Kenai Fjords National Park Exit Glacier Area Plan Environmental Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment May 2004 iîl/ rztsoy United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE K-cnai i-jords National Park P O Box 172? Seward, Alaska 9%64 L7617 (AKSO-RER) April 12, 2004 Dear Public Reviewer, Enclosed for your information and review is the environmental assessment (EA) for the Exit Glacier Area Plan in Kcnai Fjords National Park. The EA was completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40CFR 1508.9). The environmental assessment also is available for review at the following website: www.nps.gov/kefi/home.htm and click on Park Issues. Public comments on the environmental assessment will be accepted from May 3 to June 1, 2004. Written comments on the environmental assessment may be addressed to: Kenai Fjords National Park Attn: EG Plan P.O. Box 1727 Seward, Alaska 99664 Email: [email protected] Thank you for your interest in Kenai Fjords National Park. Anne Castellina Superintendent ) Exit Glacier Area Plan Environmental Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment Kenai Fjords National Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Seward, AK M ay 2004 Exit Glacier Area Plan SUMMARY The National Park Service (NPS) developed this Exit Glacier Area Plan/ Environmental Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment to provide guidance on the management of the Exit Glacier area of Kenai Fjords National Park over the next 20 years. The approved plan will provide a framework for proactive decision making on such issues as natural and cultural resources, visitor use, and park development, which will allow park managers to effectively address future problems and opportunities. The plan also will institute a carrying capacity framework to measure and monitor resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences and implement management actions to protect visitor satisfaction. The Exit Glacier Area Plan responds to the 1996 Frontcountry Development Concept Plan (DCP) which directed the park to complete a carrying capacity study prior to taking additional management actions at Exit Glacier. This plan fulfills that directive by identifying the overall desired resource conditions and visitor experiences for Exit Glacier. Increases in visitor use at Exit Glacier further support the need for a carrying capacity study. Alternatives The planning team developed four alternatives for managing visitor uses and resources in the Exit Glacier study area. Each alternative presents a different management approach for directing visitor use. The alternatives were based on the park’s purpose and significance, park mission, other legal mandates and policies, park issues, public views, and information on visitor use patterns and park resources. The no-action alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the changes and impacts of the three action alternatives. Under this alternative, park managers would continue to manage the park as it has in the past, relying on existing plans and policies. No new construction or major changes would occur, except for already approved developments. Existing park facilities would be operated and maintained as they have in the past. No visitor carrying capacity or other new visitor management initiatives would be implemented. The preferred alternative is the plan recommended by the National Park Service and is the environmentally preferred alternative. Under this alternative, park managers would make changes to proactively address impacts resulting from increased levels of visitor use. The Exit Glacier area would be zoned to ensure that resources were protected and that opportunities were provided for a range of visitor experiences. The focus of this alternative would be to enhance the opportunities to view Exit Glacier, which is the main attraction of the area, and to provide for additional non-motorized recreational opportunities. A visitor carrying capacity framework for the area would be established to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources and the visitor experience. The framework would Summary in Exit Glacier Area Plan be based on the management zones prescribed by the preferred alternative. Resource and visitor experience indicators and standards would be developed in a subsequent planning process to ensure that resources were protected and that opportunities were provided for visitor enjoyment. If conditions were determined to be deteriorating, appropriate management actions would be taken to ensure that resources and visitors’ opportunities for positive recreational experiences would not be degraded or lost. In summer, major actions would include constructing a bike path on the north side of the entrance road, constructing two new trails (the Paradise Valley Trail and the Unnamed Peak Trail), additional educational signs and exhibits, improvements to the Overlook Loop Trail, and the construction of a gathering pavilion. In winter, major actions would include closing the Visitor Facilities and Pedestrian zones to motorized vehicles other than on the road and parking lot (although motorized use would continue to be allowed in other zones), grooming the bike path and the trail to the glacier for non-motorized winter recreation, using a snow coach to bring school groups and other visitors to the Exit Glacier area, and providing ranger-led winter activities out of the Nature Center. Alternative A would focus on improving interpretation, education, and non-motorized recreation, but would rely more on increased staffing and program development than on physical development to do so. The goal of this concept is to transform Exit Glacier from a “photo-op” of the glacier to an education experience. Like the preferred alternative, park managers would apply management zones to proactively manage visitor use and would establish a carrying capacity framework. In summer, major actions would include providing curriculum based education programs for students, expanded ranger-led programs and teacher workshops, construction of a wetland viewing platform, educational signs and exhibits, and converting social trails along Exit Creek into an official trail. In winter, major actions would include reducing motorized vehicle use to the road and in the parking lot, offering additional overnight accommodations in the form of temporary structures such as yurts, providing ranger-led winter activities out of the Nature Center, marking or grooming trails for non-motorized winter recreation. Alternative B promotes increasing the infrastructure of the Exit Glacier area to accommodate a greater number of visitors and recreational activities year-round. Visitor demand and economic feasibility would determine if the major actions would be implemented. Like the preferred alternative, park managers would apply management zones to proactively manage visitor use and would establish a carrying capacity framework. In summer, major actions would include constructing a bike path on the north side of the entrance road, constructing four new trails (the Paradise Valley Trail, the Exit Creek Trail, the Forest Loop Trail, and the Goat Ridge Trail) and new trailhead parking, IV Exit Glacier Area Plan constructing an RV campground and expanding the existing tent campground, constructing a hostel-style lodge, and installing telephone and electric services. In winter, major actions would include bringing visitors to the area via snow coach, offering overnight accommodations at the hostel and in the form of temporary structures such as yurts, scheduling ranger-led activities at the Nature Center, designating the bike path and the Forest Loop Trail for non-motorized winter recreation, and allowing motorized vehicle use in designated areas including the road and parking lot, in the outwash plain to within 50 yards of the.glacier terminus, and in the Exit Creek Trail corridor and the Paradise Valley Trail corridor. Environmental Consequences Each alternative was evaluated to determine effects on natural resources, cultural resources, visitor experience, the socioeconomic environment, park operations, and safety. Both adverse and beneficial impacts were identified. A summary of impacts associated with each alternative is provided in Table 5. The most substantial impacts are summarized below. If a resource category is not discussed, it is because it would not result in major or moderate impacts. Relatively few moderate adverse impacts would be associated with the alternatives, and none would have major impacts. This is because the National Park Service is required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential project impacts to the greatest extent possible during the planning and implementation processes so that substantial adverse impacts do not occur to park resources and visitor experiences. Under the no-action alternative, minor adverse impacts on natural resources would occur in some sites throughout the Exit Glacier area due to human use. There would be moderate impacts on floodplain resources or function, as alterations to floodplains would continue in order to prevent damage to infrastructure. Moderate adverse impacts on air quality would.occur as snowmachine and woodstove use would continue, and increased vehicle emissions would be expected to increase correspondingly with visitation. Moderate impacts on vegetation would occur from continued off-trail foot traffic. Left unmanaged, growth in snowmachine use could likely