[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46561-46562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17588]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, 
Crater Lake National Park, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath Counties, 
Oregon; Notice of Availability

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National 
Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, has prepared a draft 
general management plan (GMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) 
for Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. The draft GMP identifies and 
analyzes four alternatives which respond to both NPS planning 
requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping 
process. The ``no-action'' alternative (Alternative 1) describes the 
existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a 
baseline for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The three 
``action'' alternatives variously address visitor use, natural and 
cultural resource management, and park development. Alternative 2, the 
preferred alternative, emphasizes increased opportunities in 
recreational diversity, resource preservation, research and resource 
education. Under Alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater 
range of natural and cultural resources through recreational 
opportunities and education. The focus of Alternative 4 would be on 
preservation and restoration of natural processes.
    Scoping: Public meetings and newsletters have been used to keep the 
public informed and involved in the conservation planning and 
environmental impact analysis process for the draft GMP. A mailing list 
was compiled that consisted of members of government agencies, 
nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local governments, and 
interested citizens.
    The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued January 2001 introduced 
the GMP planning process (a total of 72 written comments were received 
in response). Public meetings were held during April 2001 in Klamath 
Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem and were attended by 96 people. A 
second newsletter issued in July 2001 summarized all comments received 
in the meetings and in response to newsletter 1. These comments were 
used to complete the park purpose and significance statements that 
serve as the foundation for the rest of the GMP planning (and were 
referred to throughout development of the draft GMP).
    A third newsletter distributed in the spring of 2002 described the 
draft alternative concepts and management zoning proposed for managing 
the park (a total of 95 comments were received in response). In 
general, opinions were fairly divided in support of individual 
alternatives and potential ways to address issues. A number of letters 
favored continued snowmobile use, while other people favored 
elimination of snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were divided regarding 
ways to manage traffic congestion on Rim Drive--maintaining current 
two-way traffic, converting part of the road to one-way traffic, using 
shuttles, or closure of the road to traffic. Most respondents favored 
use of shuttles. A number of people who opposed partnering with private 
industry were concerned with the potential of large-scale 
commercialization within the park.
    Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative 1 is the ``no action'' 
alternative and represents continuation of the current management 
direction and approach at the park. It is a way of evaluating the 
proposed actions of the other three alternatives. Existing buildings 
and facilities in the park would remain; some historic structures would 
be adaptively used. Munson Valley would continue to serve as the center 
of NPS administration, maintenance, and housing. The existing road 
access and circulation system within the park would continue, and 
visitor recreational opportunities and interpretive programs in the 
park would continue.
    Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative and has also been 
determined to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. 
Management of the park would emphasize increased opportunities for 
recreational diversity and research and education. Most recreational 
opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would 
allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater 
Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be 
non-motorized and low impact. Research and educational opportunities 
would be enhanced. A

[[Page 46562]]

new science and learning center would form the core of the new 
research. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with 
universities, scientists, and educational groups. The information 
gathered would be disseminated throughout the park to rangers, 
interpretive staff, and visitors.
    Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment of the natural environment. This 
alternative would allow visitors to experience a greater range of 
natural and cultural resources significant and unique to the park 
through recreational opportunities and education. A wider range of 
visitor experiences would reach out to greater diversity of visitor 
groups. Recreational programs, which would focus on minimizing impact, 
would provide the focus for interpretation and education. Resources 
would be managed to permit recreation while protecting the resources. 
Opportunities for recreation would be viewed in a regional context, 
where the park could serve as a source of information for regional 
recreational opportunities. Use of most current facilities would 
continue. News trails, new interpretive signs and other media, and 
expanded tour programs would be possible in Alternative 3.
    In Alternative 4, park management would be focused on resource 
preservation and restoration. The park would be an active partner in a 
regional conservation strategy that would include other agencies and 
environmental groups. Most park operations and visitor contact 
facilities would be outside the park and shared with other agencies and 
communities. Areas that have been altered would be restored to their 
natural conditions. Cultural resources would be preserved at the 
highest level possible. The visitor experience would stress activities 
that have low environmental impacts on and are harmonious with the 
resources. More emphasis would be place on self-guided and discovery 
education, and interpretive programs would focus on stewardship. 
Vehicular transportation would be altered to reinforce the visitor 
experience. The Rim Road would be closed between Cleetwood Cove and 
Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park would change to allow natural 
processes to proceed with 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 park-based, would be 
retained in the park.
    Public Review and Comment: The draft EIS/GMP is now available for 
public review. Interested persons and organizations wishing to express 
any concerns or provide relevant information are encouraged to obtain 
the document from the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. 
Box 7, Highway 62, Crater Lake, Oregon , or via telephone at (541) 594-
3001. The document may also be reviewed at area libraries, or obtained 
electronically via the park's Web site at www.planning.nps.gov.
    Comments on the draft GMP/EIS must be postmarked (or transmitted by 
email) no later than 60 days after publication of EPA's notice of 
filing in the Federal Register (immediately upon confirming this date 
it will be announced on the park's Web site). Written comments may be 
submitted to: Terri Urbanowski, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, 
Denver, CO 80225-0287 or e-mailed to [email protected]. All comments 
will become part of the public record. If individuals submitting 
comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public 
disclosure, the request will be honored to the extent allowable by law. 
Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the 
comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold 
a respondent's identity as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will 
make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations 
or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations; and, anonymous comments 
may not be considered.
    Decision: Notice of the availability of the final EIS/GMP document 
will be published in the Federal Register and announced via local and 
regional press media. Subsequently, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be 
prepared and approved not sooner than 30 days after the final document 
is distributed (and notice of the approved ROD similarly published in 
the Federal Register). As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for 
the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National 
Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing 
the approved GMP is the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park.

    Dated: March 5, 2004.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the 
Federal Register on July 29, 2004.
[FR Doc. 04-17588 Filed 8-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P