[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32845-32846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


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

    SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec.  102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National 
Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a final general 
management plan (GMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for 
Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. The final EIS identifies and 
analyzes four GMP alternatives which respond to both NPS planning 
requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping 
process. The ``no-action'' alternative (Alternative 1) describes the 
existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a 
baseline for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The three 
``action'' alternatives variously address visitor use, natural and 
cultural resource management, and park development. Alternative 2, the 
preferred alternative, emphasizes increased opportunities in 
recreational diversity, resource preservation, research and resource 
education. Under Alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater 
range of natural and cultural resources through recreational 
opportunities and education. The focus of Alternative 4 would be on 
preservation and restoration of natural processes.
    Background: Public meetings and newsletters have been used to keep 
the public informed and involved in the conservation planning and 
environmental impact analysis process for the GMP. A mailing list was 
compiled that consisted of members of government agencies, 
nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local governments, and 
interested citizens. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued 
January 2001 introduced the GMP planning process (a total of 72 written 
comments were received in response). Public meetings were held during 
April 2001 in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem and were 
attended by 96 people. A second newsletter issued in July 2001 
summarized all comments received in the meetings and in response to 
newsletter 1. These comments were used to complete the park purpose and 
significance statements that serve as the foundation for the rest of 
the GMP planning (and were referred to throughout development of the 
GMP).
    A third newsletter distributed in the spring of 2002 described the 
draft alternative concepts and management zoning proposed for managing 
the park (a total of 95 comments were received in response). In 
general, opinions were fairly divided in support of individual 
alternatives and potential ways to address issues. A number of letters 
favored continued snowmobile use, while other people favored 
eliminating snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were also divided 
regarding ways to manage traffic congestion on Rim Drive--maintaining 
current two-way traffic, converting part of the road to one-way 
traffic, using shuttles, or closure of the road to traffic. Most 
respondents favored use of shuttles. A number of people who opposed 
partnering with private industry were concerned with potential for 
large-scale commercialization within the park.
    The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS and GMP was printed 
August 3, 2004. The public comment period was open until October 6, 
2004. A total of 646 comments were received. Forty-seven letters and e-
mails were sent in by individuals. Four agencies responded. Three 
different form letters accounted for the remaining 599 comments. The 
most common comment issues were snowmobiles (24 letters/e-mails and all 
3 form letters), road closure (15 letters/e-mails and 2 of 3 form 
letters), shuttles (7 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters), and 
snow coachers (4 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters). Comments and 
representative letters received on the Draft document have been 
incorporated into the Final EIS and GMP.
    Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative 1 is the ``no action'' 
alternative and represents continuation of the current management 
direction and approach at the park. It is a way of evaluating the 
proposed actions of the other three alternatives. Existing buildings 
and facilities in the park would remain; some historic structures would 
be adaptively used. Munson Valley would continue to serve as the center 
of NPS administration, maintenance, and housing. The existing road 
access and circulation system within the park would continue, and 
visitor recreational opportunities and interpretive programs in the 
park would continue.
    Alternative 2 is the ``agency preferred'' alternative and has also 
been determined to be the ``environmentally

[[Page 32846]]

preferred'' alternative. Management of the park would emphasize 
increased opportunities for recreational diversity and research and 
education. Most recreational opportunities would remain, but new 
opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly 
experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than 
driving. Any new uses around the rim would be non-motorized and low 
impact. Research and educational opportunities would be enhanced. A new 
science and learning center would form the core of the new research. 
The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, 
scientists, and educational groups. The information gathered would be 
disseminated throughout the park to rangers, interpretive staff, and 
visitors.
    Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment of the natural environment. This 
alternative would allow visitors to experience a greater range of 
natural and cultural resources significant and unique to the park 
through recreational opportunities and education. A wider range of 
visitor experiences would reach out to greater diversity of visitor 
groups. Recreational programs, which would focus on minimizing impact, 
would provide the focus for interpretation and education. Resources 
would be managed to permit recreation while protecting the resources. 
Opportunities for recreation would be viewed in a regional context, 
where the park could serve as a source of information for regional 
recreational opportunities. Use of most current facilities would 
continue. News trails, new interpretive signs and other media, and 
expanded tour programs would be possible in Alternative 3.
    In Alternative 4, park management would be focused on resource 
preservation and restoration. The park would be an active partner in a 
regional conservation strategy that would include other agencies and 
environmental groups. Most park operations and visitor contact 
facilities would be outside the park and shared with other agencies and 
communities. Areas that have been altered would be restored to their 
natural conditions. Cultural resources would be preserved at the 
highest level possible. The visitor experience would stress activities 
that have low environmental impacts on and are harmonious with the 
resources. More emphasis would be placed on self-guided and discovery 
education, and interpretive programs would focus on stewardship. 
Vehicular transportation would be altered to reinforce the visitor 
experience. The Rim Road would be closed between Cleetwood Cove and 
Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park would change to allow natural 
processes to proceed with fewer disturbances than current management 
practices allow. Winter plowing of the road to the rim would stop, 
except for spring opening. Snowmobiling along North Junction Road would 
no longer be allowed. Facilities that are not historic and not 
essential to park functions would be removed and the area 
rehabilitated. Functions that are, by necessity park-based, would be 
retained in the park.
    Public Review: The Final EIS/GMP is now available. Interested 
persons and organizations wishing to express any concerns or provide 
relevant information are encouraged to obtain the document from the 
Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Highway 62, 
Crater Lake, Oregon, or via telephone at (541) 594-3001. The document 
may also be viewed at area libraries, or obtained electronically via 
the park's Web site at http://www.planning.nps.gov. Please note that 
names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public 
record. If individuals commenting request that their name 
or[bs]and address be withheld from public disclosure, 
it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must 
be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may 
be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a 
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: The NPS will 
make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations 
or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, 
anonymous comments may not be considered.
    Decision: Following release of the Final EIS/GMP, a Record of 
Decision (ROD) will be prepared and approved not sooner than 30 days 
after the EPA has published its notice of filing of the document in the 
Federal Register. A notice of the approved ROD would be similarly 
published, as well as announced through local and regional press media. 
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the 
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; 
subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved GMP 
is the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park.

    Dated: April 4, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-11144 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P