of the monitoring studies are 

documented on an annual basis with 

special emphasis on long-term trend 

analysis. Increased monitoring would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

water quality. 

Cumulative Impacts . Cumulative actions 

would contribute both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to water quality. 

Implementation of this alternative would 

generally have the same cumulative effects 

on Crater Lake as those listed under 

alternative 1. 

Conclusion. Implementation of this

alternative would generally have the same 

impacts on Crater Lake as those listed 

under alternative 1. This alternative would 

have a negligible, long-term, beneficial 

effect on water quality within Crater Lake. 

In accordance with the criteria for 

determining impairment, there would be 

no major adverse impacts on water quality, 

and therefore no impairment of water 

quality. 

Water Resources 

The removal or adaptive use of facilities 

would have the potential to impact water 

quality through ground disturbance, 

which would result in increased surface 

runoff and erosion. However, due to the 

limited extent of potential ground 

disturbance and implementation of 

mitigation measures such as silt fences, 

erosion control blankets, mulch, and 

revegetation to control impacts, increased 

sedimentation and turbidity would be 

temporary and negligible. 

Reduction in the extent of facilities and 

use in the park would reduce water use in 

the park. This would likely have a minor 

beneficial effect on water quantity in 

Annie Creek because although overall 

development would be reduced, the major 

developed areas in the park would remain. 

Closure of the Grayback Trail and a

section of the Rim Drive to traffic and 

elimination of winter access to the rim via 

private vehicles, including snowmobiles,

could benefit water quality because 

183
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

vehicular emissions or deposition of

petroleum products would be eliminated, 

at least seasonally, in these areas. 

Beneficial effects would be localized and 

minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on water resources from land uses and 

activities in the park and surrounding 

lands would be similar to those described 

for alternative 1 (no-action alternative). 

The park’s fire management program may 

adversely impact water quality (e.g., 

sedimentation, erosion) due to the effects 

of fires, particularly high intensity fires. 

Park construction and rehabilitation 

proposals would also contribute to 

adverse impacts from increased surface 

runoff and erosion. Best management 

practices such as erosion and sediment 

controls would be employed to minimize 

these impacts. Impacts would be localized, 

short-term, and minor. Minor beneficial 

cumulative actions would include ongoing 

trails rehabilitation and relocation within 

the park that would reduce localized 

erosion and runoff. 

The replacement of the waterline from 

Munson Springs to Garfield would likely 

reduce water loss by the system. Implementation of actions within the visitor 

services plan would also reduce water use 

within the park. Reductions in water use 

would have a minor, beneficial effect on 

water quantity in Annie Creek. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative 4 would result in localized, 

minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts on 

water quality and minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on water quantity in 

Annie Creek. Alternative 4 would

contribute a localized, negligible, adverse, 

and minor, beneficial impact on water 

quality, and a minor increase in water 

quantity in Annie Creek to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have a 

negligible adverse effect on water quality 

due to construction activities and a minor 

beneficial effect on Annie Creek water 

quantity. Water quality could benefit from 

reduced vehicle use in some areas of the 

park, although the extent of potential

beneficial would likely be localized and 

minor. Water resources would not be 

impaired by the actions proposed under 

this alternative. The cumulative actions in 

conjunction with alternative 4 would 

result in short- and long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts 

on water quality and quantity. Alternative 

4 would contribute a localized, negligible, 

adverse, and minor, beneficial impact on 

water quality, and a minor increase in 

water quantity in Annie Creek to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Air Quality

Possible closure and restoration of the 

Grayback Trail would benefit air quality 

because of vehicular emissions would be

eliminated in this area. Closure of a section 

of the Rim Drive to traffic and elimination 

of winter access to the rim via private 

vehicles, including snowmobiles, would 

have similar seasonal effects. Beneficial 

effects would be localized and negligible 

because air stagnation that would allow 

concentration of pollutants is rare and/or 

relatively low levels of use that would be

eliminated. 

There would be some short-term, 

localized impacts on air quality resulting 

from particulates or machinery fumes 

generated during removal or rehabilitation 

of facilities. The elevation and geography 

make the park susceptible to winds that 

tend to disperse particulates and other 

184
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

pollutants. Mitigation measures, such as 

watering and revegetation of disturbed 

areas, requiring machinery to meet 

emission standards, would be employed. 

Effects would be short-term and 

negligible, lasting only during the 

construction period. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts

on air quality from actions in the park and 

surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for the no-action 

alternative. The park’s air quality is good 

with negligible effects from regional 

pollution sources outside the park. Forest 

fires on surrounding lands could 

contribute particulates for limited periods 

of time. Degradation of air quality from 

the park’s fire management program could 

result in moderate short-term impacts, but 

the program would be in conformance 

with the Clean Air Act, Oregon State 

Smoke Management Plan, and the Oregon 

Visibility Protection Plan. Park 

construction and rehabilitation proposals 

would cause localized increases in dust 

and emissions from construction vehicles

and equipment, resulting in localized, 

short-term effects on air quality. The 

cumulative actions in conjunction with the 

no-action alternative would result in 

short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on 

air quality. Alternative 4 would contribute

a negligible, short-term, adverse and 

negligible, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Long- term beneficial 

impacts to air quality within the park

under this alternative would be negligible.

Short-term construction related impacts 

would be negligible. Air quality would not 

be impaired by the actions proposed under 

this alternative. The cumulative actions in 

conjunction with alternative 4 would 

result in short-term, moderate, adverse 

impacts on air quality. Alternative 4 would 

contribute a negligible, short-term, 

adverse, and negligible, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative 

effect. 

VISITOR USE 

Diversity of Recreational Opportunity

Relative to the no action alternative, 

Alternative 4 would reduce the range of 

visitor experience. Visitor experience 

would stress low environmental impact on 

and harmony with the park’s resources. 

During the summer, many existing 

opportunities for scenic driving and back 

country hiking and camping would 

continue. Nature viewing and boat tours 

would also continue to be available. New 

opportunities for hiking and solitude along 

the caldera rim would be added with the 

closure of a portion of Rim Drive between 

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch to 

vehicular traffic. Visitors would be able to 

experience the caldera rim and views of 

the lake without the intrusion of vehicular 

traffic. There would be a reduction in 

front country areas and a corresponding 

decrease in the number of short 

interpretive hiking trails. Backcountry 

hiking and camping opportunities would 

increase. 

Winter access to the park beyond Mazama 

Village would be by snow coach only, 

which would offer a new visitor 

experience. There would be no winter 

private vehicle access to Rim Village, 

which would eliminate the traditional 

visitor experience of driving to the rim in 

the winter. Snowmobile access along the

north entrance road to North Junction 

would not be allowed, resulting in a loss of

this winter visitor experience. There 

would be no motorized access and no

maintained trail on Grayback Drive, which 

would be allowed to return to natural 

185
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

conditions. Visitors would gain a new 

winter snowcoach experience and the new 

experience of hiking without vehicular 

traffic on a portion of Rim Drive. These 

new experiences would be offset by a loss 

of the Rim Drive automobile experience 

which is very important to most visitors. 

Overall, the change in the diversity of

visitor experience would be readily 

apparent and would affect a relatively 

large number of visitors, resulting in

moderate, adverse impacts on the diversity

of visitor opportunity. 

Visitor Access and Circulation 

Relative to the no action alternative, under 

alternative 4 motor vehicle accessibility to 

the park would be reduced. During peak 

use most of the park’s road system would 

be accessible and visitors would be able to 

drive to many locations in the park. A 

portion of Rim Drive between Cleetwood 

Cove and Kerr Notch would be closed to 

motorized travel. The Grayback Drive 

would also be closed to motorized travel 

and the centerpiece of the automobile tour 

experience in the park would be lost.

During the winter months the park would 

not be accessible via private vehicle 

beyond Mazama Village. To alleviate 

traffic congestion, especially along Rim 

Drive during the summer season, use of a 

mandatory alternative transportation 

system would be explored. A feasibility 

analysis would determine whether the 

shuttle would be concession, Park Service 

operated, or a service contract. 

Changes in motorized accessibility would 

be detectable and localized in area; 

however modification to traffic flow on 

Rim Drive would affect a large number of 

visitors, resulting in moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts to motorized accessibility. 

Closure of a portion of Rim Drive may 

have moderate long-term, adverse, 

impacts on Rim Drive as the centerpiece of 

the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway and All 

American Road. 

Access to trailheads and opportunities for 

day hikes on frontcountry trails along the 

park’s road system would be reduced and 

many front country short trail hiking

experiences would be lost. The entire trail 

system would be reviewed and new 

backcountry trails might be provided (e.g. 

low elevation nature trails). Some trails 

might be eliminated and the area

rehabilitated. Rim Drive between 

Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch would 

be closed to private vehicles, and would 

thus offer new opportunities for nonmotorized activities. Loss of frontcountry 

trails is important because visitor surveys 

indicate that short trails are extremely 

important to a majority of visitors. A

reduction of frontcountry trail access 

would affect a relatively large number of 

visitors. Overall, changes in the way 

visitors access the park would be readily 

apparent and would affect a moderate 

number of visitors resulting in moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts to park 

accessibility. 

Education and Orientation 

Under alternative 4 interpretive and 

educational programs would focus on 

stewardship and resource protection of 

the park’s natural and cultural resources. 

Interpretive programs would offer indepth information on park resources. 

Many orientation and education efforts 

would occur offsite to prepare visitors for 

and foster stewardship. Many interpretive

opportunities at the park would be selfdirected or self-serve, and contact with 

park interpretive staff would necessitate 

visitors stopping at Visitor Information 

Building or at Rim Village. Changes in 

interpretive programs would be detectable 

and would affect a relatively large number 

186
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

of visitors resulting in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on visitor 

opportunities to participate in interpretive 

programs. 

Visitor Facilities and Services 

Opportunities for visitors to access and 

use park facilities and services would 

decrease. Most existing visitor use

facilities would remain, however during 

the winter months facilities beyond

Mazama Village would not be available. 

This decrease would be partially offset by 

a slight increase in visitor use of facilities at 

Mazama Village associated with 

snowcoach operations. Portions of park 

roads would be closed to private vehicles. 

Changes in visitor experience of park

facilities would be readily apparent and 

would affect a relatively large number of 

visitors, resulting in a moderate, adverse 

impact on visitor experience of park 

facilities and structures. 

Soundscapes and Scenic Quality 

Opportunities to visit the backcountry to 

experience natural sounds and tranquility 

would increase. Frontcountry areas would 

be reduced and noise levels associated 

with trailheads and front country areas 

would also be reduced. During the long 

winter season, visitors would arrive at the 

caldera rim via snowcoach and would have 

the opportunity to experience what they 

perceive as a pristine winter landscape and 

untrammeled lake views at the caldera rim. 

The number of frontcountry developments would be reduced resulting in a 

readily apparent change in the way visitors 

view and perceive the park’s natural 

resources. Therefore alternative 4 would 

result in moderate, beneficial impacts to 

scenic vistas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past and ongoing

projects including development of front 

country trails, reconfiguration of Rim 

Village, and adaptive reuse of historic 

structures in Munson Valley and Rim 

Village have long-term major beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience. Past actions, 

such as the relocation of the Cleetwood 

Trail and the development of the Castle 

Crest and Godfrey Trails, have increased 

visitor access to front country trails. 

Reconfiguration of Rim Village would 

change the way visitors view the lake at 

Rim Village. Overall these projects have 

the potential to increase the diversity, of 

visitor experience, enhance the range of 

interpretative programs, expand access to

park facilities, and to improve the quality 

of visitor experience values such as sounds 

of nature and scenic views. Cumulative 

actions in conjunction with alternative 4 

would have an overall major long-term 

beneficial impact. Alternative 4 would 

contribute a moderate, adverse increment 

to cumulative impacts to visitor 

experience. Alternative 4 would also 

contribute a moderate beneficial 

increment to cumulative impacts to scenic 

vistas. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have a 

moderate, long-term adverse impact on 

the diversity of visitor opportunities, 

visitor accessibility, and on the ability of 

visitors to participate in educational and 

interpretive programs. There would be 

moderate, long term adverse impacts on 

visitor enjoyment of park facilities and 

services. There would also be a moderate, 

beneficial impact to winter scenic vistas at 

the rim. Cumulative actions in conjunction 

with alternative 4 would have an overall 

major, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Alternative 4 would contribute a moderate 

adverse increment to cumulative impacts 

to visitor experience. 

187
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 188

OPERATIONS 

Park Operations 

Under alternative 4 the trend in the built 

environment would a reduction in 

facilities. Buildings that are not historic 

and not essential to park functions would 

be removed and the area rehabilitated. 

Removal of some buildings and closing 

most buildings during the winter months 

would reduce maintenance and utilities 

requirements. The park maintenance staff 

would continue to support park 

operations from the central maintenance 

facility located at Munson Valley. 

Maintenance staff would continue to 

maintain park roads, utilities, and 

structures. The Munson Valley Road to 

Rim Village would not be plowed snow 

during the winter months. Spring snow 

removal from Rim Drive would increase in 

difficulty and complexity, because 

maintenance crews would first have to 

clear the park roads from Mazama Village 

up Munson Valley before tackling the 

heavy snows on Rim Drive. This would 

increase the time for spring snow-clearing 

with the consequent increase in 

maintenance responsibility. 

Many park functions would be located 

outside of the park. Park functions that are 

by necessity park-based, such as maintenance and law enforcement would be 

retained in the park. Different options for 

accommodating operations outside the 

park boundary would be studied before 

implementing any actions. Actions that 

propose purchasing property outside the 

boundary would require additional 

authorization. The composition of the 

staff would increase in the areas of 

resource preservation, protection, 

restoration, and education activities. 

There would be a decreased need for 

maintenance operations during the winter 

months. The Munson Valley Road would 

need some level of grooming to enable 

operation of the winter snowcoach. 

Decreased winter maintenance needs 

would be partially offset by a concentrated 

need in the early spring to open park roads 

to vehicular traffic. Changes in park 

operations would be readily apparent and 

would have appreciable effects on park 

and concession abilities to provide 

necessary services and facilities, resulting 

in a moderate, beneficial impact on park 

operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past facility development, particularly at the rim, has 

affected park operations. Ongoing actions 

including scaling back development at Rim 

Village and improving parking and 

circulation have had a moderate, 

beneficial, cumulative impact on park 

operations. Alternative 4 in conjunction 

with past and ongoing activities would 

have a moderate to major, beneficial 

cumulative effect. This alternative would 

contribute a moderate beneficial 

increment to beneficial cumulative impact 

to park operations. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would result in 

moderate, beneficial impacts to park 

operations. Alternative 4, in conjunction 

with past and ongoing activities, would 

have a moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative effect. This alternative would 

contribute a moderate increment to 

beneficial cumulative impact to park 

operations. 

Concession Operations 

During peak use in the summer concession 

activities would remain the same. Winter 

access to the rim would be via snowcoach 

rather than private vehicle. The change is 

not predicted to have an impact on the 

small number of visitors to the rim in the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

189

winter; however, the change in access

could have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on operations at the rim due to 

changes in access for supplies and 

employees.

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions, 

including restoration of the Crater Lake 

Lodge, and ongoing actions, such as 

reconfiguration of park facilities at the rim 

and at Mazama Village, have had a 

moderate, beneficial impact on 

concessioner activity. These actions, in 

conjunction with alternative 4, would have 

both moderate adverse and beneficial 

cumulative impacts on concession 

operations. Alternative 4 would contribute 

a moderate, adverse impact to the 

cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would result in 

a moderate, long-term adverse impact on 

concessioner activities and would 

contribute moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on concession 

operations. 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Natural resource preservation and 

restoration are driving elements of 

alternative 4. Low-impact visitor activities 

are emphasized. The built environment is 

reduced. Nonhistoric buildings that are 

not essential to park operations would be 

removed and the land restored. Vehicle 

access to some parts of the park would be 

curtailed. Some trails and some roads may 

be removed and rehabilitated. Part of the 

Rim Road becomes accessible to pedestrians only. Winter access would be 

limited to Route 62 and snowcoach from 

Mazama parking lot. This alternative calls 

for most park operations and visitor 

contact facilities to be relocated outside 

the park. 

These and other actions would require an 

increased budget and an increased number 

of staff positions in the areas of resource 

preservation, restoration, protection, and 

education. Staffing would increase by 1 

additional FTE to achieve preservation 

and restoration goals. A base operating 

budget of $4,419,760 is needed to fund this 

alternative. 

In addition, approximately $3.9 million 

would be spent over the life of the plan on 

various projects and services, an increase 

of $140,000 compared to the no -action 

alternative. These expenditures could 

result in moderate to major, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on individual firms and 

employees (increased business and profits, 

increased employment opportunities, 

increased income, etc.). Overall impacts on 

the regional economy (effects on the 

economic indicators of income, 

unemployment rate, poverty rate, etc.), 

however, would be negligible because of 

the size and the phasing of the projects 

over the next 15 to 20 years. 

Moving some administrative, operations, 

and visitor contact functions to areas 

outside the park would result in the 

purchase and/or long-term lease of land 

and building(s) and/or the construction of 

new buildings in gateway areas. The need 

for additional staff may increase the need 

for housing; this, combined with the 

increasing desirability of living in the 

gateway communities adds to the demand 

for local housing and other locally 

provided goods. Hiring additional staff 

results in a small increase in the local 

population that contributes to the overall 

growth in the gateway communities. 

New facility construction would result in a 

short-term, positive impact on the 

regional economy, mostly affecting the 

construction sector of the economy. The 

purchase of land (on a willing-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 190

buyer/willing-seller basis) by the federal 

government would result in some longterm loss of local real-estate tax revenue. 

However, the amount of property tax 

revenue lost to the three counties would 

be minor compared to the tax revenues 

collected by Douglas County (tax revenues 

$ 58.2 million in 2002/03), Jackson County

(tax revenues $148.1 million in 2002), and 

Klamath County (tax revenues of about 

$37 million, 2002). Acquisition of other 

federally owned land for these purposes 

would not result in any change in real 

estate taxes. 

Visitor use of the park would be reduced. 

Removal of facilities and services from the 

park and the shift to less use of motorized 

vehicles and reduced accessibility for 

motorized vehicles would tend to reduce 

the number of visitors to the park. Road 

closures and restoration, reduced winter 

snow plowing, and closing the north 

junction road to snowmobiling would also 

reduce access and use of some parts of the 

park. Concession businesses may be 

reduced or eliminated as incompatible 

with the new direction for this park. 

The need for additional staff may increase 

the need for housing; this, combined with 

the increasing desirability of living in the 

gateway communities adds to the demand 

for local housing and other locally 

provided goods. Hiring additional staff 

results in a small increase in the local 

population that contributes to the overall 

growth in the gateway communities. 

Cumulative Impacts. Additional changes 

or shocks (either positive or negative) to 

the local and regional socioeconomic 

environment within which the park exists 

are not expected. No other actions that 

could have cumulative effects when 

combined with the impacts of alterative 4 

have been identified during this planning 

process, which has included public 

participation and input. In conjunction 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, no additional 

cumulative impacts are expected. 

Conclusion. An increase in park staffing 

levels by 1 full-time employee would have 

a moderate impact on the local gateway 

communities’ economies and a negligible 

impact on the regional economy. 

Additional employees would likely 

purchase some goods and services from 

within the gateway communities. 

Approximately $3.9 million (in addition to 

ongoing actions and projects) would be 

spent over the life of the plan on various 

projects, an increase of $140,000 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

These expenditures could result in 

moderate to major, short-term, beneficial 

impacts for individual firms and employees (increased business and profits, 

increased employment opportunities, 

increased income, etc.). Overall impacts on 

the regional economy (effects on the 

economic indicators of income, 

unemployment rate, poverty rate, etc.), 

however, would be negligible because of 

the size and the phasing of the projects 

over the next 15 to 20 years. 

Moving park functions and visitor contact 

facilities outside the park may increase the 

numbers of visitors that stop in gateway 

towns. This may result in additional 

tourism related spending for locally 

provided goods and services within the 

region and gateway towns perhaps 

increasing business opportunities, income, 

and employment. On the other hand, 

reduced access to the park may reduce the 

numbers of visitors that come to the park, 

perhaps negatively affecting the gateway 

communities and the regional tourism 

related businesses. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

Moving administrative functions and park 

employee housing outside the parks would

result in the purchase or long-term lease of

land and the construction of buildings in 

local gateway areas, with short-term, 

beneficial impacts on the local economy, 

mostly affecting the construction sector 

and a few landowners. 

The need for additional staff may increase 

the need for housing; this, combined with 

the increasing desirability of living in the 

gateway communities adds to the demand 

for local housing and other locally 

provided goods. Hiring additional staff 

results in a small increase in the local

population that contributes to the overall 

growth in the gateway communities. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

Concession activities would also change in 

the winter to accommodate snowcoach 

access to the park, requiring a year-round 

maintenance responsibility. These changes 

would result in a moderate adverse impact 

on concession operations. The negligible 

and minor impacts are described in the

foregoing analysis. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The vast majority of the park would be 

protected in a natural state and would 

maintain its long-term productivity. The 

short-term disturbance of soils, vegetation, 

and wildlife habitat from removing 

facilities and rehabilitating disturbed areas 

would be offset by the increased long-term 

protection of soils and restoration of

vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Construction and restoration materials 

and energy used would be irretrievably 

lost. There would also be an irretrievable 

and irreversible commitment of resources 

in terms of funds expended on both labor 

and materials. 

191
192
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
194
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Consultation and coordination among the 

government agencies, organizations, and 

the public were an important part of the 

planning process for the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Crater Lake National Park. 

The public had two primary avenues by 

which it participated during the 

development of the plan: participation in 

public meetings and response to

newsletters.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND 

NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used

to keep the public informed and involved 

in the planning process for Crater Lake 

National Park. A mailing list was compiled 

that consisted of members of government 

agencies, nongovernmental groups, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, 

and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on May 

25, 2001. A newsletter issued January 2001 

described the planning effort. Public 

meetings were held during April 2001 in 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and 

Salem and were attended by 96 people. A 

total of 72 written comments were 

received in response to that newsletter. A 

second newsletter issued in July 2001 

summarized the comments received in the 

meetings and in response to newsletter 1. 

These comments were used to complete 

the park purpose and significance 

statements that serve as the foundation for 

the rest of the planning. Comments on 

various issues facing the park were 

referred to during development of the 

general management plan. 

A third newsletter distributed in the spring 

of 2002 described the draft alternative 

concepts and management zoning for 

managing the park. A total of 95 comments 

were received in response to that 

alternatives’ newsletter. In general 

opinions were fairly divided in support of 

individual alternatives and how to address 

the issues. A number of letters favored 

continued snowmobile use while other 

people favored elimination of 

snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were 

divided on managing traffic on Rim Drive 

• maintaining current two-way traffic, 

converting part of the road to one-way 

traffic, or closure of the road to traffic. 

Most respondents favored use of shuttles. 

A number of people who opposed 

partnering with private industry were 

concerned with large-scale 

commercialization within the park. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Agencies that have direct or indirect

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by section 106 of the National 

historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 470, et seq.) to take into 

account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. To meet the

requirements of 36 CFR 800, the National 

Park Service sent letters to the Oregon 

historic preservation office and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

on November 17, 2000, inviting their

participation in the planning process. Both 

offices were sent all the newsletters with a 

request for comments. 

195
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE 

AMERICANS 

Letters were sent in November 2000 to the 

Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indian 

Tribe and the Klamath Tribes to invite 

their participation in the planning process. 

The tribes were informed on the scope of

the planning project and the preliminary 

alternatives by newsletter. The first official 

government-to-government consultation 

with the Klamath Tribes in relation to park 

projects took place in November 2001 and 

can be credited largely to a meeting with 

members of the tribal council in August. 

Both meetings set some parameters for 

consulting with tribal staff while a 

cooperative agreement on conducting ongoing consultation is being negotiated. 

The tribes would also have an opportunity 

to review and comment on this draft plan. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

A list of federally threatened, endangered, 

and proposed species that may be present, 

or in the vicinity of Crater Lake National 

Park dated June 28, 2002, was received 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and is included in appendix B. A 

meeting between the Park Service and the 

USFWS Klamath Falls Field Office to 

discuss consultation responsibilities for 

the general management plan and other 

park projects was held in May 2003.

Additional discussions with the USFWS 

concerning affects on federally listed 

species also occurred as part of the 

preparation of the draft plan and 

environmental impact statement. 

The National Park Service has determined 

the preferred alternative may affect, but 

would not be likely to adversely the Lost 

River sucker, shortnose sucker, or Canada 

lynx and may have some adverse affect on 

the following federally threatened species: 

bald eagle, northern spotted owl, and bull 

trout. The National Park Service will 

initiate formal consultation with the 

USFWS regarding the effects on bald 

eagle, northern spotted owl, Canada lynx, 

and bull trout. The USFWS will receive a 

copy of the public draft of this plan for 

their review and to serve as a biological 

assessment for consultation. Comments 

from USFWS will be addressed and the 

results of the consultation included in the 

final environmental impact statement. 

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

TO WHOM THIS DOCUMENT WAS 

SENT 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Forest Service 

Winema National Forest 

Rogue River National Forest 

Umpqua National Forest 

USFS Toketee Ranger Station 

Chiloquin Ranger District 

Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Office of Public Affairs 

Oregon Caves National Monument 

Water Rights Branch 

 EPA, Region 10 

American Indian Tribes 

The Klamath Tribe 

Klamath Tribe Attorney

Klamath Tribe Planning Department 

Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe 

U.S. Senators and Representatives

Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Gorden Smith 

Congressman David Wu, 1st District 

Congressman Greg Walden, 2nd District 

196
Summary of Public Involvement 

Congressman Earl Blumenauer, 3rd 

District 

Congressman Peter DeFazio, 4th District

Congressman Darlene Hooley, 5th 

District 

State Government

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

Oregon Historical Preservation Office

Oregon Natural Resources Council 

Jason Atkinson, Oregon Senate 

Lenn Hannon, Oregon Senate 

Steve Harper, Oregon House of 

Representatives 

Tim Knopp, Oregon House of

Representatives 

Oregon State Parks 

Local Governments 

City of Chiloquin 

City of Klamath Falls 

 Planning Director 

City of Medford 

Planning Director 

City of Roseburg 

Deschutes County Library 

Douglas County Library

Eugene Library 

Jackson County Comissioners 

Jackson County Planning Director 

Josephine County Library 

Klamath County Comissioners 

Klamath County Planning Director 

Klamath County Library

Klamath County Museum

Multnomah County Library 

Prospect Schools 

Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce 

Salem Library 

Organizations / Businesses

Alla Mage Ski Club 

Audubon Magazine 

Backcountry Horsemen

Bay Area Economics 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Broken Arrowhead Ranch 

CC Riders Snowmobile Club 

Century West 

Chiloquin Ridge Riders 

Coalition of Equestrians Club 

College of Oceanography 

Crater Lake Lodge, Inc. 

Dain Bosworth, Inc. 

David Evans and Associates 

Delaware North Companies 

Denali National Park Concessions Office 

Diamond Lake Homeowners 

District Ranger, Klamath Ranger District 

Ecology of Environment, Inc. 

Edelweiss Ski Club 

Estramade Ranch 

Fletcher Farr Ayotte 

Friends of Crater Lake National Park 

GM, Paradise Inn, National Park Inn 

Goold's Sprague River Ranch, Inc.

Grants Pass Nordic Ski Club 

Grants Pass Resource Area 

Institute for Policy Research, 

Northwestern U. 

J & E Ranch 

Jack Owens Ranches 

KAGO 

KDRV, Channel 12 

Klamath Basin Snowdrifters 

Klamath Bow Hunters 

Klamath Co Economic Development Assn. 

Klamath County Economic Development. 

Association 

Klamath Motor Sports 

Knipe and Knipe, Inc. 

KOIN - TV

KOMO TV

KOTI TV 

KPIC, Channel 4 

KS Wild 

KTVL, Channel 10 

Lake Quinault Lodge 

Landau Associates, Inc. 

League of Women Voters 

197
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

LMJ Cattle Company 

Mail Tribune 

Medford District Office 

Medford Mail Tribune

Medford Visitors Convention Bureau 

Meyer and Glitzenstein

Mt. Hood Snowmobile Club 

Murase Associates 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Nature Conservancy 

News Review 

Nordic Club 

Northwester Tours 

Oregon Historical Society 

Oregon Hunter's Association 

Oregon Nordic Club 

Oregon Parks Foundation, Inc. 

Oregon Snowmobile Association 

Oregon State University, College of 

Forestry 

Oregon Tourism Commission 

OSSA 

Ottaway News Service 

Robert Peccia & Associates 

Rogue Snowmobile Club

Rogue Snowmobiling 

S.W. Jeffries and Company 

Sierra Club 

Siskiyou Audubon Society 

Siskiyou Reg. Ed. Proj. 

Individuals

There are more than 700 individuals to 

whom copies of this EIS were sent. A 

complete listing of these names is available 

from the Superintendent, Crater Lake 

National Park, Hwy. 62, Crater Lake, OR 

97604.

198
151

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, 

PREPARERS
200
APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION

201
202

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
203

Appendix A: Legislation
204

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
205

Appendix A: Legislation
206

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
207

Appendix A: Legislation
208

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
APPENDIX B: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

LETTER ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES

WITH ATTACHED LIST

209
210

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
211

Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species
212

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS
APPENDIX C: PROJECTED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Ongoing and Planned Actions and Projects 

Visitor Services Plan

Adapt historic 1928 building for visitor 

contact $ 4,432,000 

Rehabilitate Rim Cultural Landscape 500,000 

Remove Rim Village Dorm 350,000 

 

Mazama Village Construct New Restaurant and Expand 

Parking Lot* 1,140,000

 Construction Concession Maintenance 

Facility* 364,000 

Develop group campsites 60,900 

 

Cleetwood Cove Improve bulkhead 500,000 

Construct seasonal shade structure 200,000 

Improve Cleetwood Trail 360,000 

 

Subtotal *(Private Dollars) $ 1,504,000 

Subtotal (Federal Dollars) 6,402,900 

 TOTAL $ 7,906,900 

Alternative One: No Action 

Area Description Net Cost

Muson valley Rehabilitate Superintendent's /Chief 

Ranger’s Residences $1,800,000

 

Buildings Adapting Existing buildings 2,000,000 

 

 TOTAL $ 3,800,000 

213
APPENDIXES, BIBILIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS

Alternative Two: Preferred 

Emphasis on Increased Visitor Opportunities

Area Description Net Cost

Munson Valley Rehabilitate Superintendent's /Chief 

Ranger’s Residences $ 1,800,000

 

East Rim Drive New trails 265,000 

 

Frontcountry Sites New trails 265,000 

Picnic Sites 25,000 

Waysides 200,000 

 

Buildings Adapting Existing buildings 2,000,000 

 

Parking 

Improvements 100,000 

 

Office Relocation 88,000 

(out of park) 

TOTAL $ 4,743,000 

 

Alternative Three: Emphasis on Enjoyment 

of Natural Environment

 Area Description Net Cost 

Munson Valley Rehabilitate Superintendent's/Chief 

Ranger’s Residences $1,800,000

 

Frontcountry Sites New trails 265,000 

Picnic Sites 25,000 

Waysides 200,000 

 

Shuttle Bus Rim 750,000 

 Mazama to Rim 750,000 

Shuttle stop/improvements 100,000 

 

Office Relocation 44,000 

(out of park) 

 

 TOTAL $ 3,934,000 

214
Appendix C: Projected Costs of Alternatives 

Alternative Four: Emphasis on Preservation and 

Restoration of Natural Resources

Area Description Net Cost

Rim Village Rehabilitate Superintendent's/Chief 

Ranger’s Residences $ 1,800,000 

 

Frontcountry Sites New trails 265,000 

 

Buildings Nonhistoric buildings removed, site 

restored 1,200,000 

 

Winter Snowcoach Mazama to Rim 500,000 

 

Office Relocation 176,000 

(out of park) 

 

TOTAL $3,941,000 

 

215
 216

LIFE CYCLE COSTS 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Century Engineering Corporation 

1994 “Park Water System Study, 

Crater Lake National Park.” 

Prepared for Denver Service 

Center, National Park Service. 

Duer, Doug 

2002 “A Most Sacred Place: The 

Significance of Crater Lake 

Among the Indians of Southern 

Oregon.” Oregon Historical 

Quarterly, Vol. 103, No. 1 

(Spring 2002), pp. 18-49. 

Harmon, Rick 

 2002 Crater Lake National Park: A 

History. Corvallis, Oregon: 

Oregon State University Press. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2001a Regional Economic 

Information System. Bearfacts 

1991 – 2001 Accessed May 12, 

2003. http://www.bea.doc. 

gov/bea/regional/reis/ 

2001b Regional Economic 

Information System 

Regional Accounts Data, Local 

Area Personal Income. CA05N 

Personal Income by Major 

Source and Earnings by 

Industry. Accessed May 9, 

2003. http://www.bea.doc. 

gov/bea/regional/reis/ 

2001c Regional Economic 

Information System. Regional 

Accounts Data, Local Area 

Personal Income. CA25N 

Total Full-Time and Part Time

Employment by Industry. 

Accessed May 9, 2003. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/re

gional/reis/ 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, 

Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics. Accessed May 9, 

2003. http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

Maines, Rachel P., and Garrel S. Pottinger 

1998 Historical and Scientific 

Resources on Crater Lake 

National Park. Prepared by 

Rachel P. Maines and 

Associates under contract for 

the National Park Service. 

Ithaca, New York. 

Mairs, J. K.R. Winthrop, and R.H. 

1994 Winthrop. Archaeological and 

Ethnological Studies of

Southwest Oregon and Crater 

Lake National Park: An

Overview and Assessment. 2 

vols. Prepared by Winthrop 

Associates Cultural Research 

under contract for the National 

Park Service. Ashland,Oregon. 

Mark, Stephen R. 

2001 “A National Park for Oregon: 

The Crater Lake Reservation, 

1886-1902.” Journal of the 

Shaw Historical Library, Vol. 

15 (2001), pp.35-55. 

2002a “A Study in the Appreciation of 

Nature: John C. Merriam and 

the Educational Purpose of 

Crater Lake National Park.” 

Oregon Historical Quarterly, 

Vol. 103, No. 1 (Spring 2002), 

pp. 98-123. 

 2002b Park Headquarters Historic

Walking Tour. Crater Lake: 

Crater Lake Natural History 

Association. 

217
APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS

2002c “The Sinnott Memorial.” 

Southern Oregon Heritage 

Today, Vol. 4, No. 5 (May

2002), pp. 4-5. 

Minor, Rick, and Robert R. Musil 

1989 Cultural Resource Survey of Rim 

Village and Related Areas, 

Crater Lake National Park, 

Oregon. Report 89. Prepared by 

Heritage Research Associates, 

Inc., under contract for the 

National Park Service. Eugene, 

Oregon. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior

1984 Historic Resource Study, Crater 

Lake National Park, Oregon, by 

Linda W. Greene, Denver

Service Center. 

1986a Architecture in the Parks

National Historic Landmark 

Theme Study, by Laura 

Soulliere Harrison. 

1986b “Memorandum of Agreement 

Among the National Park 

Service, State Historic

Preservation Officer, and 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation for the 

Rehabilitation of the Munson 

Valley Historic District, Crater 

Lake National Park.” 

1988a Administrative History, Crater 

Lake National Park, Oregon, by 

Harlan D. Unrau, Denver 

Service Center. 2 vols. 

 1988b National Register of Historic 

Places Inventory Nomination

Form, “Historic Resources of 

Crater Lake National Park,” 

1988 Amendment, by 

Stephanie Toothman, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 

1990a Administrative History, Crater 

Lake National Park, Oregon, 

Chapter Seventeen, “Planning 

and Development at Rim 

Village: 1886-Present,” by 

Stephen R. Mark, Crater Lake 

National Park. 

1990b The Rustic Landscape of Rim

Village, 1927-1941: Crater Lake 

National Park, Oregon, by 

Cathy A. Gilbert and Gretchen 

A. Luxenberg, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 

1990c Historic American Buildings 

Survey, Munson Valley’s 

Designed Landscapes, HABS No. 

OR-144, by Stephen R. Mark, 

Crater Lake National Park. 

 1991 Cultural Landscape 

Recommendation: Park 

Headquarters at Munson Valley, 

Crater Lake National Park, by 

Cathy Gilbert and Marsha 

Tolon. 

 1995a Collections Management Plan, 

Crater Lake National Park, by 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

 1995b Scope of Collection Statement,

Crater Lake National Park, by 

Crater Lake National Park. 

 1997a Draft Crater Lake Visitor

Services Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, Crater Lake 

National Park. Oregon. 

 1997b National Register of Historic 

Places Inventory Nomination

218
Bibliography 

Form, "Rim Village Historic 

District," by Stephen R. Mark, 

Crater Lake National Park. 

 1997c National Register of Historic 

Places Inventory Nomination

Form, "Munson Valley 

Historic District (Boundary 

Decrease)," by Stephen R. 

Mark, Crater Lake National 

Park. 

1998a “Programmatic Agreement 

Among National Park Service, 

Crater Lake National Park, 

State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation regarding 

Draft Visitor Services 

Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement, Crater Lake 

National Park, Oregon.” 

 

1998b Final Crater Lake Visitor

Services Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, Crater Lake 

National Park. Oregon. 

1999a Record of Decision: Crater 

Lake Visitor Services Plan / 

Environmental Impact 

Statement. Crater Lake 

National Park. Oregon. 

 1999b Crater Lake National Park, 

Resource Preservation and 

Research. Annual 

Accomplishments Report. 

 1999c Crater Lake Visitor Services 

Plan. Crater Lake National 

Park. Oregon. 

 1999d Winter Use Plan, Draft

Environmental Impact 

Statement, Volume I. 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks and John D. 

Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial 

Parkway. 

 1999e Yellowstone National Park. 

The effects of winter recreation 

on wildlife: a literature review 

and assessment 

2000a Collections Management Report, 

Crater Lake National Park, by 

Mary Benterou, Crater Lake 

National Park 

 2000b Crater Lake National Park, 

Natural Resource Preservation 

and Research, Annual 

Accomplishments Report. 

 2001a Crater Lake National Park, 

Resource Preservation and 

Research, Annual 

Accomplishments Report. 

 

 2001b Fire Management Plan. Crater 

Lake National Park. 

 2001c Management Policies. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Washington, D.C. 

2003a Administrative History, Crater 

Lake National Park, Oregon, 

Chapter Eighteen, “Research,” 

by Stephen R. Mark, Crater 

Lake National Park. 

2003b Historic American Engineering 

Record: Crater Lake National

Park Road System, HAER No. 

OR-107, Stephen R. Mark, 

Crater Lake National Park. 

Robert Peccia & Associates 

 2003 Technical Memorandum, 

Vehicle & Visitor Use Study, 

Crater Lake National Park, 

Oregon. 

219
APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS

Tiller, Veronica E. Velarde 

 1995 American Indian Reservations 

and Indian Trust Areas. 

Prepared for the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 

Economic Development 

Administration. Accessed May 

9, 2003. 

http://12.39.209/ImageCache/E

DA/Public/documents/pdfdocs

/35oregon_2epdf/v1/35oregon.

pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau. 

2000a Table DP-1. Profile of General 

Demographic Characteristics: 

2000. Accessed on May 9, 2003. 

http://censtats.census.gov/pub/

Profiles.shtml 

2000b Table DP-2. Profile of Selected 

Social Characteristics: 2000. 

Accessed on May 9, 2003.

http://censtats.census.gov/pub/

Profiles.shtml 

2000c Table DP-3. Profile of Selected 

Economic Characteristics: 

2000. Accessed on May 9, 2003. 

http://censtats.census.gov/pub/

Profiles.shtml 

2000d Table DP-4. Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics: 2000. 

Accessed on May 9, 2003.

http://censtats.census.gov/pub/

Profiles.shtml 

1990a DP-1. General Population and 

Housing Characteristics: 1990. 

Data Set: 1990 Summary Tape 

File 1 (STF-1) Accessed on May 

9, 2003. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/ser

vlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_

ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_

program=DEC&_lang=en 

1990b DP-2. Social Characteristics: 

1990. Data Set: 1990 Summary 

Tape File 3 (STF-3) Accessed 

on May 9, 2003. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/ser

vlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_

ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_

program=DEC&_lang=en

1990c DP-3. Labor Force Status and 

Employment Characteristics: 

1990. Data set: 1990 Summary 

Tape File 3 (STF- 3) Accessed

on May 9, 2003. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/ser

vlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_

ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_

program=DEC&_lang=en 

1990d DP-4. Income and Poverty 

Status in 1989:1990. 1990

Summary Tape File 3 (STF-3) 

Accessed on May 9, 2003.

http://factfinder.census.gov/ser

vlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_

ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_

program=DEC&_lang=en 

2001a County Estimates for People of 

All Ages in Poverty for Oregon: 

Census 1989. Accessed on 

 May 9, 2003. http://www.

census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/st

cty/acn_41.htm 

2001b County Estimates for People of 

All Ages in Poverty for Oregon: 

1993. Accessed on May 9, 2003. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/w

w w/saipe/stcty/a93_41.htm 

2001c County Estimates for People of 

All Ages in Poverty for Oregon: 

1995. Accessed on May 9, 2003. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/w

ww/saipe/stcty/a95_41.htm 

220
Bibliography 

2001d County Estimates for People 

of All Ages in Poverty for 

Oregon: 1997. Accessed on 

May 9, 2003. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/

www/saipe/stcty/a97_41.htm 

2001e County Estimates for People 

of All Ages in Poverty for 

Oregon: 1999. Accessed on 

May 9, 2003. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/

www/saipe/stcty/a99_41.htm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2003 Memorandum dated October 

16, 2003. Species list update. 

Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office. Klamath Falls,

Oregon. 

U.S. Forest Service 

1994 “The Scientific Basis for 

Conserving Forest Carnivores, 

American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, 

and Wolverine in the Western 

United States.” General 

Technical Report RM-254, Fort 

Collins, CO.

1998 “Forest Carnivore Conservation 

and Management in the Interior 

Columbia Basin: Issues and 

Environmental Correlates.” 

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-420, Portland, OR.

221
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Crater Lake National Park 

Charles V. Lundy, Superintendent 

Kent Taylor, Chief of Administration

Mac Brock, Supervisory General Biologist, Project Liaison 

Gordon Toso, Facilities Manager 

David Brennan, Supervisory Park Ranger 

Marsha McCabe, Supervisory Park Ranger 

 Steve Mark, Historian 

Mark Buktenica, Aquatic Ecologist 

Columbia Cascade Support Office

Keith Dunbar, Team Leader Planning and Partnerships, Project Liaison 

 

Denver Service Center 

Mark Matheny, Project Manager 

Elaine Rideout, Natural Resource Specialist 

Jane Sikoryak, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Sandy Schuster, Editor 

Phillip Thys, Visual Resource Specialist 

Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Terri Urbanowski, Team Captain, Landscape Architect and Planner 

Harper Ferry Center 

Keith Morgan, Interpretive Planner 

CONSULTANTS 

National Park Service 

Greg Cody, Technical Specialist for Cultural Resources 

Debbie Campbell, former Project Manager, Denver Service Center 

David Kreger, Technical Specialist for Natural Resources

Ray Todd, former Project Manager, Denver Service Center 

Other 

Robert L. Abelin, Project Engineer,. Robert Peccia & Associates 

Richard Lichtkoppler, Ph.D, Natural Resource Economist, U. S. Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Douglas Widmayer, Transportation Division Manager, Robert Peccia & Associates 

222
INDEX 

air quality, 13, 23, 68, 74, 93, 94, 116, 117, 134,

135, 152, 153, 169, 170, 184, 185

All-American Road, 4, 98 

archeological, 11, 23, 63, 68, 74, 81, 84-86, 102, 

112, 113, 124, 125, 142, 161, 177

backcountry, 27, 29, 43, 45, 52, 58, 72, 90, 98, 

100, 104, 148, 158, 170, 186, 187

boat tours, 7, 39, 99, 102, 103, 132, 135, 136,

138, 155, 170, 185

campground, 7, 85, 93, 99, 104, 149

Cleetwood Cove, 20, 51, 57, 72, 76, 97, 98, 100, 

135, 138, 139, 154, 157, 170, 171, 185, 186, 

community facilities, 51

Community House, 83, 88, 125, 127

Crater Lake Lodge, 7, 83, 88, 103, 139, 158,

174, 189

cultural resources, 68 

developed, iv, 7, 16, 19, 33, 34, 35, 37, 43, 44, 

45, 58, 63, 65, 70, 73, 81, 84, 93, 120, 122, 129,

130, 136, 137, 146-150, 154, 155, 164-166, 

170, 171, 174, 181, 183

East Rim Drive, 72, 97, 154-156, 171, 173, 214

ethnographic, 23, 63, 64, 68, 74, 82, 87, 112, 

113, 115, 127, 128, 144, 162, 163, 179

food services, 103 

frontcountry, 43, 45, 52, 72, 76, 98, 99, 137, 146, 

149, 153-156, 164-166, 167, 170-173, 186,

187 

Garfield Peak, 85, 87, 88, 98, 124

gas station, 7, 105 

geologic resources, 25 

gift sales, 7

Grayback Drive, 97, 135, 154, 155, 170-172, 

185, 186

historic structures, 15, 21, 39, 63, 68, 74, 76, 83, 

84, 102, 112, 113, 125, 126, 137, 138, 142, 

143, 156, 157, 161, 162, 172, 173, 177, 178,

187 

hotel accommodations, 7 

interpretive exhibits, 7, 102 

interpretive themes, 9

issues, 8, 18, 21, 23, 34, 71, 93, 99, 104, 195

Kiser Studio, 83, 88, 103, 125, 127 

Klamath Basin, 4, 19, 91, 94, 96, 197 

motel, 7, 103 

Munson Valley, 4, 7, 10, 20, 39, 45, 58, 83, 85, 

88, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 122, 124-

126, 135-138, 153, 155-157, 172, 173, 178, 

187, 188, 218, 219

museum collections, 23, 44, 57, 64, 68, 74, 112, 

113, 128, 129, 144, 145, 163, 164, 179, 180

national historic landmark, 4, 39, 83, 84, 125, 

126 

North Junction, 39, 43, 45, 51, 58, 67, 73, 100, 

103, 135, 153, 154, 170, 182, 185

Pacific Crest Trail, 27, 98, 104 

picnic area, 7, 37, 43, 127, 142, 143, 146, 148-

150, 164, 166 

Pinnacles Road, 97, 135 

promenade, 83, 137, 156, 172

public input, 9 

public meetings, 195 

pumice, 4, 25, 90, 92 

purpose, 7-9, 18, 21, 33, 34, 86, 123, 195

research, 10, 13-14, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33, 36, 40, 

43-45, 57, 58, 71-74, 85-87, 101, 116, 144,

145, 147, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160,

168, 179, 183 

research natural, 24, 25, 45, 58 

Rim Village, 4, 7, 10, 19, 20, 22, 39, 40, 43, 45, 

51, 58, 72, 73, 76, 83-85, 88, 93, 95-100, 102- 

104, 125-126, 135-139, 153, 154, 156, 157,

170-174, 178, 185-188, 213-215, 218, 219

rustic architecture, 4, 10, 83, 84, 87 

shower, 7 

shuttles, iv, 8, 44, 154, 171, 195 

significance, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 21, 33, 34, 37, 84, 85, 

87, 93, 103, 114, 195 

Sinnott Memorial, 4, 83, 88, 99, 103, 125, 127,

218 

snowcoach, 23, 39, 43, 58, 73, 76, 186-189, 191

snowmobiling, 51, 67, 129, 146, 164, 181, 182, 

190 

socioeconomic, 24, 77, 105, 111, 119, 120, 121,

140, 159, 175, 190

soundscapes, 13, 23, 75, 100, 118, 137, 155, 172,

173 

sustainable design, 66 

threatened and endangered species, 13, 17-18, 

68, 74, 116, 118, 131, 147, 148, 150, 165, 167, 

182 

Visitor Services Plan, 19, 33, 122, 125, 126, 132,

134, 151, 152, 213, 218, 219 

Watchman Peak, 88, 98 

water resources, 23, 68, 74, 81, 94, 116, 133,

134, 152, 168, 184

West Rim Drive, 97 

wilderness, 10, 14, 17, 29, 35, 38, 45, 58, 101

Wizard Island, 25, 85, 91, 98, 99, 103 

223
224
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of

our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The

department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also

has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories

under U.S. administration.

NPS D-344 / May 2004