mount rainier national park...mount rainier’s future is ready for release. with your assistance,...

Final General Management PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Departmentof the Interior

PARKSERVICE

NATIONAL Mount RainierNational Park • Washington

i

FinalGeneral Management Plan

Environmental Impact Statement

Mount RainierNational Park • Washington

iii

Tahoma Woods, Star RouteAshford, Washington 98304

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

IN REPLY REFER TO:

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

Dear Friends,

In 1916, the United States Congress spoke to the purpose of the National Park System. It was

“ to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild lifetherein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by suchmeans as will leave them unimpaired for future generations” (16 USC 1a1).

When that was written, Mount Rainier National Park had already been protected as a nationalpark for 17 years, and now, 102 years later, we are just as dedicated to this fundamental purpose.It is fair to say that in the past 100 years, Americans have cared deeply about Mount Rainier andhave helped the National Park Service live up to this mandate of 1916. Now, after nearly sixyears of numerous public meetings, letters, e-mails, and informal discussions, the planning ofMount Rainier’s future is ready for release. With your assistance, we have exhaustively analyzedand debated the variety of options, opinions, and alternatives for managing the resources andexperience at Mount Rainier in the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental ImpactStatement. Your insights and deep knowledge of the park and its special places have beenabsolutely essential in refining the Final General Management Plan. Your willingness to comeout to a public meeting, write letters, and speak out are all testimony to your interest andcommitment to the future of this park. The debate was always respectful, without rancor, andinspirational to the planning team.

The normal life of a general management plan is 20 years, and within that same time frame a newgeneration will move from birth to voting age. They inherit the responsibility for this amazingpark and will get the chance to comment on its future when the next general managementplanning cycle begins.

This Final General Management Plan has been modified on the basis of the comments received.Every comment was considered carefully, and its merits and opportunities discussed in detail. Wehave tried to accommodate the changes when we could, and when we could not, we have statedwhy. With your help, we will soon move to the implementation of the proposals in the finalmanagement plan. Funding of those proposals, as well as funding to maintain what we havetoday, is a continuing concern, but with the active support of the American people, I feel assuredthat the park resources and your enjoyment of Mount Rainier National Park will be “unimpairedfor future generations.”

Thank you again for you input and your participation.

Jonathan B. Jarvis, Superintendent

v

Final General Management PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Mount Rainier National ParkPierce and Lewis Counties, Washington

The National Park Service (NPS) developed this Final General Management Plan / EnvironmentalImpact Statement to provide guidance on the management of Mount Rainier National Park over thenext 20 years. The plan presents and analyzes three alternatives for the long-range preservation ofnatural and cultural resources and for the types and quality of visitor experiences that should beachieved and maintained within the 235,625-acre park. The plan establishes a framework formonitoring resource conditions and visitor experiences relative to defined, long-term goals.

The no-action alternative (alternative 1) would continue to apply the current management program. Itestablishes a basis for comparing the effects of the other alternatives. The preferred alternative(alternative 2) would provide a range of high-quality visitor opportunities and improved facilit ieswhile ensuring natural and cultural resource protection. Alternative 3 would offer a differentcombination of visitor opportunities than those offered in the preferred alternative. Resourcepreservation would remain a key management mandate.

This document evaluates the effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources, geologichazards, visitor experiences, and the socioeconomic environment. Compared to the no-actionalternative, the preferred alternative would result in substantial beneficial effects on visitorexperiences, especially the quality of wilderness experiences and reduced automobile congestion inpopular visitor-use areas. This would be achieved in part by establishing a carrying capacity andmonitoring program for long-term resource preservation. Many visitors in nonwilderness areas wouldperceive a benefit from reduced congestion and delays at popular destinations during peak-use periods.Some visitors accustomed to using private vehicles at their convenience during peak-use periodswould be adversely affected by limitations on overflow parking and the need to use shuttles. Changesin private vehicle parking facilit ies would only go into effect after a visitor shuttle system was in placeand ready to provide visitor service.

Compared to the no-action alternative, both the preferred alternative and alternative 3 would improvethe quality of many visitors’ experiences in the park, and better protect natural and cultural resourcesin popular wilderness and nonwilderness areas. Both alternatives would benefit visitors by offeringnew opportunities, and by reducing congestion and crowding at facilit ies. But both alternatives wouldalso restrict the choices of visitors to go when and where they want during the peak-use period, whichwould negatively affect some visitors. Both the preferred alternative and alternative 3 would result inpositive and negative effects on resources in localized areas, although alternative 3 would have arelatively higher potential for negative resource effects in localized areas such as the Westside Road.

For questions regarding this plan, contact Mr. Eric Walkinshaw, Chief of Planning, Mount RainierNational Park, Tahoma Woods, Star Route, Ashford, WA 98304-9751 (360-589-2211 ext. 2332) orMr. Larry Beal, Project Manager, Denver Service Center, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287(303-969-2545).

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

vi

HOW THIS DOCUMENT IS O RGANIZED

This document has five main chapters. The “Purpose and Need for the Action” chapter explains whythe plan is necessary and what the plan will accomplish. It provides background information aboutMount Rainier National Park and describes the park’s purposes, significance, and mission goals. Inaddition, the “Purpose and Need for the Action” briefly describes the planning process and identifiesthe major issues and concerns this plan focuses on. It also describes the policies, directions, andstrategies of the National Park Service that have guided, and continue to guide, the management ofMount Rainier National Park.

The “Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative” chapter presents three alternatives formanaging Mount Rainier National Park. It also describes mitigating measures that would be takenunder each alternative to reduce the intensity of impacts and other alternatives or actions that wereconsidered but not analyzed in detail. This chapter concludes with two tables that present a summaryof the alternatives and a summary of their impacts.

The third chapter is the “Affected Environment,” which describes selected natural, geologic, andcultural resources of the park and visitor experiences and uses. This chapter also describes thesocioeconomic conditions in the region surrounding Mount Rainier National Park. Information in thischapter provides the context for analyzing the impacts of the management alternatives.

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter describes the effects each alternative would have onkey park resources, visitor experiences and uses, and the socioeconomic environment in the region.

The fifth chapter, “Consultation and Coordination ,” describes the process the planning team used toinvolve the public and to consult with other agencies during the development of this plan. This chapteralso includes a summary of the major changes that were made to the draft document, contains copiesof letters received from governmental agencies, tribes, and organizations, summarizes oral and writtencomments on the draft plan, and provides responses to substantive comments on the draft plan.

The appendixes provide supporting information. This includes legislation related to Mount Rainier, adescription of other planning efforts in the vicinity of Mount Rainier National Park that could beaffected by this general management plan, detailed definitions of the management zones, examples ofpotential carrying capacity indicators and standards, an evaluation of how the proposed Carbon Riverboundary adjustment meets NPS criteria for boundary adjustments, information on consultation withother agencies, and a draft statement of floodplain findings. The personnel responsible for preparingthis document are also included here.

vii

SUMMARY

The National Park Service (NPS) developedthis Final General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement to provideguidance on the management of Mount RainierNational Park over the next 20 years. The planpresents and analyzes three alternatives toensure that the park’s natural and culturalresources would be preserved and to providefor a high-quality visitor experiences withinthe 235,625-acre park. The plan would estab-lish a basis for decision-making in accordancewith defined, long-term goals. It also wouldinstitute a carrying capacity framework thatwould measure and monitor resource condi-tions and visitor experiences and implementmanagement actions to protect their quality.

PURPOSE AND NEED FO R AGENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The approved general management plan wouldfulfill the following purposes:

• identify desired future conditions for parkresources and provide direction for naturaland cultural resource management,interpretation and education, visitorexperiences and services, and otherprograms

• establish a visitor carrying capacityframework for the park based on physicallimitations of facilit ies and on visitorexperience and resource indicators andstandards

• manage the park to protect and preserve itsnatural and cultural resources, processes,and values while recognizing theirincreasing importance in the region,nation, and world

• provide opportunities for visitors toexperience and understand the park

environment without impairing itsresources

• maintain wilderness values and provide forwilderness experiences

A new plan is needed to resolve issuesconfronting the park, based on the complexand sometimes conflicting desires of parkusers and other stakeholders. As its firstpriority, the National Park Service must ensurethat park resources are preserved and high-quality visitor experiences are provided.Within these mandates, this plan addressesmajor issues such as vehicle congestion;perceived overuse of wilderness; and changesin the park infrastructure, such as flooddamage that has resulted in closing WestsideRoad and periodic closing of Carbon RiverRoad.

PLANNING PROCESS

This plan represents the results of planningactivities, public involvement, and assessmentsof natural and cultural resource conditions andvisitor experiences. This process started inSeptember 1994 with the first public scopingactivities. The process revealed that any long-term park management program needs toaddress several prominent concerns:

• preserving wilderness values and uniquenatural features

• preserving the National Historic LandmarkDistrict, archeological resources, and otherimportant cultural resources

• preserving natural processes and resources,including plants, animals, air, water, andthreatened and endangered species

• protecting scenic resources and the naturalsoundscape

SUMMARY

viii

• providing opportunities for visitorenjoyment, including the available rangeand type of activities and experiences

• promoting healthy and safe conditions toprotect people from geological hazards,avalanches, pedestrian and vehicleconflicts, and poor air quality

• striving for an efficient level andmagnitude of operations

• having potentially beneficial effects onnearby communities

These concerns were expressed as 12 keyissues that included wilderness planningissues, nonwilderness planning issues, andplanning issues associated with activitiesoutside the boundary. The 12 issues guided theformation of a range of possible managementapproaches. Each approach was developed,evaluated, modified, and either retained ordiscarded from further consideration based onits ability to meet the simultaneous demands ofprotecting resources and meeting visitor’sdesires for a broad range of high-qualityrecreation experiences within the park.

In addition, existing park management zonesand prescriptions were evaluated to determinetheir effectiveness in meeting park purposesand mission goals and their ability toaccommodate future management. Theseevaluations suggested that some managementzones and zone prescriptions should bemodified, and appropriate changes wereincluded in the candidate approaches.

ALTERNATIVES

The planning process produced threealternatives for long-term park management:

• maintain current management approachesand strategies (alternative 1, the no-actionalternative)

• provide additional visitor opportunities andimproved facilit ies, while ensuring naturaland cultural resource protection(alternative 2, the preferred alternative ofthe National Park Service)

• provide a limited number of new anddifferent visitor opportunities beyondalternative 2, while ensuring natural andcultural resource protection (alternative 3,the additional visitor use alternative)

The three park management alternatives arebased on maintaining the park’s purposes andsignificance; meeting the NPS’ mission, legalmandates, and policies; addressing park issues,public views, visitor use patterns, and parkresource conditions; and the ability to beimplemented.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative (con-tinue current management), would continue tomanage the park as it has been in the past, rely-ing on existing plans and policies. No majornew construction or major changes wouldoccur, except for already approved plans orprograms such as repairing Carbon RiverRoad, moving some operational facilit ies outof Longmire, and constructing a new rangerstation and concession facility to replace Sun-rise Lodge. All other existing park facilit ieswould be operated and maintained as they havebeen. No visitor carrying capacity or other newvisitor management initiatives would beimplemented.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, is theplan recommended by the National ParkService and is the environmentally preferredalternative. This alternative would provide arange of high-quality visitor experiences andimprove stewardship of park resources. Theobjectives of this alternative would be to

Summary

ix

• reduce problems associated with vehiclecongestion and vehicle parking

• phase in an alternative visitortransportation system (shuttles) to replacesome private vehicle use

• increase the quality and range ofopportunities of visitor experiences byreducing congestion, improvinginfrastructure, and providing informationand interpretation facilit ies inside andoutside of the park

• preserve and restore natural and culturalresources by implementing a visitorcarrying capacity framework that wouldinclude resource monitoring and triggersfor management actions

• change some existing management zoneboundaries to more effectively achieve thelong-term goals established by thisalternative

• maintain current management programs,character, and objectives for all other parkaspects

A visitor carrying capacity framework for theentire park would be established to preserveand restore natural and cultural resources. Theframework would be based on the managementzones prescribed by the preferred alternative.Visitor and resource experience indicators andstandards would be established for each zoneto ensure that resources were protected andthat opportunities were provided for qualityvisitor experiences. Until indicators andstandards were established, the number ofparking spaces, buses, shuttles, and wildernesscampsites would determine how many peoplecould visit the various parts of the park. Ifconditions were determined to be deteriorating,appropriate management actions would betaken to ensure that resources and visitors’opportunities for high-quality experienceswould not be degraded or lost.

Additional opportunities would be provided forsummer and winter visitors uses. In summer,this would include several additional picnicsites, better information and interpretationfacilit ies, and a new campground near theCarbon River entrance. Enhanced winteropportunities would be associated withplowing Mowich Lake Road to the Paul Peaktrailhead where a new sno-park would bedesignated. Improvements also would be madeto the existing sno-park on State Route 410 atthe park boundary.

New information services would be providedboth within and outside the park. At Paradise,the Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Centerwould be replaced with a smaller, more effi-cient structure. Several multiagency welcomecenters would be established outside the parkto provide visitors with trip-planning infor-mation before they reached the park. Inaddition, measures such as changeablemessage signs, information booths at outdoorequipment stores, and daily updates on theInternet regarding the status of popular areas inthe park would be used to provide currentinformation on access to park activity areas.

To address parking and congestion problemsduring peak-use periods, alternative 2 wouldreduce the total number of parking spaces,relocate some parking areas, and alter trafficpatterns in some areas. Shuttles would bephased in to help reduce congestion, free upparking for day-use visitors at popular activityareas, and provide additional opportunities forvisitors to enjoy the park.

All overflow parking, including parking onroad shoulders and in spaces outsidedesignated parking areas, would be eliminated.Shuttle services would be established concur-rently with eliminating overflow parking. Toensure that an effective visitor transportationsystem would be available when limitations onprivate vehicle use went into effect, limits onparking would not occur until after a shuttlesystem was operational.

SUMMARY

x

A transportation implementation plan would beprepared to examine different options forimproving transportation in the park. This planwould focus on the operation of shuttles in thepark, including incentives to encourage visitorsto use the shuttles. The shuttles would bephased in over time and would serve differentlocations in the park, including the WestsideRoad, Mowich Lake, Sunrise, and CarbonRiver in the summer, and Longmire andParadise in the summer and winter. Afteroverflow parking was eliminated, shuttleswould be the only means of visitor access toSunrise when the parking lots were full.Shuttle service to Paradise would be estab-lished in cooperation with communities andregional authorities.

Two changes would be made at Paradise. On atrial basis, the flow of traffic would bereversed on the Paradise Valley Road in thesummer to determine if this improves thevisitor experience. The Paradise parking areaalso would be reconfigured to improveefficiency while ensuring compatibility withthe National Historic Landmark District.

To reduce sediment runoff into nearby waters,vehicles would not be allowed closer than 0.5mile to Mowich Lake. Parallel parking spacesfor vehicles would be provided along theroad’s shoulders.

Visitors could continue driving private motorvehicles on the Carbon River Road until amajor stretch of road washes out. After that,the road would be closed to private motorvehicles, but hikers and bikers could use theroadbed.

The National Park Service would pursue aboundary adjustment west of the Carbon Riverentrance. The inclusion of about 1,063 acres inthis area would provide for a new campground,picnic area, and support/administrativefacilit ies, and would protect the river corridor.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have many similarities tothe preferred alternative. These would includeestablishing a visitor carrying capacityframework, providing shuttles, coordinatingshuttle services with the elimination ofoverflow parking, improving interpretivefacilit ies, providing information to visitorsbefore they arrived at the park, implementing aboundary adjustment with new facilit ies nearthe Carbon River entrance, and establishingseveral multiagency welcome and informationcenters.

The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter would be rehabilitated to meetminimum code requirements and to improvethe visitor experience.

Some of the summertime differences fromalternative 2 would include adding parkingfacilit ies at Mowich Lake and Paradise. Theshuttle system configuration would be similarto that of the preferred alternative, except thatthere would be no shuttle service to MowichLake and along the Westside Road, and theshuttle service to White River and Sunrisewould be at a lower level than in the preferredalternative.

Westside Road would be opened to high-clearance private vehicles in the summer.

The last 0.75 mile of the road to Mowich Lakewould be surfaced to reduce erosion. Parallelparking spaces would be provided along theroad, and the camping area at Mowich Lakewould be reconfigured to use the space moreefficiently.

During the winter, State Route 410 would beplowed to the White River entrance and StateRoute 123 would be plowed to the Grove ofthe Patriarchs. The National Park Servicewould work with the state to establish sno-parks at both of these sites. In addition, wintervisitors would be able to drive high-clearance

Summary

xi

vehicles up Westside Road to Tahoma Vista orthe snow line.

ENVIRO NMENTAL CO NSEQ UENCES

Each alternative was evaluated to determine itseffects on natural resources, effects related togeologic hazards, and effects on culturalresources, visitor experience, and the socio-economic environment. Both adverse andbeneficial impacts were identified. A summaryof impacts associated with each alternative isprovided in table 8. The most substantial (thatis, the major and moderate) impacts are sum-marized below. If a resource category (such asnatural resources or socioeconomic environ-ment) is not discussed, it is because it wouldnot result in major or moderate impacts.

Relatively few major and moderate adverseimpacts would be associated with the alter-natives. This would occur because the NationalPark Service is required to avoid, minimize,and mitigate potential project impacts to thegreatest extent possible during the planningand implementation processes so thatsubstantial adverse impacts would not occur topark resources and visitor experiences.

Alternative 1

Natural Resources. Most changes to naturalresources would result from the expectedincrease in visitor use of the park over the lifeof the plan. However, no major, adverseimpacts would be anticipated. The alternativewould be unlikely to adversely affect specialstatus species or their habitats. Moderate, long-term adverse impacts on vegetation and soilswould continue in high use areas from suchactions as trampling, soil compaction, anderosion in high-use areas. Minor to moderateadverse impacts on floodplain values wouldcontinue in several sections of floodplains.

Geological Hazards. Major to negligible long-term adverse impacts would occur as increas-ing numbers of visitors were exposed to

hazards from volcanic events, rockfalls, andavalanches.

Cultural Resources. The alternative wouldhave no substantial or unmitigated adverseeffects on the park’s cultural resources.

Visitor Experience. During summer weekendsand holidays, major adverse impacts wouldoccur in the most popular areas (i.e., Paradise,Longmire, and Sunrise) because of trafficcongestion, lack of parking, and crowdedfacilit ies. In parts of the wilderness area,increased numbers of users could result inminor to moderate adverse effects, particularlynear developed areas and trailheads and alongpopular trails and climbing routes.

Alternative 2

Natural Resources. No major adverse impactswould be expected. The alternative would beunlikely to adversely affect special statusspecies or their habitats. Minor to moderatelong-term benefits to vegetation, soil, andwildlife would be expected from implementingthe carrying capacity framework and newmanagement zones. A minor to moderate long-term beneficial effect would result frompreservation of forest lands through theinclusion of about 1,063 acres of land alongthe Carbon River within the park boundary.

Geological Hazards. As with alternative 1,major to negligible long-term adverse impactswould occur, with increasing numbers ofvisitors exposed to geological hazards.

Cultural Resources. The alternative wouldhave no adverse effects on cultural resources.Long-term beneficial effects on the NationalHistoric Landmark District would resultbecause alternative 2 would limit intrusivedevelopment within the district and providecontinuity with the district’s historic archi-tectural character. Actions that wouldcontribute to the beneficial effects wouldinclude the elimination of overflow parkingand the redesign of the Paradise parking areaand traffic circulation.

SUMMARY

xii

Visitor Experience. The visitor experience inwilderness areas would have a moderate long-term beneficial effect because the alternativewould improve the maintenance of wildernessvalues and help ensure a quality wildernessexperience. In nonwilderness areas, therewould be a major to moderate long-termbeneficial effect from reduced vehicle andparking congestion and less crowding duringpeak-use periods. Improved interpretation andinformation services would provide a majorlong-term benefit to the quality of the visitorexperience. Adverse impacts on the visitorexperience would be largely mitigated byproviding shuttle services and advanceinformation programs to minimize delays andinconveniences. However, if the Carbon RiverRoad were closed due to a major washout,there would be a moderate to major adverseimpact on many visitors’ experiences.

Alternative 3

Natural Resources. Alternative 3 would havesimilar effects on natural resources asalternative 2, except that there would be minorto moderate adverse impacts from opening theWestside Road to private motor vehicles. Thisalternative also would likely have the potentialto adversely affect northern spotted owls thatmight occupy nest sites close to sections ofState Route 410 during spring snow-plowingperiods.

Geological Hazards. As with alternative 1,major to negligible long-term adverse impactswould occur, with increasing numbers ofvisitors exposed to geological hazards. Unlikethe other alternatives, there would be amoderate to major adverse impact due toopening State Route 410 to winter use andincreasing the exposure of people toavalanches.

Cultural Resources. This alternative wouldhave the same beneficial effects on culturalresources that would occur with alternative 2.

Visitor Experience. The effects on visitorexperience would not vary substantially fromthose described for alternative 2.

Impairment of Park Resources and Values

After analyzing the environmental impactsdescribed in the alternatives and public com-ments received, the National Park Service hasdetermined that none of the actions in thealternatives being considered would result inan impairment to Mount Rainier NationalPark’s resources and values.

xiii

CONTENTS

Purpose of and Need for the Action

Introduction 3Purpose of the Plan 3Need for the Plan 3Planning Background 4Brief Description of the Park and Its Regional Context 4Regional Context 7The Planning Process 8

Direction for the Plan 10The Planning Process 10Park Purposes 11Park Significance 11Park Mission 12Mission Goals for the Park 12

Resource Stewardship and Protection 12Access and Enjoyment 12Education and Interpretation 12Proactive Leadership 13Science and Research 13Professionalism 13

Guiding Management Principles and Strategies 13Ecosystem Management 14Relations with Private and Public Organizations, Owners of Adjacent Land, and Governmental Agencies 15Relationships with Native Americans 16

Protecting and Managing Natural Resources 18 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species 22

Carrying Capacity 23 Managing and Protecting Wilderness 23Managing and Protecting Cultural Resources 24Interpretation, Education, Information, and Orientation 26Commercial Services 26Transportation to and within the Park 27Snowmachine Use in the Park 27Levels and Types of Park Development 28Borrow Pit, Spoil, and Mining Site Management 28Sustainability 29 Implementation of the Approved Plan 29

Scope of this Document 32Wilderness Issues 32Issues Relating to the Nonwilderness Area 33External Boundary Issues 39

Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 41

Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Introduction 45Alternative 1: No Action 47

Current Park Zoning 47Zone Definitions 47

CONTENTS

xiv

Allocation of Zones 51Parkwide Actions 52

Resource and Visitor Management 52Interpretation, Education, Information, and Orientation 52Wilderness Management and Use 53Winter Use 53Trails System 53Geologic Hazards 53Air Quality 53Preserving Natural Soundscapes 54Management of Pack Stock 54Management of Tour Buses 54

Actions by Geographic Area — Summer 54Actions by Geographic Area — Winter 56Costs and Implementation 57

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 58Proposed Zoning 58

Zone Definitions 58Summary of Wilderness Management Zones 60Summary of Nonwilderness Management Zones 60

Parkwide Actions 60Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (Carrying Capacity) 60Interpretation, Education, Information, and Orientation 70Information Systems 73Transportation in the Park 74Elimination of Overflow Parking 75Wilderness Management and Use 76Geologic Hazards 76Management of Pack Stock 77Management of Tour Buses 77Protection of Air Quality 78Preservation of Natural Soundscapes 78Trail System 79Winter Use 79

Actions by Geographic Area — Summer 80Actions by Geographic Area — Winter 84Boundary Adjustment 85Costs and Implementation 86

Alternative 3: Additional Visitor Use Opportunities 91Proposed Zoning 91Parkwide Actions 91Actions by Geographic Area — Summer 92Actions by Geographic Area — Winter 93Boundary Adjustment 94Costs and Implementation 94

Mitigating Measures 96Natural Resources 96

Water Quality 96Soils and Vegetation 96Wildlife 97Special Status Species 97

Cultural Resources 99Geologic Hazards (Avalanches) 100

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 101

Contents

xv

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Not Evaluated Further 102Establish a Parkwide Employee Transportation System 102Institute an Employee Shuttle to Sunrise and the White River Campground 102Build New Parking Facilities in the Park 102Institute a Parkwide Voluntary Remote Parking and Shuttle System 102Require Remote Parking and Shuttles Parkwide 103Institute a Mandatory Trailhead Shuttle 103Initiate Horse Wagon Tours 103Initiate Snow Coach Tours 103Relocate the White River and Cougar Rock Campgrounds and the Longmire Facilities 103Eliminate or Expand the Paradise Snow Play Area 104Eliminate Snowboarding in the Park 104Set a Carrying Capacity for Winter Use and Set limits on Snow Camping at Paradise 104Reopen Westside Road to All Private Vehicles 104Completely Rehabilitate the Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center 104

Summary of Alternatives 106Affected Environment

Introduction 123Impact Topics 124

Relevant Impact Topics 124Natural Resources 124Geologic Hazards 125Cultural Resources 125Visitor Experience 126Socioeconomic Environment 126

Impact Topics Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 127Conformity with Local Land Use Plans 127Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 127Natural or Depletabl e Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 127Environmental Justice 128Special Status Species That Do Not Occur in the Park 128

Natural Resources 129Air Quality 129Water Resources and Water Quality 130Floodplains 132

Floodplain Processes 132Floodplain Management 133

Wetlands 136Soils and Vegetation 136

Soils 136Native Vegetation 137Exotic Plant Species 138Human Impacts 139

Wildlife 140Mammals 140Birds 144Amphibians and Reptiles 144Fish 145Invertebrates 146

Special Status Species 146Geologic Hazards 155

History 155Potential Hazards 155

Volcanic Eruptions 155

CONTENTS

xvi

Debris Flows 156Other Hazards 160

Cultural Resources 164Archeological Resources 164Ethnographic Resources 165Historic Resources 165

Mount Rainier National Historic Landmark District 166Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson Memorial Visitor Center 170

Visitor Experience 172Visitation 172Visitor Profile 173Visitor access 174

Access to the Park 174Access within the Park 174Travel Distribution Patterns 176Transportation Services 177Parking 177

Principal Visitor Opportunities 178Primary Visitor Destinations 179Primary Visitor Activities 181

Wilderness Values and Experiences 184Socioeconomic Environment 187

Regional Context 187Population 187Tourism Trends 187Landownership and Land Uses adjacent to the Park 188

Gateway Communities 191Elbe and Ashford 191Packwood 192Wilkeson and Carbonado 192Greenwater 192Enumclaw 192Eatonville 193

Regional Recreational Opportunities 193Concessions and Business Permits 194

Rainier Mountaineering, Inc. (contract expires October 31, 2001) 194Guest Services, Inc. (contract expires December 31, 2012) 194

Environmental Consequences

Introduction 197Methodologies 198

Definitions 198Impact Type 198Intensity 198Duration 198Direct Versus Indirect Impacts 198Cumulative Impacts 198

Natural Resources 199Air Quality 199Water Resources and Water Quality 199Floodplains 200Wetlands 200Soils and Vegetation 201Wildlife 201

Contents

xvii

Special Status Species 202Geologic Hazards 202

Volcanic Hazards 203Nonvolcanic Hazards 203

Cultural Resources 203Visitor Experience 204

Visitor Access 204Range and Enjoyment of Visitor Activities 204Convenience and Accessibility of Information 204Wilderness Values and Experience 205

Socioeconomic Environment 205Regional Context 205Regional Recreation Opportunities 205Gateway Communities 205Concessioners 205

Cumulative Impact Analysis 206Cumulative Impacts Geographic Area 206County/Community Plans and Activities 207Private Timber Lands 209Adjacent National Forests 209Bureau of Indian Affairs 211Mount Rainier National Park Actions 211

Alternative 1: No Action 212Impacts on Natural Resources 212

Air Quality 212Water Resources and Water Quality 213Floodplains 215Wetlands 216Soils and Vegetation 216Wildlife 218Special Status Species 220

Impacts Related to Geologic Hazards 223Impacts on Cultural Resources 224

Archeological Resources 224Ethnographic Resources 225Historic Resources, including the Mount Rainier National Historic Landmark District 227Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center 228

Impacts on the Visitor Experience 228Visitor Access 228Range and Enjoyment of Visitor Activities 231Convenience and Accessibility of Information 232Wilderness Values and Experience 233

Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 236Regional Context 236Gateway Communities 237Regional Recreational Opportunities 238Concessions 239

Impacts on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 239Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 239Irret rievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 239Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 239

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 241Impacts on Natural Resources 241

CONTENTS

xviii



Archeological Resources 253Ethnographic Resources 254Historic Resources, including the Mount Rainier National Historic Landmark District 254Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center 255

Impacts on the Visitor Experience 256Visitor Access 256Range and Enjoyment of Visitor Activities 259Convenience and Accessibility of Information 261Wilderness Values and Experience 262


Impacts on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 268Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 268Irret rievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 269Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 269

Alternative 3: Additional Visitor Use Opportunities 270Impacts on Natural Resources 270



Archeological Resources 281Ethnographic Resources 282Historic Resources, Including the Mount Rainier National Historic Landmark District 282Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center 283

Impacts on the Visitor Experience 283Visitor Access 284Range and Enjoyment of Visitor Activities 286Convenience and Accessibility of Information 288Wilderness Values and Experiences 289


Impacts on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 295

Contents

xix

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 295Irret rievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 296Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 296

Impairment of Park Resources and Values 297Consultation and Coordination

Summary of Public Involvement 301Newsletters and Workbooks 301Public and Agency Meetings 302Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 302Consultation with the Native American Tribes 302Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 303

Public Officials, Agencies, and Organizations to which Copies of the Final Plan Were Sent 304Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Plan, with Responses 307

Public Meetings 307Meetings with Tribes, Organizations, and Agencies 308Letters and E-Mail Comments 312Major Changes made in the Final Plan 316Responses to Summarized Comments 317Comments and Responses 322

Appendixes / Bibliography / Preparers / IndexAppendixes:

A: Mount Rainier Legislation 385B: Other Planning Efforts 397C: Descriptions of the Park Management Zones 403D: Examples of Potential Indicators and Standards for Mount Rainier National Park 410E: Analysis of Boundary Adjustment and Land Protection Criteria 415F: Letter of Consultation 417G: Draft Statement of Findings for the General

Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 422

Bibliography 426Preparers and Contributors 438Index 442

TABLES 1: Alternative Management Zone Definitions − Action Alternatives 59 2: Nonwilderness Management Zones for the Preferred Alternative 67 3: Summary of Shuttle Service by Alternative 75 4: Initial Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 90 5: Initial Cost Estimates for Alternative 3 95 6: Summary of Important Differences among the Alternatives 106 7: Summary of the Alternatives 107 8: Summary of Impacts 116 9: Preliminary Classification of Development Sites According to the Floodplain Management Guideline 13410: Special Status Species, including Federal and State-Listed Species 14811: Sites At Mount Rainier within Volcanic and Nonvolcanic Hazard Zones 15612: Mount Rainier National Park Visitation, 1989 through 1999 17213: Average Monthly Visitation 1998 and 1999 17314: Population for Mount Rainier Counties, 1980–1999 18715: Population Projections for Mount Rainier Counties, 1999–2020 18716: Written Public Preferences on Selected Issues and Topics 31317: Identification of Commenters 317

CONTENTS

xx

MAPS AND FIGURES

Vicinity 5Existing Conditions 49Preferred Alternative 61Summer Management Zones 63Winter Management Zones 65Carrying Capacity Framework 71Proposed Boundary Change 87Ecological Systems 141Volcanic Hazards 157National Historic Landmark District 167Adjacent Lands 189

Purpose of and Need for the Action

(blank)

3

INTRODUCTION

Mount Rainier National Park was recognizedas a significant area when the United StatesCongress established it as the nation’s fifthnational park in 1899. Subsequent congres-sional actions included the designation ofabout 97% of the park’s 235,625 acres aswilderness (1988) and the establishment of theMount Rainier National Historic LandmarkDistrict, a 1,700-acre area that encompassesmost of the park’s historic developed areas(1997). The park’s outstanding wildernessvalues, natural and cultural resources, andremarkable scenic characteristics were andcontinue to be its signature features.

PURPOSE O F THE PLAN

The approved general management plan wouldfulfill the following purposes:

• Identify desired future conditions for parkresources and provide direction for naturaland cultural resource management,interpretation and education, visitorservices, and other programs.

• Identify strategies for resolving issueswithin the context of regional, national,and global trends.

• Fulfill the requirements of the NationalParks and Recreation Act of 1978 (PL 95-625), which requires the National ParkService to prepare and revise generalmanagement plans in a timely manner foreach unit of the national park system.

NEED FO R TH E PLAN

A new general management plan is needed toaddress issues and concerns confronting the

park, to ensure that park resources arepreserved, and to provide opportunities for adiversity of quality visitor experiences in the21st century. The Mount Rainier National ParkMaster Plan (NPS 1974) was prepared morethan a quarter century ago, and did notanticipate several major issues, particularlycongestion at Paradise, Sunrise, and otherareas. Visitors have also been affected byrecent changes in the park infrastructure, suchas flood damage that has resulted in the closingof Westside Road and periodic closing ofCarbon River Road. An updated plan also isneeded to address other issues and concernsassociated with changes in land uses anddevelopments external to the park, increasedknowledge regarding geologic hazards, andincreased regional growth.

The changes in surrounding areas, togetherwith changes in the park and in managementapproaches being followed by the NationalPark Service (NPS), have affected parkresources and the diversity of experiencesoffered at Mount Rainier National Park. Thespecific issues and key decision points for thisdocument are described in more detail in the“Scope of this Document” section in this“Purpose of and Need for the Action.”

This Final General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement includesrevisions that were made in the preferredalternative and the other alternatives inresponse to public comments on the draftdocument. A minimum of 30 days after thisdocument is published, the National ParkService will select and approve the final planand publish a record of decision in the FederalRegister. The plan will then be implemented.

4

PLANNING BACKGROUND

BRIEF DESCRIPTIO N O F THE PARKAND ITS REGIO NAL CONTEXT

Mount Rainier National Park encompasses235,625 acres in west-central Washington, onthe western slope of the Cascade Range.Eighty-three percent (196,181 acres) of thepark lies within Pierce County, and 17%(39,444 acres) is in Lewis County. The park’snorthern boundary is approximately 65 milessoutheast of the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitanarea and 65 miles west of Yakima (seeVicinity map). The elevations of the parkextend from about 1,700 feet above sea level to14,411 feet at the summit of Mount Rainier.

The focal point of the park is a towering,snow- and ice-covered volcano, which is aprominent landmark in the Pacific Northwest.The base of the volcano spreads over an areaof about 100 square miles. The 26 majorglaciers on the mountain cover 35 squaremiles, constituting the largest single-mountainglacial system in the contiguous 48 states.Mount Rainier is also the second mostseismically active, and the most hazardousvolcano in the Cascade Range.

The park’s rugged, precipitous topographyconsists mainly of peaks and valleys. Theflanks of the mountain are drained by fivemajor rivers and their tributaries. Each majorriver occupies a deep canyon with floors thatare 1,000 to 3,000 feet below the adjacentdivides. Valley floor gradients are steep andincrease markedly upstream, especially inTahoma Creek, North and South PuyallupRivers, and Mowich River. The mountain’ssummit towers 9,000 to 11,000 feet abovevalley floors only 3 to 6 miles away. Besidesthe glaciers, other water resources in the parkinclude 470 mapped rivers and streams, 382mapped lakes and ponds, more than 2,500acres of wetland, numerous waterfalls, andmineral springs.

The park has three major ecological zones:

• Generally above treeline (about 6,000 feetin elevation) is the upper mountain oralpine zone, consisting of snow, ice, rock,and fragile alpine vegetation. This zonecovers approximately 19% of the park.

• From about 5,000 feet elevation to treelineis the subalpine zone, which ischaracterized by scattered stands ofsubalpine fir and meadows with grass andheather. This zone, which coversapproximately 23% of the park, is theportion of the wilderness most frequentedby visitors.

• From the park boundaries to the subalpinemeadows is the forest zone, which occu-pies approximately 58% of the park. Theforest zone, which is dominated by west-ern hemlock, silver fir, Douglas-fir, andwestern red cedar, includes most of thedeveloped facilit ies.

The park’s vegetation is diverse, reflecting thevaried climatic and environmental conditionsencountered across the park’s 12,700-footelevation gradient. Approximately 890vascular plant species and more than 250 non-vascular plant species have been identified inthe park. Mount Rainier also provides habitatfor many wildlife species, includingapproximately 300 species of native birds,mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.

In addition to its natural wonders, the nationalpark has a long history of human activities.The area was used by Native Americans forhunting and gathering, as well as for spiritualand ceremonial purposes. In the early 20thcentury miners, climbers, and tourists, amongothers, came into the area. The establishmentof the park, and subsequent planning anddevelopment for visitor use and landscape

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

6

back of map

Planning Background

7

protection, constitutes an important chapter inthe development of the American park idea. Asa result , Mount Rainier National Park has richand diverse cultural resources, including pre-historic and historic archeological resources,historic structures, and cultural landscapes.

Congress recognized the special nature ofMount Rainier when it established the area as anational park on March 2, 1899. It was the na-tion’s fifth national park. In 1963, the approxi-mately 210-acre outlying Tahoma Woods areawas set aside for park and visitor supportfacilit ies. Congress also recognized the wilder-ness values of the park, and in 1988 designatedabout 97% of the park as the Mount RainierWilderness.

Most developed areas in the park are ofnational significance and are included in thecomprehensive Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District, which wasdesignated in 1997. The National HistoricLandmark District sets Mount Rainier NationalPark apart as the best and most completeexample of the conception and idea of theAmerican national park as it was embodiedand implemented through the master planningof the early 20th century.

Mount Rainier National Park’s scenic land-scapes — including the dense lower forests,the magnificent display of subalpine wild-flowers, and the mountain itself — haveattracted people for generations. The mountainis a destination for snow and ice climbersthroughout the world. About 2 million peoplevisit the park annually, with most visitation(75%) occurring between June and September.

REGIO NAL CONTEXT

Mount Rainier National Park is approximately65 miles from the rapidly growing Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area.

As shown in the Park Vicinity and AdjacentLand Ownership map, most of Mount RainierNational Park is bordered by the followingnational forest lands:

• Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forestto the southwest, northwest, and northeast

• Wenatchee National Forest to the east andsoutheast

• Gifford Pinchot National Forest to thesouth

Portions of the Mount Baker-SnoqualmieNational Forest bordering the park areadministered by the Wenatchee and GiffordPinchot National Forests.

The following four national forest wildernessareas share common boundaries with MountRainier:

• Clearwater Wilderness (14,598 acres)

• William O. Douglas Wilderness (166,603acres)

• Tatoosh Wilderness (15,700 acres)

• Glacier View Wilderness (3,080 acres)

These congressionally designated wildernessareas, which are also called “CongressionallyReserved Areas” under the Northwest ForestPlan (USFS and BLM 1994b) are managed bysurrounding national forest districts under theWilderness Act of 1964.

Outside of the wilderness areas, the nationalforests provide both developed and dispersedrecreational facilit ies. Developed facilit iesinclude campgrounds and day-use picnic areas.Mountain bikes and off-road vehicles arepermitted along designated road and trailcorridors. No new trails, campgrounds, orother recreational facilit ies are currently beingproposed for any of the forests surrounding thepark, with the exception of Crystal Mountainski resort. The nationally known Pacific Crest


8

Trail, which extends from California toCanada, passes in and out of the park’s easternwilderness boundary and the contiguousnational forest’s western wilderness boundaryalong the crest of the Cascades.

The designation of spotted owl habitat onforest lands surrounding Mount RainierNational Park, along with increased regionalrecreation demands, have greatly reducedtimber harvesting activities in large areas ofthe national forests. However, logging con-tinues to occur around the park, up to itsboundary in places. Most of the borderingnonwilderness forest lands are classified by theU.S. Forest Service as “ late successionalreserves,” which are being managed over thelong term to protect and enhance late-successional and old-growth forest character-istics, including habitat for the northern spottedowl. Although thinning and silvicultural treat-ments are allowed in these national forestreserves, they may occur only in stands up to80 years of age and only if the treatments aredetermined to be beneficial to the creation andmaintenance of late-successional forestconditions.

“Matrix lands,” as defined by the NorthwestForest Plan (USFS and BLM 1994b), arenational forest areas where most t imber harvestand other silvicultural activities are conducted.The matrix lands do not include forested andnonforested areas that may be technicallyunsuited for timber production. Matrix landsare scattered along or near the southwest,northwest, and northeast corners of the park,and are adjacent to the Mather MemorialParkway.

Private lands are located along the park’swestern boundary in Pierce County. RainierT imber Company, LLC, owns about 120,000acres of land near the western park boundary.Plum Creek owns three sections of productivetimberland near the northern and westernboundaries of the park.

TH E PLANNING PROCESS

General management planning for MountRainier National Park is guided by the majorelements of park planning and decision-making prescribed by the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federallaws, as well as by NPS policies. Severalscoping meetings were held in surroundingcommunities in 1994 to identify the public’sconcerns about major issues facing the park.At about the same time, the planning teamdeveloped statements regarding the park’spurposes and significance. These statementshave served as the parameters for allsubsequent planning.

Once the issues were understood, the planningteam defined prescriptive management zonesand a list of goals statements that describewhat the park should look like in 20 years. Thezones were applied in different summer andwinter configurations for the wilderness (back-country) and nonwilderness (frontcountry)portions of the park. The team assessed andpresented the general consequences for eachconfiguration to the public for review, andused the public input to establish the new goalsfor the park.

After goals and potential management zoneshad been identified, several draft managementalternatives were developed for the park.Because use of the park varies by season, thesealternatives were divided into summer andwinter actions. Initially, four alternatives weredeveloped by the planning team, including ano action (continue current management)alternative, as required by NEPA. Thepreliminary alternatives were presented duringpublic meetings in September 1997.

After the initial four alternatives had beendefined, a preferred alternative was developed.This involved evaluating the four preliminaryalternatives using an objective analysis processcalled “choosing by advantages.” This processevaluated the preliminary action alternatives

Planning Background

9

by identifying and comparing the relativeadvantages of each according to a set of goalsand facts. The planning team compared thebenefits or advantages of each alternative foreach of the following areas:

• preserving wilderness values andconditions

• preserving the national historic landmarkdistrict, archeological resources, and otherimportant cultural resources

• preserving natural processes and resources,including plants, animals, air, water, andthreatened or endangered species

• protecting scenic resources and naturalsoundscapes

• providing opportunities for visitorenjoyment, including offering a range intypes of activities and experiences, theability of the park to accommodatedemand for these opportunities, and theconvenience, type, and location ofinformation, orientation, and interpretation

• promoting healthy conditions to keeppeople safe from geologic hazards,avalanches, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts,and concentrated campfire smoke andvehicle exhaust

• providing an efficient level and magnitudeof operations

• having potentially beneficial effects onnearby communities

This comparison helped the planning teamdetermine the actions that would present thegreatest advantages to the resources and thepublic.

The costs of implementing each proposal werealso considered. These included both the costsrelated to any new development and the cost ofoperating and maintaining the facilit ies for 25years.

The relationships between the advantages andcosts of each alternative were established. Thisinformation was used to combine the “best”attributes of the four initial alternatives into thepreferred alternative. This alternative providesthe National Park Service with the greatestoverall benefits for each point listed above, forthe most reasonable costs.

Based on further analysis, two of the initialalternatives were dropped because there werevery few differences in the managementdirections and zoning strategies compared tothe other alternatives. Further adjustmentswere made to the alternatives after park staffreviews.

The three alternatives presented in thisdocument present different options formanaging Mount Rainier National Park:

• a no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement), as required by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA)

• the preferred alternative

• an alternative that would provide moreopportunities for visitors to use the park indifferent ways than in the preferredalternative

This Final General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement includesrevisions that were made in the preferredalternative and the other alternatives inresponse to public comments on the draftdocument. A minimum of 30 days after thisfinal environmental impact statement ispublished, the National Park Service willprepare a record of decision in which the finalplan will be approved. After the regionaldirector signs the record of decision and it ispublished in the Federal Register, the parkstaff will begin implementing the generalmanagement plan.

10

DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN

The direction for the alternatives considered inthis Final General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement is based onthe description of the park’s purpose andsignificance, as well as other applicablepolicies and laws. The purpose of the park, asstated below, describes why Mount Rainierwas set aside as a national park. The signifi-cance section describes the unique qualitiesthat make the park a special place. Otherlegislative mandates help to further defineparameters of how planning should be doneand certain elements that the management planmust address.

PARK PURPOSES

The purposes of Mount Rainier National Parkare stated in the legislation establishing the

park and the legislation governing the NationalPark Service (see the box below and appendixA). Mount Rainier National Park is to bemanaged

• to protect and preserve its natural andcultural resources, processes, and values,while recognizing their increasingimportance in the region, the nation, andthe world

• to provide opportunities for visitors toexperience and understand the parkenvironment without impairing itsresources to maintain wilderness values

• to provide for wilderness experiences

Mount Rainier National Park Enabling Legislation and the NPS Organic Act

Congress established Mount Rainier National Park on March 2, 1899. The legislation states that the park isset apart as a public park for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. The park was placed under theexclusive control of the secretary of the interior, who was given authority to

“make and publish . . . rules and regulations . . . [to] provide for the preservation from injury orspoliation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders . . . and their retention in theirnatural condition”

“ grant parcels of ground [for] the erection of buildings for the accommodation of visitors”

“provide against the wanton destruction of the fish and game found within the park”

Mount Rainier National Park is also administered under the provisions of the National Park Service’sOrganic Act of 1916, which specifi es that units of the national park system are managed “ to conserve thescenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein” and “ to provide for the enjoyment ofthe same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of futuregenerations” (16 USC 1). The Redwoods Act of 1978 amended the Organic Act to state that themanagement of national park units shall not “be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes forwhich these areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specificallyprovided by Congress.”

Direction for the Plan

11

PARK SIGNIFICANCE

Mount Rainier’s significance and uniquecharacteristics are described below:

• At a height of 14,411 feet, Mount Rainier isthe highest volcanic peak in the contiguousUnited States. It reaches into the upperatmosphere to disturb great t ides of eastwardmoving Pacific maritime air, resulting inspectacular cloud formations, prodigiousamounts of rain, and record-settingsnowfalls.

• As a part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, MountRainier is an outstanding example ofCascade volcanism.

• Mount Rainier has the largest alpine glacialsystem in the contiguous United States.

• Mount Rainier’s eruptions and mudflowscontinue to shape the park and are a con-tinual threat to park visitors, employees, andsurrounding lowland communities.

• Because of its great elevation range andextensive glacial systems, Mount Rainieroffers outstanding opportunities to studyhow biological communities respond toclimatic change

• The park contains outstanding examples ofdiverse vegetation communities, rangingfrom old-growth forest to subalpinemeadows and ancient alpine heather.

• The park is a vital remnant of the oncewidespread primeval Cascade ecosystemand provides habitat for many speciesrepresentative of the region’s flora andfauna.

• As urban development expands, the parkcontinues to be a large island of protectedopen space where ecosystem processesdominate.

• The park’s comprehensive national historiclandmark district — a cultural landscapedistrict including buildings, roads, Wonder-land and Northern Loop trails, and otherlandscape structures — is the mostsignificant and complete example of NPSmaster planning and park development inthe first half of the 20th century.

• The developed areas of Mount Rainiercontain some of the nation’s best examplesof “NPS Rustic” style architecture of the1920s and 1930s.

• Called by some Native American groups“the place where rivers begin,” MountRainier’s watersheds nourish plant andanimal communities in the park, extend tothe valleys below, and remain an importantsource of water for the Puget Sound region.

• Mount Rainier, visible throughout theregion, is a continuing source of inspirationto people. This quality contributed to theestablishment of the national park in 1899.The mountain is a prominent icon thatcontinues to shape the physical environmentand human experience in the PacificNorthwest.

• For many generations, Pacific NorthwestNative American tribes have been inspiredby Mount Rainier’s grandeur and massiveprominence in the Cascades region. At leastfive contemporary, descendant tribes — theNisqually, Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Yakama,and Cowlitz — are associated withtraditional uses of Mount Rainier. Thesepeoples are modern representatives of broadregional ancestry that lived in and usedlowland and mountain terrain in the vicinityof Mount Rainier. The resources of the parkare important to the contemporary NativeAmerican tribes, providing spiritual andcultural sustenance.


12

• The park offers recreational and educationalopportunities in a wide range of scenicsettings, including wildflower meadows,glaciers, and rainforests, all in a relativelycompact area that is easily accessible to alarge urban population.

• Mount Rainier’s terrain and weatherconditions offer world-class climbingopportunities that have tested the skills ofclimbers for more than a century.

PARK MISSIO N

The National Park Service has developed thefollowing mission statement for Mount RainierNational Park:

Together we preserve, for future genera-tions, the natural and cultural resources inMount Rainier National Park.

Through a variety of high quality parkexperiences, we promote park values,personal connections, and responsibility forthe environment in our local and globalcommunities.

With integrity, teamwork, pride, andmotivation, we demonstrate environmentalleadership and deepen our understanding ofthe park’s ecosystems. We value our diverserange of individual contributions byshowing respect and concern for each otherand the park.

The Mountain inspires stewardship. Itsprotection and preservation is our legacy.

MISSIO N GOALS FO R THE PARK

Mission goals for the park are statements ofdesired future conditions. Goals have beendeveloped for resource stewardship andprotection, access and enjoyment, education andinterpretation, proactive leadership, science andresearch, and professionalism.

Resource Stewardship and Protection

The primary responsibility of the National ParkService is the protection of park resources frominternal and external impairment.

Goal 1: The natural and cultural resources andassociated values of Mount Rainier NationalPark are protected, restored, and maintained ingood condition and managed within theirbroader ecosystem and cultural context.

Goal 2: Mount Rainier National Parkcontributes to knowledge about natural andcultural resources and associated values;management decisions are based on adequatescholarly and scientific information.

Access and Enjoyment

The park will be managed to provide thenation’s diverse public with access to andrecreational and educational enjoyment of thelessons contained in Mount Rainier NationalPark, while maintaining unimpaired thoseunique attributes that are its contribution to thenational park system.

Goal 1: Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfiedwith the availability, accessibility, diversity, andquality of park facilit ies, services, andappropriate recreational opportunities at MountRainier National Park.

Goal 2: Gateway communities are encouragedto provide services and facilit ies that assistvisitors in enjoying and understanding parkvalues and that minimize impacts on parkresources.

Education and Interpretation

It is the responsibility of the National ParkService to interpret and convey the contributionsof each park unit and the park system as a wholeto the nation’s values, character, and experience.


13

Goal 1: Stimulate visitor appreciation of parkresources; respect for values; understanding ofmanagement policies; and safe, acceptablerecreation through onsite interpretive services.

Goal 2: Impart an understanding and appreci-ation of the National Park Service values,management policies, diversity of park systemresources, and environmental stewardship to allsegments of the population through educationoutreach.

Proactive Leadership

The National Park Service must be a leader inlocal, national, and international park affairs,actively pursuing the National Park Servicemission and assisting others in managing theirpark resources and values.

Goal 1: Promote and foster partnerships withindividuals and groups who affect or are affectedby the park.

Goal 2: Build public support for parkmanagement policies and environmentalstewardship through leading by example.

Goal 3: Demonstrate the park’s commitment toenvironmental stewardship by offering andsharing expertise and capabilit ies of park staff toexternal organizations and communities.

Science and Research

The National Park Service must engage in asustained and integrated program of natural,cultural, and social science resource manage-ment and research aimed at acquiring and usingthe information needed to manage and protectpark resources.

Goal 1: Establish and maintain inventory andlong-term monitoring programs for measuringthe status and health of the park’s natural,cultural, and social resources.

Goal 2: Establish a proactive research programresponsive to park management needs andproviding sound scientific information thataffords greater insight into natural resourcecomponents, systems, and processes.

Professionalism

The National Park Service must create andmaintain a highly professional organization anddiverse workforce.

Goal 1: Define, create, and maintain anorganization that will enhance efficiency,effectiveness, and accountability.

Goal 2: Create and maintain a diverse anddynamic motivated work force that meets thehighest standards of professionalism and isdedicated to the mission of the National ParkService.

GUIDING MANAGEMENTPRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES

Federal laws and park policies affect the man-agement of Mount Rainier National Park.Federal mandates such as the EndangeredSpecies Act, the Wilderness Act, the NationalHistoric Preservation Act, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, and Executive Orders11988 (“Floodplain Management”) and 11990(“Protection of Wetlands”), affect what can andcannot be done at Mount Rainier National Park.Many NPS policies and goals, identified in NPSManagement Policies (NPS 2001a), and the“Strategic Plan” (NPS 2000b), also determinemany of the actions taken by the park staff innatural and cultural resources management, useof the wilderness area, development of parkfacilit ies, and visitor use management. Theselaws and policies would continue to guidemanagement under all of the alternativesdescribed in this document.

Listed below are a number of guiding principlesand strategies, based on mandates and NPSpolicies, which would continue to shape the way


14

in which Mount Rainier is managed under thealternatives being considered in this plan. All ofthe alternatives support the purposes andsignificance of Mount Rainier National Park.Some of these principles and strategies describeapproaches the park staff is currently taking.Other principles and strategies are not currentlybeing implemented but are consistent with NPSpolicy, are not controversial, and theirimplementation would require no additionalanalysis under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act.

Ecosystem Management

Ecosystem management is a collaborative approachto natural and cultural resource management thatintegrates scienti fic knowledge of ecologicalrelationships with resource stewardship practicesfor the goal of sustainable ecological, cultural, andsocioeconomic systems.

Approaches to ecosystem management arevaried and occur at many levels. Achieving thedesired future conditions stated in this plan forpark resources requires that a regional perspec-tive be considered, recognizing that actionstaken on lands surrounding the park directly andindirectly affect the park. Many of the threats topark resources, such as invasive species and airpollution, come from outside of the parkboundaries, requiring an ecosystem approach tounderstand and manage the park’s naturalresources.

Imperative in this effort is understanding thehealth or condition of the ecosystem. Keyindicators of resource or system conditions mustbe identified and monitored (see below).

Cooperation, coordination, negotiation, andpartnerships with agencies and neighbors arealso crucial to meeting or maintaining desiredfuture conditions for the park while recognizingthe need to accommodate multiple uses on aregional scale. This approach to ecosystemmanagement may involve many parties (e.g., theNational Park Service’s involvement with the

Northwest Forest Plan and the collaborativedecision-making process involving regional airquality negotiations) or cooperativearrangements with state agencies or tribes toobtain a better understanding of transboundaryissues (e.g., elk and northern spotted owlpopulation dynamics).

Mount Rainier is managed holistically as part ofa greater ecological, social, economic, andcultural system. The following strategies willallow the National Park Service to provideleadership in resource stewardship and con-servation of ecosystem values within and outsidethe park. These strategies will allow for goodrelations to be maintained with adjacentlandowners, surrounding communities, andprivate and public groups that affect, and areaffected by, the park. The strategies will alsoallow the park to be managed proactively toresolve external issues and concerns to ensurepark values are not compromised.

• The National Park Service will continue toseek cooperative agreements with the U.S.Forest Service and other adjacent landmanagement agencies to protect ecosystemhabitat and wildlife corridors.

• The park staff will continue to developcooperative agreements, partnerships, andother feasible arrangements to set anexample in resource conservation andinnovation, and to facilitate research relatedto park resources and their management.

• Communication protocols will be developedwith regional recreation land managers,tribes, transportation providers, tourismboards, and other applicable organizations tolet them know when high use levels areoccurring at the park. These protocols willhelp alert visitors to conditions at the park,and what other options are available, beforethey arrive, and alert the aboveorganizations that they may be affected aswell.


15

• When feasible, partnerships will be soughtwith other public agencies in sharing officespace, orientation and contact stations, andemployee housing.

• The park staff will work collaboratively withthe landowners along the road corridorsleading to the park, including the U.S. ForestService, Native American tribes, Washing-ton State Departments of Natural Resourcesand Transportation, municipalities andcommunities, counties, t imber companies,and other businesses, to protect the view-shed leading into the park. A variety oftechniques could be used to protect thevisual, natural, and cultural resources alongthe roads, including cooperative agreements,conservation easements, donations, and landexchanges. Cooperatively produced manage-ment plans may be produced, which exam-ine the future of the corridors and set guide-lines for future uses and development.

Relations with Private and PublicOrganizations, O wners of AdjacentLand, and Governmental Agencies

As noted above, Mount Rainier National Park —socially, politically, ecologically, and historic-ally — is part of a greater area. The NationalPark Service must consider how its actions inMount Rainier affect the surrounding environ-ment and society. For instance, the managementof the park influences local economies throughtourism expenditures and the goods and servicesthe Park Service purchases to support parkoperations.

To ensure that the National Park Service main-tains good relations with landowners and com-munities surrounding Mount Rainier NationalPark, and to ensure that the park is managedproactively to resolve external issues and con-cerns, the following strategies will beimplemented:

• The park staff will continue to establish andfoster partnerships with public and private

organizations to achieve the purposes andmission of the park. Partnerships will besought for resource protection, research,education, visitor enjoyment, visitor access,and corridor management purposes.

• To foster a spirit of cooperation withneighbors and encourage compatibleadjacent land uses, the park staff will keeplandowners, land managers, tribes, localgovernments, and the public informed aboutpark management activities. Periodic con-sultations will occur with landowners andcommunities who are affected by, orpotentially affected by park visitors andmanagement actions. Park staff will respondpromptly to conflicts that arose over theiractivities, visitor access, and proposed activ-ities and developments on adjacent landsthat could affect Mount Rainier. Parkmanagers will seek agreements with land-owners to encourage their lands to be man-aged in a manner compatible with parkpurposes. Park staff also will seek ways togive landowners technical and managementassistance to address issues of mutualinterest.

• The National Park Service will work closelywith local, state, and federal agencies andtribal governments whose programs affect,or are affected by, activities in MountRainier. The park staff will continue tocoordinate with local, state, and federalagencies. In particular, park managers willmaintain a close working relationship withthe U.S. Forest Service, whose lands abutmuch of the park, to meet mutual manage-ment needs. Park managers also will pursuecooperative regional planning wheneverpossible to integrate the park into issues ofregional concern.

• The park staff will work with national forestmanagers and owners of adjacent propertiesto encourage the adoption of timber prac-tices in lands surrounding the park thatprotect resource values. These practices may

16

include longer rotations in timber cuts,uneven aged cuts, no-cut buffers inriparian areas, leaving snags and downedlogs, and maintaining vegetation onridgetops.

Relationships with Native Americans

The National Park Services recognizes thatMount Rainier has long occupied a prominentposition for American Indian people in thePacific Northwest. The park staff will work toensure that traditional Native American ties tothe mountain are recognized and will strive tomaintain positive, productive, government-to-government relationships with tribes culturallyaffiliated with Mount Rainier. The viewpointsand needs of tribes will continue to be re-spected, and issues that arise will be promptlyaddressed. Native American values will beconsidered in the management and operationof the park.

Legal Background. Federally recognizedtribes are sovereign governments. At least fivefederally recognized tribes have traditionalassociation with Mount Rainier — the Muckle-shoot Indian Tribe, the Puyallup Tribe ofIndians, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Cow-litz Indian Tribe, and the Yakama IndianNation. Today’s names were assigned by theUnited States territorial government in con-junction with the signing of the MedicineCreek, Point Elliott , and Yakama Treaties in1854 and 1855, grouped as the StevensTreaties after then Governor Isaac Stevens.The names reflect specific geographic loca-tions associated with the tribes at the time ofthe treaties. The Yakama Nation is consideredin the Treaty with the Yakama (1855), theNisqually and Puyallup in the Treaty of Medi-cine Creek (1854), and the Muckleshoot withinboth the Medicine Creek Treaty and the Treatyof Point Elliott (1855). The Cowlitz tribe didnot sign a treaty, although they were present atthe negotiations of the Chehalis River Treatyof 1855. These treaties establish certain rights

and privileges in the tribes, which haveoccasionally been interpreted through lit igation(e.g., United States v. State of Washington(“the Boldt decision”), 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash. 1974)) or affected by legislation orregulation.

Ethnographic evidence supports historical ac-tivity in the park, and anecdotal sources andrecent consultations suggest ongoing con-temporary uses of the park. Mount RainierNational Park, established in 1899, is an areawhere all resources are protected for futuregenerations of all Americans. In that regard,Mount Rainier is unique among traditional useareas in the region. As the park broadens itsresearch and collaborative efforts with tribalgroups, it is likely that Native American usesof Mount Rainier will become betterunderstood. Tribal and park partnershipsprovide an opportunity to cooperate inmutually beneficial efforts for the purpose ofpreserving the park’s resources to their fullestextent and highest level of integrity.

General Management Strategies. To enhancethe National Park Service’s relationship withthe tribes, the strategies and actions listedbelow will be followed.

• Consult regularly and maintaingovernment-to-government relations withAmerican Indian tribes that havetraditional t ies to resources within the parkto ensure productive, collaborativeworking relationships. The park staff willbuild on existing relationships, identifyingpartnerships and activities of mutualbenefit.

• Continue to identify and deepen theunderstanding of the significance of thepark’s resources and landscapes to Indianpeople through collaborative research andsharing.

• Once identified, protect and preserve sites,resources, landscapes, and structures of


17

significance to the federally recognizedtribes as required under federal laws andNPS Management Policies.

• Encourage the participation of AmericanIndian tribes in protecting the park’snatural and cultural resources of interestand concern to them.

• Involve American Indian tribes in thepark’s interpretation program to promoteaccuracy of information regardingAmerican Indian cultural values and toenhance public appreciation of thosevalues.

• Participate as partners with AmericanIndian tribes in planning projects andresearch initiatives of mutual benefit thatenhance resource protection, visitorexperiences, and public appreciation forpark resources and values.

• Support sustainable economicdevelopment that encourages theavailability of appropriate visitor servicesin American Indian communities adjacentto the park.

• Support the continuation of traditionalAmerican Indian activities in the park tothe extent allowed by applicable laws andregulations.

• The staff of Mount Rainier National Parkwill continue to consult and collaboratewith American Indian tribes concerningissues and proposed actions that mightaffect American Indians.

• Collaborate with the tribes to assist , whereappropriate, on issues related to resourceson their respective reservations affected bypublic use and resource managementwithin Mount Rainier National Park.

Government to Government Relations/Consultation. American Indian tribes are

generally seeking more involvement in theplanning and implementation of resourcemanagement actions on ancestral lands thathave been linked to the tribes’ uses of the park.Federally recognized tribes have unique legalrelationships with federal agencies like theNational Park Service based on law and policy(e.g., Executive Order No. 13,175 onConsultation and Coordination with IndianTribal Governments; Executive Order No.13,007 on Sacred Sites). These relationshipsare strengthened by the local AmericanIndians’ special geographic, economic,historical, and cultural t ies to the lands andresources now within the park.

Federal legislation and NPS policies recognizethese relationships and require consultationsand government-to-government interactions.Other federal laws impose additional obliga-tions on federal agencies and authorize activi-ties that influence these relationships; they alsoprovide opportunities to collaborate inprotecting the park’s resources and values.

• The staff of Mount Rainier National Parkwill continue to consult and collaboratewith American Indian tribes concerningissues and proposed actions that mightaffect American Indians.

• The park staff will meet with tribalgovernments on a regular and periodicbasis.

• The park staff also will pursue agreementsfor the purposes of carrying out programs,services and activities that are of mutualbenefit and interest.

Interpretation. Visitors to the park aregenerally unaware of the historical and con-temporary connections that local AmericanIndians have to the park’s lands and resources.In addition, the tribes have expressed concernover a loss of understanding among theirmembers of these primary relationships to thepark. Enhancing visitor understanding and


18

appreciation, and refamiliarizing tribal mem-bers with principal park resources will promotea better public appreciation of local AmericanIndian spiritual and cultural t ies to the park andserve to protect the park’s overall significance.

• Local tribes will assist in planning, andwill participate in and contribute to thepark’s interpretation and education pro-grams. Potential opportunities includeproviding training for park staff, draftingand reviewing relevant exhibits andinterpretive material, providing appropriateIndian-made items for sale or display inthe park’s visitor center gift shops, pre-senting guest programs, demonstratingtraditional arts, and working as seasonaland permanent staff.

Traditional Activities on Park andAboriginal Lands. Collection and gatheringof materials for economic, spiritual, andceremonial purposes is an important issue withAmerican Indian tribes. Sites and resourcesintegral to these purposes are largely unknownto park managers. The park also contains sitesof interest for religious and ceremonialpurposes that remain undocumented.

• The National Park Service will continue tosupport American Indian traditional activ-ities within and adjacent to the park.Access and privacy for traditionalceremonial purposes will be provided.Within the park, the collection of certainnatural plant materials by AmericanIndians for traditional uses will be allowedas authorized under applicable laws andregulations.

• Local tribes will be afforded the oppor-tunity to participate in the identification,designation, and protection of traditionalcultural and ethnographic landscapes.

Resource Management Collaboration. Sev-eral tribes maintain downstream fisheries onrivers with sources in the park. Several tribes

are actively researching wildlife species thathave resident populations in the park. Archeo-logical research in the park may yield sites andartifacts of concern to the tribes. The localAmerican Indian tribes and the National ParkService share interests in protecting resourceswithin and adjacent to the park. The potentialfor productive collaboration is high. Forexample, the Nisqually, Puyallup, Muckle-shoot, and Yakama have professional resourcemanagement staff. The Puyallup have full GIScapability. The park has a complete natural andcultural resources division with an archeolo-gist, numerous scientists, and GIS capability.

• Mount Rainier staff and tribal staff willshare relevant, nonproprietary informationpertaining to the inventory and manage-ment of resources within the park con-sistent with federal law. Research, transferof technology, and technical assistance areimportant components of these govern-ment-to-government relationships.

• Park natural and cultural resources staffwill collaborate with tribal resources staffson projects or programs of mutual interestand will meet on a regular basis to discussvarious aspects of programs includingfuture plans, results, staffing, and researchdata. Park staff will encourage activeparticipation of appropriate tribal memberson field project staff.

Protecting and ManagingNatural Resources

The protection, study, and management of thepark’s natural resources and processes isessential for achieving the park’s purposes andmission goals. The following principles andstrategies will guide the National Park Servicein retaining Mount Rainier’s ecologicalintegrity, including its natural resources andprocesses. They will help ensure that thenatural features of the park are unimpaired,that the park continues to be a dynamic,


19

biologically diverse environment, and thatMount Rainier is recognized and valued as anoutstanding example of resource stewardship,conservation, education, and public use.

Inventory and Monitoring. Knowing thecondition of natural resources in national parksis fundamental to the National Park Service'sability to protect and manage parks. MountRainier is confronted with increasingly com-plex and challenging issues, and the park staffmust provide scientifically credible data toinform and defend management actions.Inventories involve the compilation of existinginformation as well as the collection of newinformation. They contribute to a statement ofthe condition of park resources in relation to astandard condition, especially the natural orunimpaired state.

Ecosystem monitoring is conducted to detectsignificant changes in resource abundance,condition, population structure, or ecologicalprocesses or to determine the effects of amanagement action on population or com-munity dynamics or ecological processes. Thepurpose of monitoring is to develop broad-based, scientifically sound information on thecurrent status and long term trends in thecomposition, structure, and function of thepark’s ecosystems.

A long-term ecosystem monitoring program isnecessary to enable managers to make betterinformed decisions, to provide early warningof changing conditions in time to developeffective mitigating measures, to convinceother agencies and individuals to makedecisions benefiting parks, to satisfy certainlegal mandates, and to provide reference datafor relatively pristine sites for comparison withareas outside of parks. Monitoring also enablesthe park staff to evaluate the effectiveness ofmanagement actions and to obtain moreaccurate assessments of progress towardsmanagement goals. Using monitoring infor-mation will increase confidence in managers’

decisions and improve their ability to managepark resources.

• Inventories and long-term monitoringprograms will be developed to address thestatus and health of the park. Key indi-cators of resource or ecosystem conditionswill be developed and monitored over thelong-term to keep track of ecosystemhealth.

• Inventories will be conducted to identifyvertebrate and invertebrate animal species,vascular and nonvascular plant species,and air, water, and geologic resources inthe park.

• Additional data will be gathered on socialand natural condition indicators for appli-cation to the carrying capacity model.

• Mount Rainier will continue to participatein the North Coast and Cascades Inventoryand Monitoring Network. The park staffwill work with its partner park units andcollaborators in inventorying resources,monitoring vital components of the eco-system to better assess the condition ofpark resources and trends and developingdatabases and data analysis and retrievaltools to improve the usefulness of naturalresource information.

Air Quality. Mount Rainier is designated aclass I area under the Clean Air Act. Thisdesignation permits the least degradation of airquality and air quality related values, includingvisibility. The following policies and strategieswill ensure that Mount Rainier’s air quality isenhanced or maintained with no significantdegradation and that nearly unimpaired viewsof the landscape both within and outside thepark are available. The policies and strategieswill also ensure that scenic views that areintegral to the visitor experience, which havebeen identified in the park in accordance withthe Clean Air Act, remain substantiallyunimpaired.


20

• In Mount Rainier, the National ParkService will strive to set a global exampleof how to effectively protect class I areasand critical airsheds.

• Emissions associated with administrativeand recreational use of the park will bereduced.

• Baseline information and monitoring of airquality related values will be expandedthrough research, inventory, and moni-toring programs to identify humanstressors and general air quality trends.

• Programs will be expanded to share airquality information with surroundingagencies and to develop educationalprograms to inform visitors, as well asregional residents, about the threats of airpollution to park resources.

• The park staff will continue to participatein regional air quality planning, research,and the implementation of air qualitystandards. Regional partnerships for thedevelopment of alternative transportationsystems and clean fuels that improve airquality will be promoted.

Geologic Resources. The park includes out-standing geologic and hydrologic resourcesthat represent key physical elements in thepark ecosystem, including glaciers and snow-fields, geomorphic features such as watershedsand landforms, soils, and paleoecologicdeposits. Glaciers, snowfields, watersheds, andsoils are especially sensitive to air pollutionand climatic change. The following strategieswill be implemented to better understandgeologic resources and their effects onecosystem processes, functions and com-ponents; to identify and monitor humanstressors to geologic resources; and to assessand monitor potential effects on visitors andadjacent communities.

• A comprehensive plan will be developedto address geologic research, inventory,and monitoring.

• Inventories and monitoring of parkglaciers will be expanded to better under-stand the role of climate change, and toassess the effects of this change on parkresources, infrastructure, and visitor safety.

• Baseline information on soils and moredetailed information on surficial geologywill be obtained for use in ecosystemmanagement and hazards assessment.

• Park staff will continue to partner with theU.S. Geological Survey, state and localagencies, and academic institutions toassess and monitor geologic hazards.

• Interpretive and educational programs willbe developed to educate visitors and thepublic on park geologic resourcesincluding hazards associated with theseresources

Water Quality and Aquatic Resources. TheNational Park Service will continue to protectthe pristine water quality in the park and topursue the designation of park waters as“outstanding natural resource waters.”

• The condition of aquatic resources will beassessed, including physical, chemical, andbiological components and processes,across a range of spatial and temporalscales. Appropriate indicators and mea-surements will be used to quantify anddetect the potential effects of human-caused stressors through long-termmonitoring programs.

• The effects of visitor use on aquaticresources will be monitored. Adminis-trative uses that could adversely affectaquatic resources will also be monitored. Ifconditions are determined to be out of


21

standard, actions will be taken to preventdegradation of the park’s water quality.

• Stormwater runoff from roads and parkinglots will be assessed and “best manage-ment practices” will be implemented toreduce any potential impacts.

• Air quality effects on aquatic resourceswill be assessed and monitored, andinformation will be provided to regulatorsfor use in state and regional air qualitymanagement and permitting.

• Educational programs will be developed toinform visitors and the general publicabout water resource management issuesand concerns.

Vegetation. Plant communities and theprocesses governing them will continueunaltered in the majority of the park. Com-munities will include the diverse species,genetics, associations, and successional stagesrepresentative of an ecologically functioningsystem in the Northern Cascades.

• Plant communities will be monitored toassess their condition. If it is shown thathuman use is degrading an area, a varietyof mitigating measures will be consideredto restore the area to acceptable standards.Such measures may include establishingtrails, delineating or hardening trails,erecting signs or taking other educationalmeasures, restricting access to problemareas, closing problem areas, restoringdegraded areas, or limiting trail use in the“shoulder” seasons until there is enoughsnow to protect vegetation. Sensitivesubalpine and alpine meadows will begiven extra protection. The restoration ofaffected subalpine meadows, such as in theParadise and Sunrise areas, will continue.

• The National Park Service will continue toeradicate invasive exotic (nonnative)plants in the park. The park staff will work

with the U.S. Forest Service, WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources, NativeAmerican tribes, t imber companies, andprivate landowners to prevent the spread ofexotic plant species into the park.

• Monitoring programs will be developed todetect the effects of human stressors onvegetation and to determine naturalvegetation dynamics and processes.

Wildlife and Fisheries. The condition ofwildlife and fisheries resources will bedetermined across a range of spatial andtemporal scales, and appropriate indicators andmeasurements will be utilized to quantify anddetect the potential effects of human-causedstressors through baseline inventories andlong-term monitoring programs.

• The park staff will seek to preserve orrestore natural aquatic habitats and thenatural abundance and distribution ofnative aquatic species, together with theassociated terrestrial habitats and species.Partnerships will be developed with otherfederal, state, local, and tribal agencies torestore native resident and anadromousfish species in park streams. The restora-tion of fish species would be practicedwith the use of the best available data,would be based on suitable habitat, andwould be subject to the provisions of theNational Environmental Policy Act.

• The park staff will seek to perpetuate thenative animal life (such as mammals,birds, reptiles, fish, arthropods, andmicrofauna) as part of the natural ecosys-tem. Minimizing human impacts on nativeanimals will be emphasized, as will mini-mizing human influence on naturallyoccurring fluctuations of animal popula-tions. Ecological processes will be reliedon to control populations of native speciesto the greatest extent practicable.


22

• The preservation of populations andhabitats of migratory species inhabiting thepark, such as bats, elk, and anadromousfish, will be ensured. Park staff willcooperate wherever possible with others toensure the preservation of their popula-tions and habitats outside the park.

• Education programs will be developed toinform visitors and the general publicabout fish and wildlife issues andconcerns.

• The management of populations of exoticfish and other animal species will beundertaken wherever such species threatenpark resources or public health and whencontrol is prudent and feasible.

• Developed areas and wilderness campsiteswill be managed to reduce to themaximum extent possible the potential forwildlife to become accustomed to receiv-ing human food and the associatedunnatural tameness, unpredictableaggression, and other safety and healthconcerns that can result.

• If conflicts between people and wildlifetake place, actions such as posting ofwarnings and administrative closures willbe taken to protect visitors and wildlife. Itis the park’s policy that to the maximumextent possible, large carnivores will beallowed to possess and exhibit naturalbehaviors relating to seasonal movementsand the defense of young or of foodresources. This will be achieved throughpublic education and wildlife inventoryand monitoring programs. Appropriateeducational materials will be madeavailable at campgrounds and visitorcenter desks and in the park newspaper.These materials will address human-wildlife conflict issues and recommendedbehaviors to follow. In cases of attacks bywildlife, appropriate actions would betaken to protect visitors and wildlife.

• Park resource managers will continue towork with surrounding land managementagencies to address the “edge effects” onspecies and their habitats. Such effectsmay result from activities occurringoutside the park boundary, such as timberharvests, land development, and wildlifemanagement practices.

• Fish and wildlife habitat will be protectedthrough the timing of park activities andthrough consultation with the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, the National MarineFisheries Service, Native American tribes,and the Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife.

Threatened and Endangered Speciesand O ther Special Status Species

Under the Endangered Species Act, theNational Park Service is mandated to promotethe conservation of all federal threatened andendangered species and their critical habitatswithin the park boundaries. Five federallylisted threatened or endangered species occurin the park. Another 31 federal species ofconcern and state endangered, threatened,sensitive, and candidate species also occur orare likely to occur in the park.

• The park staff will continue to work withthe Washington Department of Fish andWildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, and the National Marine FisheriesService to ensure that the National ParkService’s actions help special status spe-cies to recover. If any state or federallylisted or proposed threatened or endan-gered species were found in areas thatwould be affected by construction, visitoruse, or restoration activities proposedunder any of the alternatives in this plan,the park staff would first consult informal-ly with the above agencies. The park staffwould then attempt to avoid, minimize,rectify, reduce, compensate, or otherwise


23

mitigate any potential adverse impacts onstate or federal special status species.Should it be determined through informalconsultation that an action or proposedproject might adversely affect a federallylisted or proposed species, the park staffwould initiate formal consultation undersection 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

• The park staff will cooperate with theabove agencies in inventorying, moni-toring, protecting, and perpetuating thenatural distribution and abundance of allspecial status species (i.e., state andfederally listed threatened, endangered,rare, declining, sensitive, candidate, orspecial concern species) and their essentialhabitats in Mount Rainier National Park.These species and their required habitatswill be specifically considered in ongoingplanning and management activities.

Carrying Capacity

By law, all general management plans for unitsmanaged by the National Park Service mustaddress the issue of carrying capacity.Carrying capacity is a determination of whattypes and levels of visitor use can be accom-modated while maintaining social and resourceconditions consistent with the purposes of thepark, its mission goals, and the prescriptivemanagement zones. There are three majorcomponents of carrying capacity: physicalcapacity (for example, parking spaces, facilityspace, road capacity), the visitor experience(such as congestion in parking areas,opportunities for solitude), and resources(including natural and cultural resources). Thecarrying capacity in a given area could beexceeded for any of these components, whichwould trigger management action. TheNational Park Service uses the visitor experi-ence and resource protection framework toaddress carrying capacities in national parks.

Increasing visitor use at Mount Rainier hasresulted in changes in the park’s resources andin the visitor experiences. Unacceptableresource damage has been documented inseveral areas, such as the Paradise Meadowsand Spray Park. With use levels expected toincrease in the future, there is the potential thatadditional unacceptable changes could occur topark resources and visitor experiences —changes that would be contrary to the purposesand significance of Mount Rainier NationalPark and the mission of the National ParkService. To prevent or minimize these impacts,the park staff will proactively manage visitoruse and resources at Mount Rainier, using atiered strategy of increasing managementactions to decrease visitor use impacts.

Managing and Protecting Wilderness

Adhering to the following strategies willensure that wilderness lands in the park willretain their wilderness characteristics andvalues and that visitors will continue to findopportunities for solitude and primitive,unconfined recreation. These strategies willensure that the signs of people remain sub-stantially unnoticeable. Adherence to thesestrategies will also make sure that wildernesscontinues to be affected primarily by the forcesof nature.

• The National Park Service will continue tomanage wilderness camping throughcamping permits and by enforcingcamping regulations, including those thatpertain to appropriate location ofcampsites in wilderness areas.

• Wilderness education programs will beexpanded to inform visitors aboutwilderness ethics and how to minimizetheir impacts on the park. Leave-no-tracepractices will be emphasized.


24

• Efforts will be expanded to ensure thatwilderness soundscapes and night skies arenot degraded.

Managing and ProtectingCultural Resources

Mount Rainier’s cultural resources, especiallyits recently designated National Historic Land-mark District, are integral to the park land-scape. The protection of the park’s culturalresources is essential for understanding thepast, present, and future relationship of peoplewith the park environment and the expressionsof our cultural heritage. The strategiesdiscussed belo w will enable the National ParkService to protect the park’s cultural resources,including archeological, historic, ethnographic,museum collection, and archival resources,while encouraging visitors and employees torecognize and understand their value. Thestrategies will allow the integrity of the park’scultural resources to be preserved unimpaired.They will also ensure that Mount RainierNational Park is recognized and valued as anoutstanding example of resource stewardship,conservation education and research, andpublic use.

Several strategies focus on the park’s culturallandscapes and historic structures. Thesestrategies will ensure the continued integrityand preservation of Mount Rainier’s historicresources. They encourage appropriate adap-tive use of the structures, which prolongs thelife of the structures. The strategies also guidethe management of concession-leased build-ings in such a manner that they are maintainedin good condition and retain eligibility forlisting on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. In addition, the strategies require thatnew construction be architecturally compatiblein terms of design, materials, and scale withsurrounding historic structures.

Prehistoric and Historic Archeological andEthnographic Resources. The strategies for

managing and protecting prehistoric andhistoric archeological resources and ethno-graphic resources are as follows:

• The park staff will continue to survey anddocument or inventory archeologicalresources in accordance with the NationalHistoric Preservation Act and otherapplicable regulations.

• Archeological sites will be monitored toassess site conditions and to determine anythreats to the resources that may requiremitigation.

• Field data regarding rock shelters, lithicscatters, hunting camps, and otherresources will be gathered to develop amore accurate predictive model ofprehistoric site distribution and to addressrelated research questions.

• Archeological resources that reflect late19th and early 20th century activities, suchas park development, mining sites, cabinremains, and trash dumps, will continue tobe inventoried, evaluated, and managed.National Register eligible resources will bedocumented and listed.

• All identified resources will continue to beevaluated in accordance with the eligibilitycriteria for the National Register ofHistoric Places.

• Avoidance techniques and other measureswill be used to prevent visitor and project-related disturbances from impactingknown significant sites.

• The park staff will continue to supportresearch and consultation to increase ourunderstanding of all cultural resources.

• As appropriate, American Indian tribeswill be consulted on surveys, studies,excavations, and actions to protectarcheological resources.


25

Museum/Archival Collections. The strategiesfor museum and archival collections willinclude the following:

• The park staff will continue to maintain adiverse and substantial collection ofmuseum objects and specimens accordingto the park’s approved “Scope of Collec-tions Statement” (revised 1997). Thecollection includes historic artifacts,biological and geological specimens,historic images, archival materials, andprehistoric/historic archeologicalspecimens and artifacts.

• The park staff will continue to improveartifact/specimen exhibit and storageconditions according to NPS museumstandards. This may include the proposedrehabilitation of existing exhibits and thecreation of new exhibits as proposed inthis plan, as well as the installation ofproposed security and fire protectionsystems to areas containing museumcollection artifacts/specimens, asrecommended in the 1998 “Curatorial Fireand Security Survey.”

• The park staff will maintain and continueto expand opportunities for researchers touse the museum collection’s artifacts,specimens, and archival materials.

Cultural Landscapes and HistoricStructures. The strategies for culturallandscapes and historic structures include thefollowing:

• The historic buildings, structures, sites,and objects contributing to the significanceof the Mount Rainier National HistoricLandmark District will be managed toretain a high degree of integrity. Compre-hensive protection and preservationmeasures will be employed as required bythe Secretary of Interior’s Standards forthe Treatment of Historic Properties.

• Historic buildings not actively being usedin the park will be considered for adaptivereuse by other public and private entities toassist in the preservation of the structures.

• Design guidelines and/or historic structureand cultural landscape reports will con-tinue to be created for all developed areasin the park to ensure that the architecturaland landscape-defining features of theseareas are preserved. These guidelines willinclude provisions for design review over-sight to ensure the compatibility of newplanning, design, and construction.

• Ongoing research, including culturallandscape inventories, reports, and historicstructure reports, will continue to refineand update baseline information on his-toric resources identified as contributing tothe national historic landmark district.

• The park’s cultural landscapes will bedocumented and inventoried as part of theservicewide cultural landscape inventory,and they will be monitored to ensure theirpreservation.

• Cultural landscape reports with treatmentrecommendations will be prepared asneeded for cultural landscapes (or com-ponent landscapes) that contribute to theNational Historic Landmark District andother national register properties. Amend-ments to existing documentation related tothe national register and the NationalHistoric Landmark District may berequired to include or expand thediscussion of contributing culturallandscape characteristics and features.

• Design guidelines, based on documenta-tion provided by the “Cultural LandscapeInventory” and “Cultural LandscapeReport,” will be prepared to provideanother tool for effective management ofthe overall cultural landscape of theNational Historic Landmark District.


26

Interpretation, Education,Information, and O rientation

A variety of methods are used to orient visitorsto Mount Rainier, to provide information aboutthe park, and to interpret the park’s resourcesto visitors. The National Park Service will pur-sue strategies to ensure that pre-trip informa-tion is available for visitors to plan a rewardingvisit to the park. Outreach and educationprograms will help connect diverse audiencesto the park’s resources, build a local andnational constituency, and gain public supportfor protecting the park’s resources. Providinginterpretation opportunities will build emo-tional, intellectual, and recreational t ies withthe park and its cultural and natural heritage.

• Emphasis will be placed on providinginformation, orientation, and interpretiveservices in the most effective mannerpossible. Appropriate techniques andtechnologies will be used to increaseawareness and visibility of the nationalpark system and its programs and of issuesfacing Mount Rainier National Park.

• Cooperative efforts and partnerships withadjacent gateway communities, public andprivate agencies, organizations, stake-holders, and land managers in the regionwill be enhanced to inform visitors on theabundance, variety, and availability ofregional recreational and interpretiveopportunities. This information will orientvisitors on what to do (and what not to do),attractions to see, and how to enjoy thepark in safe, low-impact ways.

• The park staff will strengthen partnershipswith other state and national parks, educa-tional institutions, and other organizationsto enrich interpretive and educationalopportunities regionally and nationally.

• A special effort will be made to educatethe public about the special historical and

contemporary relationship that indigenouspeople hold to park lands and resources.

• An educational outreach program will bedeveloped for schools and communitygroups to provide a continuum of qualityexperiences for lifelong learning. Thisprogram is intended to maximize thepublic’s access to the unique ecological,historical, cultural, and geologic lessonscontained in the park. This includes theestablishment of “friends” groups, specialprograms for schoolchildren, and otherprograms relevant to diverse audiences.

• Emphasis will be placed on understandingcurrent low levels of use by minority com-munities and on developing strategies toencourage greater relevance, use, and sup-port of the park by these communities.

Commercial Services

Commercial services are integral to the visitorexperience and the management of MountRainier National Park. The National ParkService permits several commercial services atMount Rainier, including guiding services,lodging, and food service. These services haveadded to visitors’ enjoyment of the park, haveenabled many people to see parts of the parkthey might not otherwise see, and have helpedto protect park resources. Strategies formanaging commercial services include thefollowing:

• Manage businesses through concessioncontracts and commercial use authoriza-tions; other activities, such as commercialfilming, will continue to be managedthrough special use permits.

• Ensure that all commercial activitieswithin the park provide high-quality visitorexperiences while protecting importantnatural, cultural, and scenic resources.


27

• Ensure that before concession contractsand commercial use authorizations arerenewed or readvertised, the types ofauthorized use are still necessary and/orappropriate, the levels of use are consistentwith resource protection and quality visitorexperiences, and the commercial servicesprogram can be managed in an efficientand effective manner.

• Limit the expansion or development ofnew commercial services facilit ies in thepark; encourage such facilit ies outside thepark.

• Prepare a commercial services plan thatdescribes in detail the actions required toachieve commercial services and relatedvisitor experience goals.

Transportation to and within the Park

Transportation to and within Mount Rainier is,and will continue to be, a challenge. Howpeople travel to the park and how they travelaround the park plays a major role in theprotection of park resources, in visitor levelsand the visitor experience, and in the main-tenance and need for modified or new parkinfrastructure. In this regard, it is critical forthe National Park Service to participate as apartner in local, regional, and statewideplanning efforts that will affect transportationto and within the park. Several strategies arebeing, and will continue to be, pursued in thetransportation arena. The park staff will pursuethe following strategies:

• Work with the gateway communities andlocal, regional, state, and federal agenciesto develop a regional approach to transpor-tation planning between Mount Rainierand the Puget Sound urban areas;encourage a multiagency, multicountyregional transportation planning group,with participants including the counties,metropolitan planning organizations,

regional transportation planning organiza-tions, the U.S. Forest Service, the Wash-ington Department of Transportation,gateway communities, cities, tribes, andprivate parties.

• Work with the U.S. Department ofTransportation, the Federal HighwayAdministration, and the WashingtonDepartment of Transportation, and othersources to seek funding and staff toparticipate in and encourage effectiveregional transportation planning andenhancements, including both road andnonroad transportation (e.g., bikeways,road signs, trails, intelligent transportationsystems, historic preservation, recreationalaccess and facility development, visitorcenters, traffic calming devices, gatewaycommunity enhancements).

Snowmachine Use in the Park

In 1975 an environmental assessment wasprepared on the proposed special regulationsdesignating snowmobile routes in MountRainier National Park. This assessmentdetermined that an environmental impactstatement was not needed, which resulted in anegative declaration. Limited snowmobile useon designated areas was chosen as a result ofselecting the best of four alternatives. Aspecial regulation was promulgated as 36 CFR7.5 opening the following areas in the park tosnowmachines: Cougar Rock campground,Westside Road, Mather Memorial Parkway,White River Road to the White Rivercampground, and the Stevens Canyon Road toBox Canyon. Currently, very litt le snowma-chine activity occurs in these areas.

President Carter issued Executive Order 11989in 1977. That executive order provided thatsnowmobile use shall be prohibited when it isfound that it may cause, or is causing, consid-erable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation,wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic


28

resources of public lands. Recent studies onthe negative impacts of snowmachines on theexperience of visitors, air quality, and wildlifehave led the National Park Service to deter-mine that it is not complying with the execu-tive order. Therefore, commensurate with apublic notification in the Federal Register for arescission of the regulation, all recreationalsnowmachine use within Mount RainierNational Park will be prohibited. This actionwill be implemented regardless of whichalternative of this General Management Planis selected.

In March 2001 the National Park Serviceissued an environmental assessment forrulemaking regarding snowmobiles in MountRainier National Park (NPS 2001a). Theproposed action in the environmental assess-ment is the elimination of recreational snow-mobile use in the park. Few comments werereceived on the park proposal to eliminatesnowmachine use, but virtually all of thecommenters supported the proposed action.Similarly, almost all of the comments receivedon the articulation of the snowmachineprohibition in the Draft General ManagementPlan supported the idea. To implement theprohibition, the park staff would act on thepending “Finding of No Significant Impact”and undertake a rulemaking in the FederalRegister.

Levels and Types of Park Development

A variety of different types of developmentexist in Mount Rainier to transport, house,inform, and serve visitors. The followinggeneral strategies are intended to ensure thatpark facilit ies serve visitor needs, meetsustainability standards, are harmonious withpark resources, are compatible with naturalprocesses and surrounding landscapes, and areaesthetically pleasing and functional. Thestrategies are also intended to ensure that thepark’s facilit ies are accessible for visitors withphysical and learning disabilit ies, in con-

formance with applicable laws, regulations,and NPS policies.

• Park managers will consider the avail-ability of existing or planned facilit ies innearby communities and adjacent lands, aswell as partnership possibilit ies, whendeciding whether to construct newdevelopments.

• Existing facilit ies will be modified to meetaccessibility standards as funding allows,or as the facilit ies are replaced or rehabili-tated. The park staff will periodicallyconsult with persons with disabilit ies ortheir representatives to increase the parkstaff’s awareness of the needs of visitorswith disabilit ies.

Borrow Pit, Spoil, andMining Site Management

Mount Rainier National Park has one activeand eight inactive gravel pits within itsborders. There are also ten abandoned minedsites in the park.

All materials from borrow pits, quarries, andother gravel or sand sources in Mount RainierNational Park will be managed according toChapter 9.1.3.3 of the NPS ManagementPolicies 2001 (NPS 2001b). All sources, bothexisting and future, will comply with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),including written findings that the extractionand use of borrow material does not, or willnot, impair park resources or values and is thepark’s most reasonable alternative, based oneconomic, environmental, or ecologicalconsiderations.

A diverse interdisciplinary group will developa parkwide borrow management plan and willmake determinations based on specific pro-posals. The use of such material will be strictlyfor in-park administrative use by the ParkService or its agent or contractors. Borrow


29

material extracted from proposed or designatedwilderness areas will be taken only in smallquantities to be used for trail-type activities.For all existing and proposed borrow pits, aquantity of extraction will be specified and arestoration plan will be prepared according tothe NEPA process.

All spoil sites within the park will be desig-nated in writing and will meet the definitionand regulatory requirements for solid wastedisposal sites in accordance with 36 CFR 6.New spoil sites or the expansion of existingspoil sites will be analyzed through the NEPAand National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) processes. In addition, the park staffwill comply with NPS solid waste regulationsand other specific NPS requirements.

Any mining site within the boundaries ofMount Rainier National Park will be docu-mented and analyzed through the NEPA andNHPA processes for inclusion as a significantcultural resource or possible reclamation,depending on the findings of its significance.All site reclamation will depend on thedevelopment of a preferred alternative basedon economic, environmental, or ecologicalconsiderations.

Sustainability

Sustainability can be described as doing thingsin ways that do not compromise the environ-ment or its capacity to provide for present andfuture generations. Sustainable practicesconsider local and global consequences tominimize the short- and long-term environ-mental impacts of human actions and develop-ments through resource conservation,recycling, waste minimization, and the use ofenergy-efficient and ecologically responsiblematerials and techniques.

Over the past several years the federal govern-ment has been emphasizing the adoption ofsustainable practices. In particular, Executive

Order 12873 mandates federal agencyrecycling and waste prevention, and ExecutiveOrder 12902 mandates energy efficiency andwater conservation at federal facilit ies.

The following strategies will help ensure thatall decisions regarding park operations, facili-ties management, and development in MountRainier — from the initial concept throughdesign and construction — reflect the prin-ciples of resource conservation. Thus, all parkdevelopments and park operations will besustainable to the maximum degree possibleand practical.

• The reduction, reuse, and recycling ofmaterials will be promoted; the use ofmaterials that are not durable, areenvironmentally detrimental, or thatrequire transportation from great distanceswill be avoided as much as possible.

• The rehabilitation (recycling) of existingbuildings and facilit ies will be preferredover new construction, except wherecompelling reasons determine it is notfeasible.

• New developments or modifications ofexisting facilit ies will be located and builtfollowing the Guiding Principles ofSustainable Design (NPS 1993a) or othersimilar guidelines.

• The park staff will support and encouragesuppliers, contractors, and concessions thatfollow sustainable practices.

• Partnerships will be sought to implementsustainable practices in the park.

IMPLEMENTATIO N O F THEAPPRO VED PLAN

The implementation of the approved plan willdepend on future funding. Plan approval doesnot guarantee that the money needed will be


30

forthcoming. Full implementation of theapproved plan could be many years in thefuture.

The implementation of the approved plan alsocould be affected by other factors. MountRainier is in an area where geologic forces arecontinuing to shape the landscape. It is notpossible to plan for these changes during thelife of the plan. However, if a major geologicevent occurred, such as a mudslide or flood,the National Park Service would reexamine itsgoals for the affected area, including zoneprescriptions, uses, and infrastructure, andamend the plan accordingly.

Once the General Management Plan has beenapproved, additional feasibility studies andmore detailed planning and appropriateenvironmental documentation may be requiredbefore any proposed actions can be carried out.

In addition to the plans and studies identifiedin the “Guiding Management Principles andStrategies” section, a number of other studiesand plans would be prepared following theapproval of a general management plan. Thesemore detailed plans would tier off this plan,describing specific actions managers intend totake to achieve desired conditions and long-term goals. Some of these implementationplans are prepared for parks in response toNPS policies, such as a commercial servicesmanagement plan and an interpretive plan.

• The park’s wilderness management plan(NPS 1992c) would be updated to beconsistent with the approved generalmanagement plan and to reflect changesthat have occurred in the uses andmanagement of the wilderness area.Indicators and standards in the wildernessmanagement plan may also be revised, andday use limits could be proposed.

• A commercial services plan would beprepared to address the primary com-mercial activities at Mount Rainier, includ-

ing food and lodging, gift sales, climbing,wilderness/nonclimbing trips, road-basedtours, interpretation, transportation, winteruse, commercial filming, and emergencyservices. The commercial services planwould provide direction on such topics ashow commercial climbing would be man-aged (contracts, permits, or some combina-tion); what levels of use would be appro-priate for commercial wilderness trips; andhow conditions on commercial activitiescould alleviate parking problems.

• In 1989 it was determined that 9 miles ofthe West Fork of the White River, 6.7miles of the Muddy Fork of the CowlitzRiver, 12.7 miles of the OhanapecoshRiver, and 8 miles of the Carbon Riverwere eligible for inclusion in the nationalwild and scenic rivers system. The U. SForest Service also has found that down-stream segments of these rivers areeligible. The Park Service would workwith the Forest Service in preparing asuitability study to determine whetherthese rivers should be recommended forcongressional designation and inclusion inthe system.

• As funds became available, culturallandscape reports would be prepared forthe entire national historic landmarkdistrict, including all areas where changesare being proposed to roads and parkingareas (such as Paradise, Sunrise, Mowich,Carbon River, Westside Road), and forminor developed areas (for example,T ipsoo Lake, Box Canyon, ReflectionLake, Grove of the Patriarchs). The reportswould address specific site design needsand guide the historic preservation, re-habilitation, and restoration of these areas.

• A transportation plan would examinedifferent options for improving visitortransportation within the park (see thepreferred alternative for more details onthis plan).


31

• A road pullout study would determinewhich pullouts along park roads wereneeded and which should be eliminated.Informal parking pullouts would also bestudied and recommendations made aboutwhether to formalize these parkingpullouts.

• Impacts from the increased winter use,such as sanitation problems, are occurringat Paradise. However, the park staff doesnot have information on the magnitude andseverity of these impacts, nor is there

information on visitor distribution patternsor the experiences visitors are seeking. Awinter use study would be prepared toprovide this information. The study wouldset a baseline and determine whether ornot a winter carrying capacity needs to beset for Paradise. In addition, the studywould provide a basis for determiningwhat management actions could beundertaken to address visitor needs andprotect resources, thereby enhancing theoverall visitor experience.

32

SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

As we enter a new millennium, the Americanpublic and the National Park Service need tomake many important and often difficultdecisions about the future of Mount Rainier —its resources, uses, and management. Whatconditions should the Mount Rainier Wilder-ness be managed for? What should be done toensure that the park’s resources are protectedfor present and future generations? Howshould the National Historic Landmark Districtbe preserved and interpreted? What levels andtypes of use are appropriate for the park?

These are complex issues, with no easyanswers. People who care deeply about thispark often hold sharply divided opinions abouthow the National Park Service should resolvethe issues. In addition, t ight budgets combinedwith increased visitation have put an increasedstrain on the National Park Service’s ability tomaintain facilit ies, to protect natural and cul-tural resources, to provide interpretive andother visitor services, and to enforce rules andregulations. Thus, there are concerns regardingwhether or not the National Park Service canfund and staff new proposals to resolveproblems resulting from increased visitation.

The breadth of issues and concerns facingMount Rainier illustrates the complexity anddifficulty in determining how to manage parkresources and visitors in the 21st century. Thisplan focuses on three major resource and visi-tor use management issues: wilderness use, useof the nonwilderness area; and externalboundary issues. This section describes each ofthese major issues. Many questions have beenraised regarding these issues by the planningteam and the public. For each issue somegeneral background is provided, specificconcerns are noted, and then major decisionpoints and tradeoffs are identified.

There are also a few issues related to geologi-cal hazards that this plan will not fully resolve,

along with issues and implementationstrategies needing more detailed planning,such as commercial services, wildernessmanagement, and interpretive services. Inaddition to the major issues discussed belo w,the alternatives also address a number of otherminor issues and topics.

Although important for the future parkmanagement, the strategies to resolve theseissues are not controversial and do not appearto involve major tradeoffs. These issues andtopics include the need for additional naturaland cultural resource inventories and moni-toring; the need to cultivate special awarenessand sensitivity among park staff, concession-ers, and park visitors regarding the NationalHistoric Landmark District; improvingcamping facilit ies at Mowich Lake; improvingthe existing interpretation and educationexhibits and facilit ies; fostering better relationswith partners outside the park boundary; andproviding additional picnicking facilit ies.

WILDERNESS ISSUES

Ninety-seven percent of Mount RainierNational Park is wilderness (see ExistingConditions map). The Wilderness Act directsthe National Park Service to protect andmanage wilderness so that it “generallyappears to have been affected primarily by theforces of nature, with the imprint of man’swork substantially unnoticeable,” and so that it“has outstanding opportunities for solitude, ora primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

Issue 1. The large numbers of people visitingthe wilderness are degrading and damagingresources.

High visitor encounter levels are occurring inthe Mount Rainier Wilderness in many areas ofthe park, including Spray Park, Comet Falls,

Scope of This Document

33

Snow/Bench Lakes, Summerland, the Muircorridor climbing routes, and at Glacier Basin.Much of the visitor use in these areas is dayuse. Overnight use is being managed in thewilderness area under a permit program, butday use is unlimited. Standards have beendefined for wilderness in the WildernessManagement Plan (NPS 1992c) and are beingimplemented with limited funding and staffing.However, damage from recreational activitiesis still occurring.

Visitor behavior can directly or indirectlyaffect plant and wildlife species and theirhabitats, including threatened and endangeredspecies such as the northern spotted owl,marbled murrelet, and bull trout. Largenumbers of visitors in popular areas such asSpray Park have trampled vegetation, resultingin extensive areas of bare ground and erodedsoils. This erosion can lead to diminishedwater quality in the park’s lakes and streams.Dust, sedimentation, and runoff from nearbynonwilderness access roads and parking areasalso threaten the water quality of the wilder-ness in areas like Mowich Lake. In addition, insome areas visitors are trampling vegetationwhen they hike and camp in alpine and subal-pine areas, which is resulting in inadvertentdamage to wilderness resources.

Issue 2. Public views differ on what visitorexperiences are appropriate in the MountRainier Wilderness.

The Wilderness Act directs the National ParkService to provide a certain type of experiencein wilderness areas. However, there is substan-tial disagreement both in the literatureinterpreting the Wilderness Act and in thecomments the planning team has received fromthe public regarding what this experience trulymeans, especially in regard to interpreting themeaning of “outstanding opportunities forsolitude, or a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation.” On the one hand, some peoplestate that opportunities for solitude shouldexist everywhere in the wilderness and at all

t imes, not just for those with the ability to hikeoff trails or for those who can come during lessbusy times. Some people are bothered so muchby the large numbers of hikers and climbersthat they choose to go to other parts of thepark, or they may even not visit the park. Onthe other hand, some people say that with alitt le effort, opportunities for solitude abound.Others believe many visitors hike or climb toseek “challenge and beauty” in an unconfinedand pristine setting, and they are not botheredby larger numbers of people at certain timesand places.

Major Wilderness Decision Points.Wilderness Carrying Capacity — Whatconditions (experiences, recreational uses,resource conditions) should the Mount RainierWilderness be managed for? If visitor behavioris not skillfully managed, it is likely that re-source damage would increase, andopportunities for solitude would decline insome areas. If day or overnight use is restrictedor regulated, resources could be betterprotected, but visitors would have less freedomto go where they wish and when they want to,and they may be displaced from the park.

ISSUES RELATING TO TH ENO NWILDERNESS AREA

About 3% of Mount Rainier is nonwildernessand is also part of the Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District. This includes thedeveloped areas and road corridors. In the1920s and 1930s the historic road system thatwinds through the park was intentionallyplanned to afford fantastic views of thescenery, to limit landscape damage and devel-opment, and to allow visitors access to thewondrous areas of the park. These roadsconnect the primary destinations in the park,including Longmire (the oldest developed areain the park), Paradise, Sunrise, Ohanapecosh,Carbon River, and Mowich Lake, as well asthe many minor developed areas in between.


34

Most changes that have been made to thepark’s developments over time have occurredin response to rising visitation. Originally, asingle road led to Paradise. In 1958 a new,two-way road was built to Paradise from nearNarada Falls. The old approach road becamepart of the present Paradise Valley Road,which was intended to help reduce congestion,improve safety, and to make it easier for parkcrews to remove extensive volumes of snow.At that t ime, the circulation pattern waschanged. Most visitors now leave Paradise thesame way they drove up, along the new roadsegment. However, if the area is congested,then some visitors leave Paradise along whatwas originally designed as the scenic approachdrive (the Paradise Valley Road).

Issue 3. In the summer people are concentratedin a few areas of the park, such as Paradise.Off-trail use in these areas results in tramplingof sensitive vegetation.

As the population in the surrounding regiongrows over the next 20 years, visitation toMount Rainier will probably increase. Much ofthis use will continue to be concentrated in thepark’s nonwilderness areas where resourcedamage and congestion are already occurring.When visitors cannot park in lots, they oftenpark along nearby road shoulders. In someplaces this causes safety hazards, damagesplants, and compacts soils. In areas of concen-trated visitor use, those seeking to escapecrowded trails create “social” trails. Thesesocial trails contribute to other bare ground andcan take many years to recover. This isespecially true for the sensitive alpine andsubalpine meadow environments in the Para-dise, Sunrise, T ipsoo Lake, and Mowich Lakeareas. Although the park’s model restorationprogram has restored many portions of dam-aged meadows and other areas, still more areasneed attention. In addition, restoration work islabor intensive and requires a considerableinvestment by the park staff every year. Unlessvisitor use patterns change, restoration work

must continue to occur in order for theNational Park Service to meet its resourcepreservation mission at Mount Rainier.

Issue 4. On peak summer days vehicle con-gestion at park entrances, at parking areas, andat wilderness trailheads continues to adverselyaffect the quality of the visitor experience formany people.

Visitor surveys have indicated that uncon-gested traffic conditions on park roads and theease of finding parking are two of the moreimportant aspects of a quality visit . But duringpeak weekend hours visitors often find that thepark entrances and parking areas are severelycongested. So many visitors enter the parkthrough the Nisqually, White River, andStevens Canyon entrances that long lines ofvehicles are often present during peak periods.

Increasingly, vehicles fill parking areas onsunny summer weekend days and holidays.Severe parking congestion occurs at Paradise,Sunrise, Longmire, Ohanapecosh, T ipsooLake, Mowich Lake, and Carbon River areas,as well as at campgrounds, trailheads, andviewpoints throughout the nonwilderness area.As a result , visitors often resort to parkinganywhere they can find a spot, sometimesmore than a mile away, and then walk alongnarrow, congested roads to their destinations.

Traffic congestion and overflow parkingincrease the chance of accidents, especiallybetween pedestrians and motor vehicles. Parkfacilit ies, including buildings and trails, mayalso become overcrowded. Similarly, wilder-ness trailhead parking areas are usually filledto capacity on summer weekends and holidays,affecting the ability of visitors to access thesetrails and enjoy an uncongested experience.When visitors find full parking lots, they eitherpark illegally or change their plans and hope tofind an empty parking space at anothertrailhead. It is likely that in the future it willbecome increasingly difficult during the peak


35

visitor use season to find parking spaces andenjoy areas such as Paradise and Sunrise.

Issue 5. There are many park and visitor useactivities that potentially can affect the historicintegrity of the National Historic LandmarkDistrict.

The historic character of the national historiclandmark district is comprised of manystructures and character-defining features thatretain historic integrity, contribute to, andconvey the historic significance of the land-scape. There is a risk that individual, seem-ingly minor alterations to components of thedistrict could result in a large and harmfulcumulative effect on these resources. Increas-ing visitor use, structural deterioration result-ing from age and climatic conditions, and thefiscal constraints faced by park managers (whomust balance the preservation requirements ofnumerous resources) all affect future preserva-tion of the district. Because the designation isso recent, many visitors and park employeesare not aware of the importance of these areas.

Issue 6. Park geologic hazards, such asavalanches, debris flows, glacial outburstfloods, and rockslides, threaten visitors,employees, and developed areas.

The primary volcanic hazard at Mount Rainieris from debris flows — an avalanche of mudand other debris, resembling masses of wetconcrete, that flow downslope along channelsor stream valleys, often at high speed. Smalldebris avalanches occur in the park at intervalsranging from yearly to more than 100 years.These debris flows can occur without warningand would likely result in the loss of life andproperty. Many of the developed sites inMount Rainier are located on historic debrisflow deposits in valley bottoms, and 17 of 23developed sites in the park are within mappeddebris flow hazard zones. Other potentialvolcanic hazards associated with an eruptingMount Rainier include pyroclastic flows, ashfall, and lava flows. Other geologic hazards

visitors and employees face at Mount Rainierinclude rockfalls, landslides, and snowavalanches.

Issue 7. Emissions from external sources arethreatening the park’s air quality, whilecampfires and vehicles within the park aredegrading air quality in localized areas.

Degraded air quality could damage vegetation,soils, and water quality. Research and moni-toring studies have shown that the park’s airquality is being visibly affected by emissions,especially from sources outside the park.Recently, park staff participated in an effort toreduce emissions from the nearby Centraliapower plant and thereby improve the park’s airquality.

Additional measures also need to be taken toaddress emission sources within the park. Thesmoke from individual campfires can be sothick in places that it affects scenic resources.The particulates emitted from this smoke canaffect air quality and pose a health hazard tovisitors and park staff. Vehicular emissionsalso may lead to degraded air quality.

Issue 8. There are strongly differing agencyand public opinions on whether or not West-side Road and Carbon River Road should berepaired and whether or not Westside Roadshould be reopened to private vehicles.

Westside Road was designed to provide accessto the southwest corner of the park. However,in the 1960s recurrent flooding damaged theroad. Glacial outburst floods are expected tooccur for about the next 20 years. As theglacier recedes, more eroded material will beavailable to wash downstream and damage ordestroy the road.

In 1992, pursuant to an evaluation of glacialoutburst flooding done by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and documented in a subsequentenvironmental assessment, the National ParkService decided to keep most of Westside


36

Road closed for the foreseeable future. Areevaluation of the road closure would be doneevery three years, pending a change in thepredicted frequency of glacial outburstflooding. This decision was made partlybecause of the cost of either continuallyrepairing flood damage or rerouting the road,as well as because of potential impacts onvisitor safety.

Currently, visitors can drive a short way up theroad, but then they must hike, bicycle, or ridehorses along the rest of the road. Althoughmany visitors see this as an inconvenience,others who have made the effort have enjoyedthe greater solitude found in this part of thepark. The closure of this section of the roadmay have redistributed visitor use towardParadise and Sunrise, where visitors can moreeasily experience subalpine meadows and hikewith small children.

A large stretch of Carbon River Road has beenrepeatedly damaged by floods. The flooddamage in 1996 was recently repaired. Withina month of being repaired, a flood againeroded the same section of the road, althoughto a lesser degree. During the time the roadwas closed to motor vehicles, some visitorsenjoyed the 5-mile bicycle ride or hike to thecampground; many others saw this closure asan inconvenience, particularly families withchildren, school groups, and the physically lessfit . An economic study, completed for theenvironmental assessment to repair the road(NPS 1998a), analyzed the costs. Questionshave been raised about the cost of maintaininga roadway located in a floodplain. (Althoughmost park roads follow river corridors, for themost part they are outside of the 100-yearfloodplains.)

Issue 9. Prearrival visitor information,orientation to the park, and interpretiveexhibits and programs are not adequate forresource protection and visitor enjoyment ofthe park.

Visitor information services play a vital role inresource protection and visitor enjoyment.Visitor contact stations provide important tripplanning information, including safetymessages, user permits and reservations,information on significant park resources andtheir protection, and information on regionaland park recreational opportunities. As popularpark areas become more crowded and thelogistics of accessing the park become morecomplex for visitors, the location, number, andsize of visitor contact facilit ies inside and nearthe park, along with the variety of visitorservices they provide, help determine thequality of the visitor experience.

In any season, very litt le information is avail-able to visitors before they get to the park.Although visitors are usually greeted by aranger and given some basic information at theNisqually, Stevens Canyon, and White Riverentrance stations, visitors are not formallygreeted at most approaches into the park,including the Carbon River entrance, MowichLake Road, Washington State Routes 123 and410, and U.S. Highway 12. The exhibits at theLongmire museum and the visitor centers atParadise, Ohanapecosh, and Sunrise are veryold and do not adequately convey the purposeand significance of the park or its importantstories to visitors (such as the fact that visitorsplay an important stewardship role in protect-ing resources).

The media and range of services provided inexisting visitor contact facilit ies are outdatedand are not adequately conveying a resourceprotection message. Visitor informationservices also do not meet current interpretivestandards, park management objectives, or theexpectations of park visitors.

Issue 10. The National Park Service is undercontinual pressure to open up more roads inthe winter so that visitors can enjoy more ofthe park. But opening more roads would bevery costly and would pose safety concernsand increase the potential for resource impacts


37

(that is, enhanced road access in the wintermight diminish the available winter habitat forbig game species).

The only roads in the park that are open year-round are the Nisqually to Paradise Road, StateRoute 123 from U.S. Highway 12 to Ohanape-cosh, and usually Carbon River Road. Whenthe Nisqually to Paradise road is closed at theLongmire gate, visitors may wait at Longmirefor hours while avalanche hazards are assessedand the road and parking areas at Paradise aremade accessible. Other roads are not plowed inthe winter, primarily because of the cost,safety, and resource concerns of clearingadditional large volumes of snow.

Interest is growing in increasing vehicle accessto more of the park in winter, particularlyalong State Route 410. The Washington StateDepartment of Transportation once plowed thenorth section of State Route 410 over CayusePass and State Route 123, but stopped plowingin the early 1970s primarily because of fundingconstraints.

Issue 11. There are differing views regardingwinter recreational uses. Questions have beenraised about whether or not the managed snowplay (sledding) area at Paradise should con-tinue and, if it continues, should it continue asa managed area? Other issues include whetheror not snowmobiles should be permitted in thepark, and where and how much wintercamping should be permitted.

In winter, visitors cross-country ski, snowshoe,winter camp, and snowboard in Mount Rainier.Within the region, Paradise is often the firstarea to get snow, usually before the ski resortsopen, which attracts snowboarders and othersto the area. Much of the park’s winter useoccurs at Paradise, with Mowich Lake, CarbonRiver, White River, and Ohanapecosh beingused far less.

Snow play is a historic use of the park.Although the Paradise snow play area is

enjoyed by many visitors, questions have beenraised about the appropriateness of this activitybecause opportunities for snow play exist out-side the park. Because sledding and slidingpotentially can harm vegetation, sufficientsnow depth is required to prevent damage topark vegetation. Resource damage is particu-larly an issue during spring melt-out, whenpatches of snow reveal the sensitive subalpinemeadow. In addition, there are several snowplay accidents a year, and creating as safe anenvironment as possible for this activityrequires a substantial investment of parkresources (money and staff).

Snowmobile use has been allowed in certainareas of the park, but eliminating snowmobilesis being proposed for reasons of resourceprotection, compatibility of visitor uses, andcompliance with law. There was very litt lesnowmobiling in any of the areas wheresnowmobiling was permitted, in part becausethe designated routes are so short. Where it didoccur, snowmobiling could adversely affectsome wildlife and visitors (such as cross-country skiers or snowshoers) seeking quietand solitude in the park.

Major Nonwilderness Decision Points.Visitor Carrying Capacity for theNonwilderness Area — What visitor experi-ences and resource conditions should be main-tained in the park’s nonwilderness area? Howcan visitor use be managed to minimize re-source impacts and still ensure quality visitorexperiences? Should visitor carrying capacitiesbe set for Longmire, Paradise, Sunrise, CarbonRiver, and the Mowich Lake areas? If newmanagement zones and standards were estab-lished, they could either positively or nega-tively affect the experience of visitors or thequality of resources. If use was limited in onearea, and visitors were displaced, other areaswithin or outside the park could receive higheruse levels and more resource impacts.

If more visitor facilit ies, such as picnic areas,were added, the park could accommodate more


38

visitors, but there also would be a greaterpotential for resource impacts. Changing visi-tor activities, such as eliminating campfires orreducing the number of vehicles in the park,could reduce resource impacts but could alsodetract from visitor enjoyment. Snow camperswould be affected if snow camping at Paradise,as well as other areas in the park, was in-creased or decreased. (T ies to issues 3, 4, 5, 7,8, 10, and 11.)

Visitor Congestion — How can visitorcongestion be reduced on Mount Rainier’sroads, in parking areas, and at entrances?Different techniques can be employed, such asinitiating a shuttle system, changing trafficflows, eliminating overflow parking, andestablishing vehicle limits and parkingreservations based on the ability of theresources and facilit ies to accommodate use.Employing these methods would help theNational Park Service better meet desiredconditions and carry out its mission to providefor visitor enjoyment while protectingresources. But some of these techniques couldbe costly, both to the National Park Serviceand to visitors.

Stronger management controls could improveresource conditions and visitors’ experiences,but they could also detract from visitorenjoyment and freedom to do what they want,and go where and when they want.Implementing stronger controls could greatlyinconvenience some visitors, especially if theyhad to wait a long time or were unable to find aparking space. Although visitor convenience isimportant, so is respecting the historic integrityof cultural resources such as the NationalHistoric Landmark District and the protectionof natural resources. (T ies to issue 4.)

Geologic Hazard Risk Management — MountRainier poses considerable geologic hazards topark visitors, employees, and facilit ies. Some-time in the relatively near future there will be ageologic event, such as a debris flow, thatcould result in the loss of life or property in the

park. Is the potential risk for the loss of lifeand property great enough to warrant theclosure and relocation of visitor and adminis-trative facilit ies? What should park managersdo, if anything, from a visitor preference,public safety, legal, and moral/ethical view-point? On the one hand moving visitorfacilit ies such as the White River campgroundwould not only be unpopular among visitors,but would be costly. On the other hand doingnothing could have far more serious costssometime in the future. (T ies to issue 6.)

Mowich Lake Area — The use of MowichLake, the parking area, and the camping areahave adversely affected the lake environment,which is in wilderness. How should theMowich Lake area be managed so as to protectaquatic resources and wilderness values whileproviding for visitor enjoyment? If vehicleswere removed from the Mowich Lake water-shed to protect the lake’s ecology, visitors whocannot walk the increased distance to the lakemight not be able to enjoy this area. How canerosion, stormwater runoff, sedimentation, anddust from the road near Mowich Lake and theparking lot be reduced? What improvementscan be made to reduce user-caused damage tovegetation around the lake? Should scarcefunds be devoted to designing a new camp-ground that would both improve the experi-ence for visitors and better protect the lakeenvironment? (T ies to issue 4.)

Westside and Carbon River Roads — ShouldWestside Road be reopened partly or fully forpublic use? Reopening Westside Road tomotor vehicles would enable many morepeople to visit this part of the park. However,this could also increase resource impacts andreduce opportunities for solitude. Keeping bothroads open could be very costly when addi-tional flooding occurs. As with other drainagesin the park, flooding and geological hazardscould strand or harm many visitors within thepath of these events. Should both roads, or aportion of the roads, become trails for nonmo-


39

torized use? If the roads were permanentlyconverted to trails, what activities should bepermitted? What should the park staff do in thecase of conflicts between hikers, bicyclists,and horseback users? (T ies to issues 4 and 8.)

Visitor Information Services — Shouldadditional funds be dedicated to expandingvisitor information services? Where and howshould pre-trip information, orientation to thepark, and interpretation of its resources, beprovided? What improvements should be madeto reduce resource impacts and help visitorsknow ahead of time what to expect? Shouldinformation services be improved by reno-vating or expanding services and facilit iesinside the park, by expanding services outsidethe park, or by a combination of methods?Adding new facilit ies at strategically locatedareas leading to the park and improvinginformation services inside the park wouldhelp increase the effectiveness of the program,but would also drain the limited NPS financialresources. (Ties to issue 9.)

Winter Snow Play — Is snow play an appro-priate use in Mount Rainier National Park? Ifso, where should it be permitted? Can it bemanaged to limit impacts on resources and onother visitors? Prohibiting snow play wouldhelp protect resources and save NPS resources(i.e., money and staff). But prohibiting this usewould reduce the range of experiences offeredin the park. (T ies to issue 11.)

Winter Access — Should the National ParkService open up more roads in the winter,particularly State Route 410 to Cayuse Pass,State Route 123, Westside Road, and the roadto Mowich Lake? Could improvements bemade in how visitors get to Paradise? Pro-viding additional access would allow morepeople to enjoy more of the park in the winter,but it could also increase resource andwilderness impacts, and affect people seekingsolitude and a primitive recreational experi-ence. Should visitors be able to continuedriving to Paradise? If so, could improvements

be made to how visitors get there in their ownvehicles, or would a shuttle help get visitorsthere sooner or more visitors get there? (Tiesto issues 10 and 11.)

EXTERNAL BO UNDARY ISSUES

Eighty-three percent of Mount RainierNational Park is within Pierce County; the restis within Lewis County. Yakama Countyborders a part of the park’s eastern boundary,and the park is about 15 miles from KingCounty. As previously described, much of thepark is surrounded by three national forestsand several associated wilderness areas − theMount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest(with the Clearwater Wilderness to the northand the Glacier View Wilderness to the west),the Wenatchee National Forest (with theWilliam O. Douglas Wilderness to the east),and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (withthe Tatoosh Wilderness to the south).

Although the purposes of these national forestsdiffer from those of Mount Rainier NationalPark, and although Forest Service managementpractices differ from those of the National ParkService, the national forests have helped pro-tect park resources and views to and from thepark. Most national forest lands adjacent to thepark are expected to continue to be managed inaccordance with current wilderness andmanagement plan designations, which arecompatible with the park.

Privately owned lands also border thenorthwest corner of the park, the approachroad leading to the Carbon River area, andparts of the western boundary. T imber harvestswill occur in these areas in the future.

Issue 12. Park visitors, developments, andmanagement activities are affecting adjacentlandowners, and activities outside the parkboundaries are, in turn, affecting parkresources and visitors.


40

Mount Rainier is a historic and wilderness parkin a rapidly urbanizing region. Nearby com-munities are continuing to expand. The localcommunities surrounding the park are verymuch influenced by what happens within theboundaries of Mount Rainier. Some communi-ties are realizing greater seasonal sales and taxbenefits from tourist-related expenditures.However, continuing increases in tourism inthe park and surrounding area could result intraffic congestion, demand for additionalcommercial services, and an overload ofexisting community infrastructure. As a result ,the rural character of surrounding communitiescould change.

T imber clearcutting practices on nearby privateand U.S. Forest Service lands have affectedviews from the park, particularly on the westand north sides of the park. The park’s bound-ary is now clearly visible from space due totimber harvesting. In addition, t imber harvestsmay be affecting park wildlife populations,including threatened and endangered species.

Other activities on adjacent U.S. Forest Ser-vice lands also are affecting the park. The pro-posed expansion of the Crystal Mountain skiarea (part of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest on the northeast corner of thepark) is expected to substantially increase usein the area, some of which will likely overflowinto the park. In addition, the use of trails thatconnect national forest lands with the park,such as the Pacific Crest Trail, is affecting bothagencies. Coordination among different landmanagers can sometimes be difficult becauseeach agency has its own set of goals andmanagement practices.

Major External Boundary Decision Points.Viewshed and Resource Protection along thePark’s Northwest Corner — What land pro-tection strategies should be pursued to helpprotect views and resources in the northwestcorner of the park? If willing sellers exist andCongress approves, the National Park Servicecould seek to expand the park’s boundaries.But this can be an expensive and lengthyundertaking. Other land protection strategiescould be pursued, such as encouraging the U.S.Forest Service to acquire lands as part of a landexchange, or the National Park Service or theForest Service could acquire conservationeasements. But these strategies could also beexpensive and might not afford adequateprotection. (T ies to issue 12.)

41

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS

Several plans have influenced or would beinfluenced by the approved generalmanagement plan for Mount Rainier. Theseplans have been formulated by the NationalPark Service, U.S. Forest Service, regionaland county agencies, and site developers.Brief descriptions of these plans areprovided in appendix B. Other existing andongoing environmental assessments besidesthose in the appendix, such as the CarbonRiver Road Reconstruction Environmental

Assessment (NPS 1998a), also affectmanagement and developments in the park.These documents are on file at the parkheadquarters. Several plans for develop-ments outside the park, such as the MountRainier Resort at Park Junction, aredescribed in “Actions Considered in theCumulative Impact Analysis” in the“Environmental Consequences” chapter.


42

(blank)

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

44

(blank)

45

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents three alternatives orapproaches for managing Mount RainierNational Park. Alternative 1, the no-actionalternative (continue current management),describes existing management of the park toprovide a baseline for the other alternatives.Alternative 2 is the National Park Service’spreferred alternative. It would provide a com-prehensive approach with emphasis onresource protection while providing for addi-tional visitor use opportunities. Alternative 3would provide more opportunities for visitoruse in different ways from alternative 2, whilealso ensuring resource protection. Alternatives2 and 3, which are referred to as the actionalternatives, establish different visions for howMount Rainier National Park could be man-aged in the future. They focus on what re-source conditions and visitor experiencesshould be, rather than on exactly how thoseconditions or experiences would be achieved.Therefore, the alternatives do not describespecific facility locations or designs, nor dothey present specific visitor use managementtechniques.

Each action alternative

• describes the desired conditions (zoning)for the park

• describes general actions that would betaken both parkwide and in different partsof the park

• recommends a potential boundaryadjustment

• discusses implementation and costimplications

The management actions for each alternativeare presented geographically — parkwide, thesouth area (including Westside Road, Long-mire, Ricksecker Point, Paradise, and

Ohanapecosh areas), the northeast area(including the White River and Sunrise areas),and the northwest area (including the Mowichand Carbon River areas). In some areas man-agement approaches would differ seasonally,so actions are presented for summer or winter.Because no major changes are proposed in theminor developed areas in the park, such asTipsoo Lake, Box Canyon, Reflection Lake,and Grove of the Patriarchs, these areas are notdiscussed separately in the alternatives.

Unless stated otherwise, all current uses andfacilit ies would continue in all of the alterna-tives. Also, if changes in management actionsare not discussed, then future managementwould be similar to existing management.

At the end of this chapter, common mitigatingmeasures that would be taken to reduce theintensity of impacts under the action alterna-tives are described. This is followed by a briefdescription of the actions and alternatives thatwere considered by the planning team butdropped from further analysis for variousreasons. Following that are three tables thatsummarize the alternatives, the importantdifferences among them, and their impacts.

In developing the alternatives, severalassumptions were made by the planning team.These assumptions underpin the alternatives.They are considered “givens” for how the parkwill be managed in the future under all of thealternatives.

• No major new developments, includingcampgrounds, parking areas, lodges, roads,and visitor centers (aside from replacingthe Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter in alternative 2) would be builtwithin the park’s existing contiguousboundaries.

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46

• The major activity centers, includingLongmire, Paradise, Ohanapecosh, WhiteRiver, Sunrise, Mowich Lake, and CarbonRiver, would continue to be maintainedand would attract the majority of visitors.

• Minor developed areas would remain.Aside from changes that would improvethe visitor experience in these areas, suchas refining trail access, adding signs andparking, and adding vault toilets, no majorchanges are proposed.

• Recent decisions or proposals wouldcontinue to be implemented, including thefollowing:

building an environmental educationcenter at Tahoma Woods

rehabilitating and replacing interpretiveexhibits throughout the park, inaccordance with the “Long-RangeInterpretive Plan” (NPS 2000a); amajor rehabilitation or replacement ofthe audiovisual programs and exhibitswould occur in the Paradise, Sunrise,and Ohanapecosh Visitor Centers, theLongmire Museum, and in the WhiteRiver, Wilkeson, Longmire, andParadise Wilderness InformationCenters; wayside exhibits throughoutthe park would also be replaced

moving some operational/nonemergency response functions fromLongmire to Tahoma Woods

replacing the nonhistoric fee booth atthe White River entrance with twobooths.

building a new permanent collectionstorage facility at Tahoma Woods toensure long-term preservation, toaccommodate expansion of thecollection, and to encourage increaseduse of the collection by researchers andthe public; the environmental analysisfor this facility and for the newenvironmental education facility wouldbe completed later

replacing the Sunrise Lodge with aranger/concession facility, and theSunrise campground would be restoredto a natural condition, as called for inthe Sunrise Development Concept Plan/ Environmental Assessment (NPS1992b)

• The population of the Puget Sound region,as well as park visitation, would continueto grow over the time horizon of this plan(20 years).

• The majority of visitors would continue towant to visit the park from June throughOctober, primarily on good-weatherweekends and holidays.

• As an active volcano, Mount Rainierwould continue to pose a potential threat tovisitor and employee safety and to parkfacilit ies.

47

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

This alternative provides a baseline forevaluating the changes and impacts of the twoaction alternatives. Under this alternative,Mount Rainier National Park would continueto be managed as it has in the past, relying onthe “Statement for Management” (NPS1988b), the Wilderness Management Plan(NPS 1992c), and other approved plans. Thepark staff would continue to respond to issueson a case-by-case basis. No major new con-struction projects would be undertaken, andmajor changes in management direction wouldnot occur — current management practiceswould continue.

CURRENT PARK ZO NING

Under alternative 1 the guidelines and manage-ment zoning described in the “Statement forManagement” (NPS 1988b) and in the Wilder-ness Management Plan (NPS 1992c) wouldcontinue to be followed. There are three man-agement zone for the park’s nonwildernessareas and three for wilderness. Because it wasnot designated when these plans were devel-oped, the existing National Historic LandmarkDistrict is treated as a zone overlying theunderlying nonwilderness and wildernesszones.

Zone Definitions

Nonwilderness Zones. There are threenonwilderness zones:

Natural Zone — The natural zone includeslands and waters managed to conserve naturalresources and ecological processes and toprovide for their use and enjoyment by thepublic in ways that do not adversely affectthese resources and processes. Developmentwould be limited to dispersed recreational andessential management facilit ies that have noadverse effect on scenic quality or natural

processes, and that are essential for manage-ment, visitor use, or the appreciation of naturalresources. Examples of such facilit ies includetrails, signs and trailside information displays,shelters, stream-gauging devices, and weatherstations.

Development Zone — The development zoneincludes lands and waters managed to provideand maintain facilit ies serving park managersand visitors. It includes areas where parkdevelopment or intensive use may substantiallyalter the natural environment or the setting forculturally significant resources. Impacts asso-ciated with such developments would bemitigated to the greatest extent possible. Thedevelopment zone encompasses the facilit iesthemselves and all associated lands directlymodified as a result of their continuing man-agement and use. Development zones wouldbe restricted to the smallest area necessary toaccommodate required development and use.Additional development zones would be estab-lished only after considering alternative sites(including locations outside the park andlocations outside areas with significant naturaland cultural resources) and alternative levels ofuse, facilit ies, and services.

Special-use Zone — This zone includes landsand waters that would continue to be used foractivities not appropriate in other zones, suchas the Nisqually River and Silver Springsdikes, the snow play area, a telephone cablecorridor, and radio antennas.

Wilderness Zones. The lands and waters inwilderness zones are congressionally desig-nated wilderness, and they are managed inaccordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act, theWashington Park Wilderness Act of 1988(which established the Mount Rainier Wilder-ness), and NPS Management Policies (NPS1988a). Development would be minimal in allwilderness zones. Trails and primitive


48

campsites would be maintained, along withranger patrol cabins, shelters, and firelookouts.

The Wilderness Management Plan (NPS1992c) is based on the goals stated in thedocuments above for managing the wilderness,consistent with legal and policy requirements.The 1992 plan establishes three wildernesszones: trail, cross-country, and alpine zones.The plan describes the types of structuresallowed in wilderness, standards for resourceand social conditions, and standards for admin-istrative use and management. As describedbelow, varying degrees of challenge andopportunity for solitude are provided by thethree zones. (Full zone descriptions areprovided in the Wilderness Management Plan.)

Trail Zone — The trail zone includes durableand well-maintained trails that provide for easyaccess to wilderness by large numbers ofvisitors at any one time, with impactsconcentrated along the trails and campingpermitted only at designated campsites. Duringthe peak season this zone would likely provideonly limited opportunities for experiencingsolitude; and overnight use is limited to 12people for group campsites and 5 people forindividual campsites. From October throughMay, or when snow depth exceeds 2 feet,group size is limited to 12 people per site.There are no limits on day use. Stock use ispermitted on specified trails and at specifiedcamps.

Cross-country Zone — Wilderness areaswithin this zone are more “pristine” than in thetrail zone and offer visitors opportunities forchallenge and solitude. Visitors are expected touse these areas without assistance, thus thereare no signs, designated campgrounds, facili-ties, structures, or well-developed and main-tained trails, although some areas may havenarrow “way” trails. Users are encouraged tofollow minimum impact techniques. Theopportunity for experiencing solitude variesfrom moderate to high, but in most cases it is

likely higher than in the trail zone. Duringsummer, or when snow cover is less than 2feet, overnight camping groups are limited to 5people. From October through May, or whensnow depth exceeds 2 feet, group size islimited to 12 people. There are no limits onday use. Stock use is not permitted.

Alpine zone — Areas in the alpine zoneprovide for climbing and alpine hiking oppor-tunities with a higher degree of challenge andexperience than in the cross-country zone.With few exceptions, no designated trails existin this zone, although some areas may havenarrow “way” trails that lead to more heavilyused vistas or climbing routes. Visitors areencouraged to camp on permanent snow or ice.They may also camp on bare ground areas thathave previously been used as campsites. Nocamping is permitted on vegetated areas.

The construction of new campsites would notbe allowed in the alpine zone, and the enhance-ment of existing sites with additional construc-tion such as rock walls or windbreaks wouldnot be permitted. The opportunity to experi-ence solitude during the summer monthsranges from high on the more remote or tech-nically difficult climbing routes to extremelylow on the more popular routes. Group sizesfor public use are limited to 12 people whencamping on snow and ice, and 5 people whencamping on bare ground.

Concessioner-guided groups that pass throughCamp Muir are limited to a total of 59 spacesfor all climbing routes on any given night. Thisincludes 35 spaces per night at Camp Muir(plus permanent camp staff members), 12spaces per night on the Muir Snowfield(including guides), and 12 spaces on IngrahamFlats (including guides). This ensures thatcommercial groups that are camped will notexceed one-third of the total possible nighttimecapacity. Stock use is not permitted.


50

back of map

Alternative 1: No Action

51

National Historic Landmark District. TheMount Rainier National Historic LandmarkDistrict overlies the development zone, but italso includes the Wonderland and NorthernLoop trails and some structures in the wilder-ness area. All these lands within the NationalHistoric Landmark District are to be managedfor the preservation, protection, and interpre-tation of cultural resources and their settingsand to provide for their use and enjoyment bythe public. Development in the zone must becompatible with the preservation and interpre-tation of cultural values. Consistent with poli-cies for the preservation and use of culturalresources, historic structures may be adap-tively used for utilitarian or other purposes.

Allocation of Zones

Because most of Mount Rainier National Parkis congressionally designated wilderness (97%of the park, or 228,480 acres), the threeexisting wilderness zones cover most of thepark, as shown in the Existing Conditions map.The allocation of both nonwilderness andwilderness zones is described below.

Nonwilderness Zones. Application of thenonwilderness zones includes the following.

Development Zone — The development zoneincludes the following areas, covering a totalof approximately 414 acres and associatedroads and trails:

• Longmire: administrative offices,Longmire Museum, National Park Inn, oldgas station, maintenance complex, parkand concession employee residences, old(Macy) dormitory, community building,wastewater treatment plant, oldcampground, and various associatedfacilit ies.

• Paradise: Paradise Inn, Guide House,Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter, ranger station, park and concession

employee residences, wastewater treatmentplant and associated facilit ies

• Ohanapecosh: ranger station, maintenancecomplex, visitor center, seasonal employeeresidences, campground, and wastewatertreatment plant

• White River: entrance station, rangerstation, seasonal employee residences,campground, and small maintenancefacility

• Sunrise: visitor center, Sunrise (day) lodge(i.e., ranger station and concessionbuilding), park and concession seasonalemployee residences, and related facilit ies

• Carbon River: entrance station, rangerstation, old employee residences,associated storage and maintenancefacilit ies

• Nisqually: entrance station, employeeresidences, administrative offices, andassociated storage and maintenancefacilit ies

• Stevens Canyon: entrance station

• Other campgrounds: campsites at theSunshine Point, White River, Ipsut Creek,Cougar Rock, Sunrise, and Mowich Lakeareas

• Tahoma Woods: park headquarters,employee residences, greenhouse,wastewater treatment plant, horse barn,and storage area

Natural Zone — This zone covers about 6,708acres and includes two nonwilderness areasnear the Nisqually entrance, the ParadiseMeadows, the Sunrise meadows andcampground area, and an area north of CarbonRiver Road.


52

Special-use Zone — The special use zoneincludes several structures and small areas inthe park, covering about 10 acres. TheNisqually River and Silver Springs dikes, thesnow play area, a telephone cable corridor, andradio antennas are included in this zone.

Wilderness Zones. Application of thewilderness zones includes the following.

Trail Zone — This zone currently applies to55,811 acres of the park and includes areas oflower forest, subalpine, and some alpineenvironments. Within this zone are all but twoof the well-developed and maintained type Aand B trails, trailside camps, and areas within0.25 mile of the trails or trailside camps.Where trailside camps are on lakes, the trailzone includes an area of 0.25 mile around thelakes. A total of 38 trailside camps with 143individual campsites and 23 group sites havebeen established within the trail zone.

Cross-country Zone — The cross-country zoneincludes 124,739 acres of the park and coverslands and waters located a minimum of 0.25mile from the trail zone and from roads. Thezone currently extends from lower forest areasto subalpine environments up to treeline(generally 6,000–6,800 feet elevation). The2,540-acre Butter Creek Research NaturalArea (the area within the park) is includedwithin this zone, but it is managed differentlythan the rest of the zone in that no recreationaluse is permitted in this area.

Alpine Zone — Areas in the alpine zoneprovide challenging climbing and alpine hikingopportunities. This 47,930-acre zone includesthe area above treeline and primarily containsexposed rock, glaciers, and snowfields. Theopportunity to experience solitude during thesummer months ranges from high on the moreremote or technically difficult climbing routesto extremely low on popular routes.

National Historic Landmark District. Thedistrict covers 1,716 acres, which overlie other

nonwilderness and wilderness zones. It in-cludes the park road system and most of themajor developed areas. Most of the Longmire,Paradise, and Sunrise areas are in this zone.Some wilderness structures (e.g., ranger cabinsand lookouts along the Wonderland Trail) alsoare included in this district, so they areincluded in both the historic zone and awilderness subzone.

PARKWIDE ACTIO NS

Resource and Visitor Management

Under this alternative, Mount Rainier NationalPark would continue to be managed as it has inthe past, relying on the “Statement for Man-agement” (NPS 1988b), the WildernessManagement Plan (NPS 1992c), and otherapproved plans. The park staff would continueto respond to issues a case by case, and majorchanges in management direction would notoccur; that is, current management practiceswould continue. No major new initiativeswould be pursued to manage visitors in thenonwilderness and wilderness areas, and aparkwide visitor carrying capacity strategywould not be established.


Opportunities for interpretation, information,and orientation would continue to be availableat existing facilit ies both inside and outside thepark. The exhibits and media at the Paradise,Ohanapecosh, and Sunrise visitor centers, theLongmire museum, and the White River,Wilkeson, Longmire, and Paradise wildernessinformation ranger stations would berehabilitated in accordance with the “Long-Range Interpretive Plan” (NPS 2000a). TheNational Park Service would continue to workwith partners to provide information to visitorsat locations outside the park, including thevisitor contact stations at Silver Creek, Enum-claw, and Packwood, and the Outdoor Recre-


53

ation Information Center in Seattle. The parkwilderness information centers would remainin their current locations.

The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter, which was built at Paradise in the mid-1960s, has more than 500,000 visitors per year.The 60,000-square-foot structure is at anelevation of 5,400 feet and is subject toextreme weather conditions, including highsnow accumulation, cold temperatures, highwinds, and an extended winter season. Inaddition to visitor services (information desk,restrooms, auditorium, exhibit space, book-store, observation area, gift shop, and foodservices), the facility provides seasonal rangerand concessioner quarters, interpretive andranger staff offices, maintenance workrooms,heating, ventilation, air conditioning space,and backup electrical generation for theParadise area. Under this alternative currentuses would remain, and interior spaces wouldnot be rehabilitated.

Wilderness Management and Use

Day and O vernight Use. Designated wilder-ness in Mount Rainier would continue to bemanaged according to the Wilderness Manage-ment Plan (NPS 1992c). The zones andestablished standards in that plan wouldcontinue to be followed. The limits of accept-able change monitoring would continue. Dayuse in wilderness would continue to beunregulated.

Wilderness Trailheads. Wilderness trailheadsare not in wilderness but are described herebecause they are where people begin theirwilderness experiences. At all t imes parking atwilderness trailheads would continue to takeplace on a first-come, first-served basis.Overflow parking would continue to occur atwilderness trailheads.

Winter Use

Skiing, Snowshoeing, and Snowboarding.These activities would continue to be allowedthroughout the park.

O vernight Camping. Drive-in camping at theSunshine Point and Ipsut Creek campgroundswould continue to be available in the winter.Snow camping would continue to be allowedat existing locations in Paradise when there is5 feet of snow cover. Walk-in or ski-in camp-ing would continue to be allowed at Ohanape-cosh. In other areas a minimum of 2 feet ofsnow cover for camping would be encouraged.Permits would continue to be required forovernight camping in the wilderness area.

Trails System

The existing trails system would be maintainedaccording to current practices, and there wouldbe no new management initiatives.Management issues would be addressed astime and funds allow.

Geologic Hazards

The National Park Service would continue itscurrent efforts to alert visitors to potentialgeologic hazards (e.g., debris flows, volcaniceruptions, glacial outburst floods) in the park.Notices about the threat of geologic hazardswould continue to be included in the parknewsletter and Web site, as well as parkexhibits. Signs would be maintained in highhazard areas, such as the White River andCougar Rock campgrounds.

Air Quality

The park staff would continue to work with itspartners to maintain and improve the airquality of the park and region. However, nonew efforts would be initiated to minimize theeffects of in-park pollution sources on airquality.


54

Preserving Natural Soundscapes

The park staff would continue to enforceexisting noise policies in the wilderness area.However, no new efforts would be initiated tominimize the effects of aircraft overflights orland-based noise sources on natural quiet in thewilderness area.

Management of Pack Stock

Pack stock would continue to be permitted ondesignated trails and roads.

Management of Tour Buses

No new efforts to manage tour buses would beinitiated.

ACTIO NS BY GEO GRAPHICAREA — SUMMER

Under the no-action alternative (continuecurrent management), existing managementpolicies would be continued and no newinitiatives would be implemented.

Westside Road

Private vehicles would continue to be allowedto drive on Westside Road up to the roadclosure at the Dry Creek parking area fromMemorial Day until snow closes the road.Beyond this point only park administrativevehicles would be allowed. The road would bepermanently maintained for vehicular use up tothe Dry Creek parking area. Other activitieswould include bicycling, hiking, and packstock use. No other means of access (such asshuttles) would be provided, and no additionalparking or visitor facilit ies would beconstructed.

Longmire

No major new visitor use management effortswould be made at Longmire. Existing parking

facilit ies would be maintained and overflowparking would continue to be allowed. Theformer campground would continue to be usedonly by park volunteers. Other visitor andadministrative facilit ies would be maintained,and no major new facilit ies would beconstructed.

Ricksecker Point

The land inside the road loop would continueto be largely undeveloped and there would beno new visitor facilit ies.

Paradise

No additional efforts would be made tomanage visitor use at Paradise.

• Visitor access: Private vehicles wouldcontinue to drive to Paradise year-round,with parking on a first-come, first-servedbasis. The only limits on the number ofvehicles permitted at Paradise would bethe number of parking spaces. No shuttleswould be provided for visitors except forclimbing concession guests, most of whomwould continue to use a shuttle. The volun-tary employee shuttle would also continue.

• Traffic flow circulation: Visitors wouldcontinue to travel to Paradise along thetwo-way road to the Paradise parking lots.Visitors would then exit Paradise bydriving east past the Paradise Inn along theone-way Paradise Valley Road or byreturning on the two-way road.

• Parking: There would continue to be 750designated parking spaces, with parkingspaces for tour buses. Overflow parkingwould continue to be allowed, whichwould provide additional parking spaces(500+ cars). A historic turnaround, aparking area accessible to visitors withdisabilit ies, and a holding area for privateshuttles would remain adjacent to theParadise Inn.


55

• Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter: The visitor center would continueto be used and maintained, but would notbe rehabilitated.

Ohanapecosh

Visitor and administrative facilit ies atOhanapecosh area would continue to bemaintained, and the existing day-use andvisitor center parking areas would remain intheir current configuration.

White River

No major new visitor use managementinitiatives would occur in the White Riverarea. Visitors would continue to drive to thisarea on a first-come, first-served basis. Allvisitor facilit ies at the campground would beretained.

Sunrise

Sunrise would be managed as it has been in thepast. No major new visitor use managementinitiatives would occur.

• Visitor access: Visitors could continue todrive to Sunrise, with parking on a first-come, first-served basis. No shuttles wouldbe provided, and there would be no limitson the number of vehicles permitted atSunrise (except as limited by the numberof parking spaces).

• Parking: Designated parking spaces wouldcontinue to be provided for 260 privatevehicles, with overflow parking for up to340 vehicles. Parking spaces wouldcontinue to be provided for tour buses.

• Visitor and administrative facilities: Withthe exception of Sunrise Lodge, all theexisting facilit ies at Sunrise would beretained. The Sunrise Lodge would bereplaced with a ranger/concession facility.The developed picnic area north of the

Sunrise “stockade complex” would bemaintained at its current size. No newpicnic sites would be added.

Mowich

No major new visitor use managementinitiatives would occur in the Mowich area.

• Visitor access: The gravel road from thepark boundary to Mowich Lake wouldremain open and would continue to bemaintained for private vehicle use. Theturnaround point would remain at the endof the road near the camping area, whichlies within the lake’s watershed. Thenumber of vehicles on the road would notbe limited.

• Parking: No changes would occur to theexisting parking area. The existing 50designated parking spaces would beretained. Overflow parking along theroadway would continue to be allowed. Nonew initiatives would be occur to managethese parking spaces.

• Visitor facilities: Walk-in camping wouldcontinue to be permitted in a large circulardisturbed area at the end of the road thatwas formerly used as a parking lot. Thisarea would not have designated campsites.Picnic sites in the Mowich area and at PaulPeak would be retained.

Carbon River

No major new visitor use managementinitiatives would occur at Carbon River.

• Visitor access: The road to Ipsut Creekwould be repaired and maintained(including repair of future washouts).Visitors could drive their private vehiclesto Ipsut Creek. No shuttles would beprovided. Hiking and bicycling along theroad would continue to be allowed, alongwith the use of pack stock.


56

• Parking: No changes would be made toparking spaces, and overflow parkingwould continue to be permitted along theroad.

• Visitor and administrative facilities: Theexisting administrative facilit ies at theCarbon River entrance would be retained.The campground at Ipsut Creek would bemaintained in its current use for drive-incamping. The existing picnic sites at IpsutCreek campground and along CarbonRiver Road would also remain.

ACTIO NS BY GEO GRAPHICAREA — WINTER

As for summer actions under the no-actionalternative (continue current management),existing management policies would becontinued and no new initiatives would beimplemented.

Westside Road

Westside Road would not be plowed. Visitorscould continue to drive up to the existing roadclosure near the junction with the Nisqually toParadise road. Skiing and snowshoeing wouldstill be permitted.

Longmire

There would be no change in managementactions or facilit ies at Longmire.

Ricksecker Point

The area would remain closed to vehicularaccess. Skiing and snowshoeing would still bepermitted.

Paradise

The road from Nisqually to Paradise wouldcontinue to be plowed, and visitors would beallowed to drive to Paradise when weatherconditions permit. The groomed snow play

area (with a parking area and restrooms) wouldcontinue to be maintained, and snow playwould continue to be allowed only in thedesignated area (provided that there is 5 feet ofsnow cover). Staffing of the snow play areawould continue to be provided on weekendsand holidays.

Ohanapecosh

The state would continue to plow State Route123 up to Ohanapecosh, and existing winterparking facilit ies would be maintained. Skiing,snowshoeing, and snowboarding, and wintercamping would still be allowed.

Northeast Area

Existing management policies would be con-tinued, and no major new initiatives would beimplemented. As is now the practice during thewinter, State Route 410 would not be plowed,and the northeast portion of the park wouldremain closed to private vehicles. The existingsno-park at the park boundary would bemaintained, and skiing, snowboarding, andsnowshoeing would be allowed on the road tothe campground, as well as beyond the Matherwye (State Route 410). No visitor facilit ieswould be available, and there would be nomajor new initiatives to manage visitors atthese locations.

Mowich

As is the current practice, the road to MowichLake would not be plowed, and privatevehicles would continue to be allowed on theunpaved road only up to the gate at the PaulPeak trailhead, just inside the park boundary.Skiing and snowshoeing would continue to beallowed.

Carbon River

Carbon River Road would remain open forprivate vehicles to the Ipsut Creek camp-ground, except during temporary closures


57

caused by unusual snowfall, downed trees, orwashouts, but the road would not be plowed.Skiing and snowshoeing would be allowed, buttypically this area has insufficient snowfall forthese activities.

COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATIO N

Management actions described under the no-action alternative (continue current manage-ment) would continue to be implemented overthe next 20 years as funding became available.Priorities for implementation would remain asidentified in existing approved documents,such as the park’s “Strategic Plan (NPS 2000b)

and Resource Management Plan (NPS 1999e).Because this alternative would not involve anynew management initiatives or new capitalexpenditures, there would be no initial costsassociated with its implementation.

There would be no additional park employ-ment under the no-action alternative (continuecurrent management). The costs of ongoingpark operations and maintenance wouldcontinue at essentially current levels.Information about the park’s operations andmaintenance budgets are on file at parkheadquarters.

58

ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The National Park Service’s preferredalternative would enhance both visitor useopportunities and the protection of natural andcultural resources, compared to the no-actionalternative (continue current management).This would be accomplished by modifyingmanagement practices to improve existingconditions and address changes that areanticipated in the next 20 years.

The primary goals of the preferred alternativewould be to better manage peak-periodvisitation so that it did not adversely affectvisitor experiences and park resources and toencourage more off-peak use of the park. Keyelements of the preferred alternative includethe following:

• Establish a visitor carrying capacityframework and use it to ensure thepreservation of park resources and thequality of the visitor experience.

• Establish shuttle services while alsoeliminating parking, which would reducetraffic congestion and ensure effectivevisitor transportation within the park.

• Provide additional opportunities forvisitors to use the park in the summer andwinter.

• Replace the Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center at Paradise with a smaller,more efficient visitor center.

• Improve the visitor information programinternally and externally.

• Enhance the protection of resources,including air quality and naturalsoundscapes.

Unless otherwise stated in the “Direction forthe Plan” section, all existing park facilit ieswould continue to be maintained and existingrecreational uses would continue to be per-mitted. Past decisions regarding facilit ies, suchas constructing a new ranger station/con-cession facility at Sunrise, also would beimplemented.

PRO POSED ZONING

Zone Definitions

Through the general management planningprocess, a new set of prescriptive managementzones was developed for the park. The newprescriptive zones would manage differentareas of the park to achieve different physical,biological, and social conditions. As shown intable 1, each zone is defined in terms ofdesired resource conditions, desired visitorexperiences, and facilit ies and activities. Thezones also provide a framework for managingovernight use and day use levels, unlike thezones currently used. A complete descriptionof the zones is provided in appendix C.

As with the no-action alternative (continuecurrent management), the Mount RainierNational Historic Landmark District wouldcontinue to overlie the prescriptive manage-ment zones. Most of the district would bewithin nonwilderness zones, but the Wonder-land and Northern Loop trails and somestructures in the wilderness zones would alsobe within the National Historic LandmarkDistrict.

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative

59

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONE DEFINITIONS

Manage-ment Zone

DesiredResource Condition

DesiredVisitor Experience

Facilitiesand Activities

Wilderness Zones — In all zones, activities would be consistent with the wilderness designation. Unmaintained,constructed trails might still be present and still be used in all of these zones.Researchnatural area

Would provide a baseline forecological study, with novisible signs of human use.

None. Access would be forapproved research andeducational purposes only.

Research and educationalpurposes only.

Pristine Essentially untouched environ-ment that is modified only byexisting cultural resources.

The feeling of being alone. Very minimal signs of humanuse, no trails or designatedcampsites of any kind.

Primitive Largely natural, unmodifiedlandscape.

Opportunities to experience soli-tude and quiet. Visitors wouldfeel apart from other people, butnot entirely alone.

Minimal signs of human use,except for a few primitive routesand designated campsites inalpine areas.

High-useclimbing

Natural landscape modified bythe presence of wilderness-appropriate structures. Novisible signs of human use offthe routes.

A moderate to high degree ofsocial interaction and fewopportunities for solitude.

A few wilderness-appropriatestructures such as primitive routesand designated campsites.Activities oriented towardmountaineering.

Moderate-useclimbing

Similar to the high-useclimbing zone.

Moderate to low degree of socialinteraction and more oppor-tunities for solitude.

Similar to the high-use climbingzone.

Semi-primitivetrail

Natural landscape modified bythe presence of wilderness-appropriate structures.

Wilderness experience withoccasional periods of solitude.

Designated trails, camps, andother wilderness-appropriatestructures. Activities orientedtoward hiking.

Transitiontrail

Natural landscape modified bythe presence of wilderness-appropriate structures.

Wilderness hiking experiencewith a high degree of socialinteraction and few opportunitiesfor solitude.

Same as the semiprimitive zone,but with greater evidence ofhuman use.

Nonwilderness Zones

Primitive Maintained in a natural state,similar to wilderness primi-tive zone, except trails maybe provided.

Similar to the wildernessprimitive zone.

Similar to the wilderness primi-tive zone. However, overnightcamping would not be permitted.

Sensitiveresource /recreation

Natural landscape, with nohuman use visible outsidedesignated trails and useareas.

Experience of park resourcesgenerally unimpeded by othervisitors and relatively close todeveloped facilities. A highdegree of social interaction.

Facilities and structures inlocalized areas. Hiking would bethe primary activity.

Roadedmultiuse

Natural landscape modifiedby developed facilities.

High degree of social interaction;motorized vehicles limited topublic shuttles, visitors with dis-abilities, and park administration.

Gravel roads, trails, walk-incampgrounds and picnic areas,small buildings. Activities wouldinclude hiking and bicycling.

Visitorfacilities

High modification to naturalprocesses and the naturallandscape.

Highly structured opportunities toenjoy and learn about park; ac-cess by foot, bicycle, and motorvehicle; high degree of socialinteraction.

A wide array of visitor servicesand facilities, including roads,entrance stations, visitor centers,lodges, and campgrounds; activi-ties would include bicycling,hiking, snow play, scenic driving,skiing, and camping.


60

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONE DEFINITIONS (continued)

ManagementZone

DesiredResource Condition

DesiredVisitor Experience

Facilitiesand Activities

Administrative High modification to naturalprocesses and the naturallandscape.

General visitation would notoccur, although some visitorsmight access these areas to obtainstaff assistance or learn abouthistorically significant buildings.

Concentrations of administrativefacilities to support parkmanagement and operation.Activities would be associatedwith park administration.

After defining the desired resource conditionsand visitor experiences in terms of manage-ment zones, the National Park Service appliedthem to Mount Rainier National Park. Theresults are shown in the maps entitled SummerManagement Zones and Winter ManagementZones.

Summary of WildernessManagement Zones

Seven management zones would be applied tothe wilderness to allow for a variety of trailand off-trail experiences. The zones would bethe same in the summer and winter, althoughin the winter the wilderness would be lessaccessible to visitors because of snow.

• Areas without maintained trails wouldprimarily fall into either the pristine or theprimitive zones. Most of the lower forestand glaciers would be classified aspristine, and most of the subalpine regionwould be in the primitive category.

• The Butter Creek Research Natural Areawould be a separate zone. Access to thisarea would be limited to approved researchand educational purposes.

• The major climbing routes would bewithin either the moderate-use or the high-use climbing zones.

• Most trail corridors and associateddesignated campsites, including much ofthe Wonderland Trail, would be classifiedas semiprimitive trail.

• A few of the more popular trails, includingtrails to Spray Park, Comet Falls, andBurroughs Mountain, would becategorized as transition trail.

Summary of NonwildernessManagement Zones

Management zones for the nonwilderness areasof the park are summarized in table 2. In someareas, different management zones would beapplied seasonally to accommodate the majordifferences in types of use and resource pro-tection that are associated with winter snowcover. The application of summer zonesusually would begin between the end of Mayand July, depending on the area, and wouldend when the roads could not be kept clearusing push plows. This situation usually occursbetween late September and mid-October.

Generally, the visitor experience of the man-agement prescription would become moreprimitive in winter, when facilit ies such asroads, restrooms, and picnic tables are coveredby snow. Resource management concernschange seasonally as soils and vegetation areprotected by snow.

PARKWIDE ACTIO NS

Visitor Experience and ResourceProtection (Carrying Capacity)

Under the preferred alternative, a visitorexperience and resource protection frameworkwould be established for Mount Rainier, asillustrated on the Carrying Capacity Frame-work figure. This approach to addressing

62

back of map

64

back of map

66

back of map


67

TABLE 2: NONWILDERNESS MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR THE PRE FERRED ALTERNATIVE

Management ZoneLocation Summer WinterSouthern Part of Park

Area south of the Nisqually to Paradise Road Primitive PrimitiveKautz Creek maintenance area Administrative AdministrativeArea south of Longmire Primitive PrimitiveGrove of the Patriarchs Sensitive resource / recreation PrimitiveParadise Meadows Sensitive resource / recreation Sensitive resource / recreationOhanapecosh trails area Sensitive resource / recreation PrimitiveCamp Muir Sensitive resource / recreation Sensitive resource / recreationRicksecker Point Visitor facilities PrimitiveWestside Road Roaded multiuse PrimitiveCougar Rock campground and picnic area Visitor facilities Sensitive resource / recreationParadise picnic area Visitor facilities PrimitiveState Route 123 north from Ohanapecosh to the

Stevens Canyon entranceVisitor facilities Primitive

Tahoma Woods Visitor facilities andadministrative

Visitor facilities andadministrative

Nisqually entrance Visitor facilities andadministrative

Visitor facilities andadministrative

Road from the Nisqually entrance to the upper Paradiseparking area

Visitor facilities Visitor facilities

Paradise Valley Road, including parking areas Visitor facilities PrimitiveSunshine Point campground Visitor facilities Visitor facilitiesPart of Paradise developed area, including visitor

center, inn, and picnic areaVisitor facilities Visitor facilities

Part of Paradise developed area, including NPS andconcession offices, employee dormitories, and theGuide House

Administrative Administrative

Part of Longmire area, including the wildernessinformation center/museum, inn, and Trail of theShadows


Part of Longmire area, including maintenance area,offices, employee housing, community building


Skate Creek access road Roaded multiuse AdministrativeHistoric Longmire campground Visitor facilities AdministrativeOhanapecosh visitor center, campground, picnic area,

and associated parking areasVisitor facilities Sensitive resource / recreation

Ohanapecosh ranger station, maintenance, andemployee housing area


State Route 123 from the junction with State Route410 south to Ohanapecosh

Visitor facilities Primitive

State Route 123 from Ohanapecosh south to the parkboundary


Stevens Canyon Road Visitor facilities PrimitiveNortheast Part of Park

White River campground Visitor facilities PrimitiveTrail areas at Sunrise Sensitive resource / recreation PrimitiveState Route 410 from its intersection with the Sunrise

Road (Mather wye) to the east park boundary atChinook Pass


ALTERNATIVES, INCLU DING THE PROPOSED ACTION

68

TABLE 2: NONWILDERNESS MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR THE PRE FERRED ALTERNATIVE (Continued)

Management ZoneLocation Summer Winter

Camp Schurman Sensitive resource / recreation Sensitive resource / recreationWhite River entrance area Administrative PrimitiveRoads from the White River entrance to the White

River campground and to Sunrise, including theparking area


Sunrise visitor center, ranger station/concessionfacility, picnic area, and walk-in campground


Tipsoo Lake parking and picnic area Visitor facilities PrimitivePark operations areas at White River and Sunrise,

including employee housing and maintenanceareas

Administrative Primitive

Northwest Part of ParkArea north of Carbon River Road Primitive PrimitiveCarbon River Road Roaded multiuse Roaded multiuseIpsut Creek campground Roaded multiuse Roaded multiuseMowich Lake Road up to its new terminus about

0.5 mile before the lakeVisitor facilities Primitive

Mowich Lake Road from its new terminus to thelake

Roaded multiuse Primitive

Mowich Lake campground Visitor facilities Primitive

carrying capacity is similar to the wildernesslimits of acceptable change (LAC) process thathas been used to monitor and manage theMount Rainier Wilderness since 1989.

At the top of the framework, guiding allactions, is a vision of resource and ecologicalintegrity, visitor use, and visitor experience forMount Rainier. This vision is to ensure that allnatural processes and functions are operatingwith minimal changes due to visitors, and thatvisitors have high-quality experiences.

Inventorying the park’s resources and visitoruses constitutes the next level of the frame-work. Ecological systems play a major role indetermining the type and level of visitor usethat can be accommodated in different parts ofthe park.

The next step involves defining prescriptivemanagement zones, which were summarized intable 1, and allocating them to specific parklocations (table 2). For each zone, indicatorsand standards are selected. Indicators arespecific, measurable variables that can be

monitored to determine the quality of naturaland cultural resource conditions and visitorexperiences. Standards identify the minimumacceptable conditions for each resource orsocial indicator and warn when managementactions are merited.

The indicators are systematically monitored inthe zones to determine the conditions ofresources and visitor experiences. Effectivemonitoring of resource and social indicatorsprovides the documentation needed to imple-ment meaningful management action. Moni-toring documents if and when a managementaction is needed to keep conditions within thestandards.

The final level is management action. Manage-ment actions would be taken if resource condi-tions or visitor experiences were out ofstandard or monitoring indicated a downwardtrend in the condition of the resources orvisitor experiences. The intent of the manage-ment actions would be to improve the situationand achieve the intended conditions within thezone. Management actions would range fromlow intrusiveness (such as education and


69

signing) to highly restrictive (such as closuresor use limits).

Concurrent with such physical environmentalchanges is visitors’ perception (often notconsciously recognized) that an area’saesthetic quality has been degraded.

Interim Carrying Capacities. The preferredalternative lays the framework for carryingcapacity and does not set limits. Until visitorexperience and resource indicators and stand-ards were applied in the zones, physicalcarrying capacities would serve as the interimcarrying capacities for the nonwildernessportion of the park. Physical carrying capaci-ties would be determined by how many ve-hicles a specific parking lot could hold withoutoverflow onto the roads and the capacity ofshuttles. In the Mount Rainier Wilderness thelimits of acceptable change monitoring wouldcontinue to be conducted, and the limits ofacceptable change standards, identified in theWilderness Management Plan (1992c), wouldcontinue to serve as the interim carryingcapacities for the wilderness.

Indicators and Standards. In the next fiveyears the park staff would apply resource andvisitor indicators and standards in the zones.Preliminary resource indicators have beenidentified for all of the wilderness zones andfor the sensitive resource/recreation zone in thenonwilderness portion of the park. Theseresource indicators, which are described inappendix D, include visual condition classes,and aquatic, wildlife, soundscape, and nightsky indicators. However, the standards for theresource indicators are still in development andare not ready to be applied.

Monitoring. The park staff would institute amonitoring program in selected sites in thenonwilderness and in wilderness to determineif resource and social conditions wereimproving or deteriorating. If they weredeteriorating, the monitoring results wouldalert managers as to whether or not conditions

had degraded to an unacceptable level (i.e.,violated standards).

Mount Rainier National Park would carry outdifferent levels of monitoring . In areas whereresource degradation was occurring or visitorswere affecting unique or sensitive areas, themonitoring would be intensive. Other areasmight be monitored on a tiered approach:Immediate and annual monitoring might bedone on those areas that were close to or out ofstandard (tier 1). Areas that might beapproaching a standard or have other emergingneeds (but not as pressing as the first t ier)might be monitored every two or three years.A third tier of areas that appeared to be in goodshape and were not experiencing rapid changemight be monitored on a less frequentschedule, perhaps every five years.

Management Actions. If it became necessaryto take action because standards were beingapproached or violated, the least intrusive orrestrictive method to ensure resourceprotection and quality visitor experienceswould first be used. Then successivemanagement actions would be applied untilconditions were not violating the standards.Techniques that might be used in this regardinclude the following:

• ongoing visitor education (e.g., providinginformation through different mediaregarding the sensitivity of resources, theimpacts visitors cause, the rationale forpermits, and outdoor ethics, encouragingpeople to go to other less crowded or lesssensitive areas).

• site management (e.g., providing moredefined, well-marked trails, revegetatingareas, installing vegetative barriers, closingareas/facilit ies such as trails or campsites,rerouting trails)

• deterrence and enforcement actions (e.g.,posting signs, conducting volunteer or


70

ranger patrols, enforcing sanctions or finesfor violations)

• rationing and allocation (e.g., requiringpermits for day-use visitors, reservations,queuing, lotteries, charging fees for the useof wilderness trails or trailhead parkingareas)

• regulating use (e.g., limiting the number ofpeople, the location, or t ime of visits;limiting activities; requiring guides forhikes).

If it became necessary to set use limits in thefuture, the potential effects of the action onvisitors and resources would be first carefullyanalyzed, and opportunities would be providedfor public involvement in this decision.

Tasks for Establishing the VisitorExperience and Resource ProtectionFramework. Tasks required to establish thevisitor experience and resource protectionframework at Mount Rainier National Parkwould include the following:

• setting resource and social indicators andstandards

• identifying, defining, and testing thoseindicators and standards

• determining how and where to monitor theindicators

• determining which management actionswould be appropriate in various situations

Dynamic simulation models could bedeveloped both for specific sites and parkwideto analyze what would happen if differentcarrying capacities or management actionswere implemented. As necessary, additionalenvironmental analyses would be prepared, asrequired under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act.

The visitor experience and resource protectionframework initially would be applied in sev-eral high priority areas that receive (or areexpected to receive) high use levels and/orhave suffered resource and visitor experienceimpacts. These areas include Paradise, Sunrise,Carbon River/Mowich Lake, Chinook Pass/T ipsoo Lake, and the area adjacent to theCrystal Mountain ski area. Indicators andstandards would be developed for these areas,and monitoring programs initiated, as soon aspossible. Management actions would be takento address visitor impacts occurring (orexpected to occur) in these areas.


The preferred alternative would includeimproved opportunities for interpretation,education, information, and orientation. Therevised information services program wouldemploy resources both within and outside ofthe park.

Inside the Park. Existing visitor centers andmuseums would be used to provide more in-depth and focused interpretation, highlightingtopics relevant to the nearby setting. Forexample, cultural history and river ecologycould be emphasized at Longmire, informationon volcanoes and geology might be presentedat Sunrise, and interpretation at Paradise mightfocus on subalpine and alpine ecology.

In accordance with the “Long-RangeInterpretive Plan,” a major rehabilitation orreplacement of the audiovisual programs andexhibits would occur in visitor centers andranger stations within the park. Limitedinterpretation (e.g., brochures, tapes, radiotransmissions) would be provided on shuttlesserving visitors.


72

back of figure


73

Outside the Park. During the summer season,several new staffed visitor welcome centerswould be operated outside of the park. Thesesummer facilit ies would be located along themajor roads leading into the park, potentiallyincluding State Routes 410, 165, and U.S.Highway 12 south of State Route 123.

These welcome centers would provide pre-visitinformation and orientation. One of their mostimportant functions would be to inform visi-tors about which areas of the park had parkingspaces available and which areas were filled tocapacity. They could also be used to interpretpark themes, present topics that were regionalin scope, and provide information regardingregional recreational opportunities.

Services provided at the welcome centersmight include permit issuance, fee collection,trip planning, campground and lodging reser-vations, tour and transportation information,and comfort stations. In addition, existingwilderness information functions could berelocated to the new centers. Shuttle systemstaging might also be provided.

The welcome centers along State Routes 410,165, and U.S. Highway 12 would be locatedwithin existing public or private facilit ies, ifpossible. The National Park Service wouldseek cooperative arrangements or partnershipswith other federal agencies such as the U.S.Forest Service, local communities, or otherentities to use existing facilit ies. If new facili-ties were needed, environmental documentswould be prepared, consistent with theNational Environmental Policy Act.

The welcome center along State Route 706would likely be a new facility, built and oper-ated in partnership with the local communitiesof Ashford, Elbe, or other entities. This newwelcome center would provide services andinformation similar to the other welcomecenters, as well as a theater for presenting parkorientation films and other programs.

Information Systems

In addition to the new welcome centers, theNational Park Service would use a variety ofsystems to inform visitors on the diversity ofrecreational opportunities within the park andin the corridors leading to the park before theyarrived at the park. These systems can alsoprovide real-time information regarding park-ing availability, traffic and weather conditions,and visitor options. Such information would bereadily accessible, affordable, accurate, user-friendly, and would be available prior to andduring travel. Among the information systemsthat may be applied at Mount Rainier are:

• Interactive, electronic, Web-based kiosksat the welcome centers in the road corridorgateways leading to Mount Rainier, whichwould provide information aboutrecreational opportunities, road, traffic andweather conditions.

• A Web site that would provide the sameinformation as the interactive electronickiosk.

• Variable or changeable message signsalong the corridor, which would providecurrent information regarding road, trafficand weather conditions. Specific locationswould need to be coordinated withresponsible agencies such as theWashington State Department ofTransportation.

• Highway advisory radio, which wouldprovide information current informationregarding road, traffic and weatherconditions.

• New technologies such as improvedcommunications via satellite with handheld or in-vehicle devices.


74

Transportation in the Park

During periods of high visitation, a lack ofsufficient parking is a problem at several ofMount Rainier National Park’s popular visitorareas. Under the preferred alternative a parktransportation plan would be developed incoordination with regional road corridor andtransportation planning. The plan wouldexamine different options for improvingtransportation in the park, including the use ofshuttles, carpooling, parking alternatives (e.g.,HOV parking), the use of incentives to encour-age visitors not to drive (e.g., providing inter-pretation services on shuttles, pricing),marketing, and enforcement. The plan wouldalso examine the costs/benefits of the variousoptions. Partnerships with agencies and organi-zations would be sought in implementing theplan’s actions.

Public input also would be sought throughoutthe development of this implementation plan.In particular, user groups, gateway communi-ties, the Washington Department of Transpor-tation, and other stakeholders would beinvolved in developing the implementationplan. An environmental document also wouldbe prepared to meet the requirements of theNational Environmental Policy Act.

The design and operation of a shuttle systemwould be the primary focus of the transpor-tation plan. Many benefits would result fromestablishing a shuttle system. Shuttles wouldhelp alleviate congestion in parking lots andalong access routes to popular sites and thushelp eliminate visitor frustration, reduce thefrequency with which parking areas fill up, andprovide visitors with an alternate method ofaccessing popular areas. Employees andresidents would have an alternative to drivingtheir own vehicles along road corridors leadingto and within the park. Shuttles would givebicyclists and hikers a means to begin a trip atone shuttle stop and end it at another shuttlestop, without shuttling personal vehicles. Inaddition, shuttle would reduce traffic

congestion, decrease air and noise pollution,improve access, simplify travel within thepark, make it easier to see park features, andconserve energy. Shuttles would offer newinterpretive opportunities that would enhancevisitor enjoyment and protection of resources.Shuttles could also be used to distribute visi-tors more equitably throughout the park and toreduce crowding by spacing out the timing ofvisits.

The visitor shuttles would be intended not onlyto move visitors within the park, but also toenable metropolitan-area residents to travel tothe park. Thus, the shuttles would be expectedto run beyond the park boundaries. To achievethis goal, the National Park Service wouldcoordinate the in-park shuttle system withregional transportation authorities, countygovernments, local communities, and businessowners. This would include working with thepark gateway communities to ensure that ade-quate support facilit ies such as food servicesand comfort stations would be available incommunities for visitors who accessed thepark via public transit .

Shuttles would be phased in over time in thepark as need and user volume warranted, aspartners were able to participate, and asfunding allowed. Public/private strategies forfunding the shuttle system, including theacquisition of shuttles, building shuttle stops,and operating and maintaining the vehicles,would be pursued. When the shuttle system isinitiated, the National Park Service wouldoptimize its operation, with continued inputfrom stakeholders.

In summer, the shuttles would operate from thefollowing locations:

• Westside Road• Longmire• Paradise• White River campground/Sunrise• Mowich Lake• Carbon River


75

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SHUTTLE SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE

Area

Alternative 1: No-ActionAlternative (ContinueCurrent Management)

Alternative 2:Preferred Alternative

Alternative 3:Additional Visitor Use

Opportunities

WestsideRoad

No shuttles provided. Shuttle provided in summer. No shuttles provided.

Longmire Existing shuttles for parkand concession employeeswould continue operating.

Same as alternative 1, plus visitorshuttles would stop here on the wayto Paradise in summer and winter

Same as alternative 2.

ParadiseVisitors Concessioner would

provide shuttles forclimbing concessionguests.

Shuttles provided in summer andwinter, in cooperation with com-munities and regional authorities.


Employees Voluntary employeeshuttle continues.

Most concession employees and NPSstaff required to take shuttles duringthe peak use period


White Rivercampground

No shuttles provided. Shuttle service provided to theparking area adjacent to the camp-ground in summer peak season.

Lower level of shuttle serviceprovided compared to alternative 2,targeting selected users

Sunrise No shuttles provided. Shuttles provided in summer; whenparking lots full, shuttles would bethe only access.

Lower level of shuttle service than inalternative 2, intended for selectedgroup(s) of users.

CarbonRiver Road

No shuttles provided. Shuttles provided in summer until amajor washout of the road occurs.


MowichLake

No shuttles provided. Shuttles provided up to new roadterminus during summer peak useperiod.

No shuttles provided.

In winter, a shuttle would also take visitors toLongmire and Paradise.

Many details still need to be worked outregarding the operation of the Mount Rainiershuttles. These include the extent of service,route origins and destinations, frequency oftrips, shuttle stop locations, where visitorswould park to catch the shuttles, the type andsize of the shuttles, who would operate theshuttle system (concessioner or the NationalPark Service), shuttle passenger fees, whatpassengers could carry on, and where and howinterpretive services would be provided on theshuttles. These details would be addressed inthe transportation plan. In addition, impactsassociated with operating the shuttle systemwould be evaluated, such as the environmentalimpacts associated with the creation of shuttlestaging and parking areas.

Elimination of O verflow Parking

On sunny weekends and holidays during thepeak season, the parking areas at the mostpopular visitor destinations frequently arefilled to overflowing. In particular, Paradiseand Sunrise often have overfull parking areas.When the parking areas are filled, visitorscircle around waiting for a free space, park inunofficial overflow areas (often along roadshoulders and sometimes more than a miledistant), or leave. Concerns about the currentsituation include the following.

• People get frustrated as they try to find aparking space. This detracts from thequality of their experience at the park.


76

• Overflow parking increases the chance ofaccidents, especially between pedestriansand motor vehicles.

• Resource damage occurs when people parkalong road shoulders and crush the vegeta-tion, either with car tires or by foot, orwhen people create social trails (takeshortcuts) to reach their destinations.

• To improve the quality of the visitorexperience and reduce resource impacts,the preferred alternative would eliminateall overflow parking. Parking would beallowed in designated spaces at visitorcenters, trailheads, viewpoints, and othervisitor facilit ies. Overflow parking areaswhere visitors have parked in the pastwould be blocked off and/or no-parkingsigns would be posted. Parking also wouldbe prohibited in areas when there arepublic health and safety or trafficcongestion concerns.

To minimize its effects, the ban on overflowparking would be implemented in phases andwould be coordinated with other actions.

• Limits would not be placed on parkinguntil the shuttle system was operational.Coordination of these two actions wouldensure that an effective visitor transporta-tion system would be available and thatvisitors would have an alternate means ofaccessing the park’s popular destinations.

• Before placing limits on parking, theNational Park Service would use mediaoutlets and its own education and informa-tion resources to inform park users of thechange.

• Additional parking spaces would bedesignated at some popular sites.

• Information on areas where parking wasand was not available would be providedto visitors before they reached the park and

at the park entrances. The intent would beto guide visitors to locations where parkingwas available.

Wilderness Management and Use

The Mount Rainier Wilderness would bemanaged using the new zones described in thisplan. Both day and overnight use would bemanaged through the application of resourceand visitor experience indicators andstandards. Until the new indicators andstandards were established, the existingwilderness indicators would be monitored, andexisting standards would continue to befollowed. Overnight users would continue tobe required to obtain permits.

A limited amount of parking would be avail-able at each wilderness trailhead. Once thislimit was reached, no overflow parking wouldbe allowed. Trailhead parking limits wouldreflect use capacities in related wildernesszones. After the shuttles came into service,visitors could take the shuttles to manytrailheads.

Geologic Hazards

Mount Rainier poses considerable hazards tohumans and facilit ies. In particular, Longmireand the Cougar Rock and White River camp-grounds are in areas where debris flows (theprimary geologic hazard in the park) have andwill continue to occur. An analysis of thegeologic hazards facing the park was doneduring this planning process (NPS 1997b).Based on available information, it is notpossible to predict precisely when or where adebris flow or other geologic event is likely tooccur in the park. Consequently, it is difficultto predict the actual risk to people in the park.Employees that live and work at Longmire areexposed to more risk than employees justworking at Longmire, and visitors passingthrough would have even less exposure.


77

Increased efforts would be made under thepreferred alternative to educate and informvisitors and employees about the threat ofgeologic hazards and what to do if a debrisflow or other event occurred. Such effortsmight include the following:

• providing additional information ininterpretive programs, including programson the proposed shuttles

• placing warning signs about possiblegeologic hazards along roadways and inhigh-risk areas throughout the park

• studying the possibility of building escapetrails/routes where they do not currentlyexist

• developing literature jointly with the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) that wouldnotify visitors of possible risks and thebest actions to take in case of a geologicevent, and handing out or posting theinformation on bulletin boards, at visitorcenters, and in public gathering areasparkwide

• placing more detailed geologic hazardinformation on the USGS CascadeVolcano Observatory’s Web site(http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov) and on thepark’s Web site(http://www.nps.gov/mora)

• cooperating with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and others in monitoring geologichazards in the park

Management of Pack Stock

Pack stock such as horses, mules, and llamaswould be allowed only on the Pacific CrestTrail and Laughingwater Creek Trail. Astaging area would be established in theOhanapecosh area so pack stock groups couldaccess the Laughingwater trail. Allowing the

use of pack stock to continue on the PacificCrest Trail would provide consistency with themanagement of this trail outside the park.Although relatively few people use pack stockin Mount Rainier National Park, this actionwould be taken to reduce impacts on naturalresources that are associated with the use ofpack stock, including soil erosion and thespread of nonnative plants.

Management of Tour Buses

The preferred alternative would include themanagement of bus tours as a means ofreducing congestion. The following are someactions that could be taken:

• Using bus parking spaces more efficiently,which could include such measures asoffering price incentives during less busytimes or controlling the times or places ofentry and the length of stops.

• Implementing new regulations, such asallowing buses to stop only at certainplaces and times, or allowing only certaintypes and sizes of buses in the park.

• Working with bus tour companies toreduce the use of a single trail by largevisitor groups. For example, passengersmight be directed to specified trail entrypoints, or they could be split into smallergroups.

• Encouraging tour bus companies to bringvisitors into the park on weekdays, whenuse levels are lower than on weekends.

• Encouraging tour companies to attract newclientele and to offer different types oftours, such as special-interest tours, familytours, or half-day tours.

• Working with gateway communities andregional tourist attractions to provide tourbus service.


78

• Educating tour bus operators and guidesabout park regulations.

Protection of Air Quality

The preferred alternative would includemeasures to reduce air pollutant emissionsources within the park boundaries. Thesecould include the following actions:

• increasing public education about thecampfire smoke problem in the park

• establishing non-burn days in the park

• limiting campfires to one in each camp-ground loop or one centralized campfire

• banning campfires during inversions andother adverse weather conditions

• continuing to remove wood-burning stovesfrom employee residences

• requiring tour buses to turn off theirengines in parking lots

Preservation of Natural Soundscapes

Mount Rainier National Park offers both avariety of natural sounds and a quietness notfound in most urban or suburban environ-ments. Together, these two conditions providea special dimension to the park experience.Natural sounds, which is the absence ofmanmade noise, is an important element of thefeeling of solitude. The absence of manmadenoise also affords visitors an opportunity tohear faint or very distant sounds such asbirdcalls or waterfalls. Such experiencesprovide an important perspective on thevastness of the environment in which thevisitor is located, often beyond the visualboundaries determined by trees and terrain.

Existing noise policies would continue to beenforced. The sounds of civilization would

generally be confined to developed areas suchas Longmire, Paradise, and Sunrise, and theroad corridors that connect the developedareas. If problems arose in the future becauseof aircraft overflights or land-based noisesources, the following actions would be takento help ensure that natural sounds wouldpredominate in Mount Rainier National Park.

• The park staff would work with the appro-priate Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) regional office and flight standardsdistrict office, air tour operators, commer-cial businesses, and general aviation inter-ests to encourage aircraft to fly outside thepark. This could be especially effective forflights where the presence of the park wasincidental to the purpose of the flight, suchas travel between two cities. Actions thatmight be considered to encourage pilots tofly outside the park boundaries includeidentifying the park on navigational chartsas a noise-sensitive area, educating pilotsabout the reasons for keeping a distancefrom the park, and encouraging pilots tofly in a manner that minimizes noise, incompliance with FAA regulations andadvisory circular (i.e., AC 91-36C).

• If tour operators expressed interest inoperating air tours over Mount Rainier, thepark staff would work with tour operatorsand all other interested parties to developan air tour management plan. Thisapproach is required under the NationalParks Air Tour Management Act of 2000(PL 106-181). The air tour managementplan would determine conditions underwhich air tours could occur, such as desig-nating specific routes, altitudes, and timeof day restrictions, and would identifyparticular areas where flights wouldnegatively affect park resources or themaintenance of natural ambient sound-scapes. No air tours would be permittedover the park until the air tour manage-ment plan was complete.


79

• Park staff would work with bus tourcompanies to reduce noise, which couldinclude turning off engines when buseswere parked.

• Visitors would be encouraged not to usegenerators and other noisy equipment.

• Noise generated by NPS managementactivities would be minimized by regu-lating administrative functions, such asaircraft use and motorized equipment.Noise would be a consideration in theprocurement and use of equipment by thepark staff.

Trail System

The park’s trail system would remain largelyunchanged, although minor modifications oradditions would continue to occur. Trail main-tenance would continue to be an importantelement in minimizing visitor impacts insubalpine and alpine meadows and othersensitive areas.

Some minor modifications would be made tononwilderness trails to keep visitors on trails.These could include defining trail edges,installing barriers, or widening or narrowingsmall sections of trails or landings. Nonstruc-tural actions that could be taken to keep peopleon nonwilderness trails in the Paradise,Sunrise, and T ipsoo Lake areas could includeranger patrols, visitor education, and fines forgoing off the trail. When large groups arrived,the number of people entering a trail at onetime could be managed to reduce group sizes.

Winter Use

The National Park Service would work withthe state to plow the road up to the gate nearthe park boundary at the Paul Peak trailheadand to establish and maintain a sno-park at thegate for skiers and snowshoers. This areaalready has a parking area and a vault toilet.

Therefore, implementing this portion of thepreferred alternative would only requireestablishing an agreement with the state. TheNational Park Service also would work withthe state to improve the White River sno-parkat the park boundary.

Winter uses largely would be identical to thoseof the no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement). They would include thefollowing:

• Skiing, snowshoeing, and snowboardingwould be allowed throughout the park.

• The road from Nisqually to Paradise wouldbe plowed for personal vehicles. The areawould be used for snow play, skiing,snowshoeing, snowboarding, and wintercamping.

• Drive-in camping at Sunshine Pointcampground would be available in winter.Snow camping also would be allowed atParadise, provided there was at least 5 feetof snow. Walk-in or ski-in camping wouldbe encouraged at Ohanapecosh and CougarRock.

• A minimum snow depth of 2 feet would berequired for winter camping in thewilderness area (this is only arecommendation under the no-actionalternative). Permits would be required forovernight wilderness use.

• Supervised snow play would be allowed inthe groomed area at Paradise on weekendsand holidays, provided there was at least 5feet of snow. Unsupervised snow playwould be allowed in this area on week-days.

The National Park Service would continue totake measures to reduce risks to park visitorsand employees from winter storms, ava-lanches, and other winter hazards. Theseactions would include the following:


80

• posting weather forecasts to informvisitors about current and anticipatedconditions

• conducting daily snow surveys todetermine hazardous conditions

• posting signs and other media alerting thepublic to avalanche danger zones

• implementing periodic road or trailclosures

• providing physical mitigation of avalanchechute hazards


Westside Road

Westside Road is subject to frequent washoutsalong Tahoma Creek, where glacial outburstshave repeatedly scoured out the roadbed, andat the culvert at Fish Creek. Currently, privatevehicles are not allowed to cross the washoutsection to the high ground beyond.

Under the preferred alternative visitors couldtake shuttles, hike, or ride bicycles along theroad. Minor improvements would be made toWestside Road so shuttles could use the road.Pack stock use would not be allowed. Shuttleswould drive as far as Klapatche Point andprobably would operate from July throughSeptember. This period could be extendedbased on visitor use patterns. Limited interpre-tation would be provided on the shuttle.

If a washout occurred, visitors would be takenacross the damaged area after the waterssubsided, then they could catch another shuttle.The National Park Service would accept thestranding of the shuttle bus for several weeksas a normal operational condition. If a largestretch of the road was destroyed by flooding,the future use of the road for shuttle service

would be reexamined, and shuttle servicemight be discontinued.

The road would be maintained in a mannerconsistent with the National HistoricLandmark District.

Picnic sites would be added at Tahoma Vista,Round Pass/Marine Memorial, and KlapatchePoint.

Longmire

The availability of parking would substantiallycontrol the level of use of the Longmire area.Signs would be used to eliminate overflowparking by visitors. No new designated parkingwould be provided. When parking lots werefull, people would not be able to stop.

Existing shuttles for park and concession em-ployees would continue operating. Visitorscould take shuttles to Longmire, which wouldstop on the way to Paradise. Existing visitorand administrative facilit ies would be retained.The former campground would continue to beused for camping by park volunteers andmaintained as an important cultural landscape.However, under this alternative a portion ofthe campground would be reopened to thepublic for picnicking.

Ricksecker Point

The land inside the loop road would remainlargely undeveloped, except for the addition ofa limited number of picnic sites and associatedparking spaces. A vault or portable toilet alsowould be added in a previously disturbed area.

Paradise

Under the preferred alternative, the number ofparking spaces (physical carrying capacity)and the number of tour buses and shuttleswould determine how many people would beable to visit Paradise. When the parking areas


81

were full, visitors in private vehicles would beencouraged to visit other parts of the park or tovisit Paradise at less busy times, such as onweekdays, evenings, or during the fall andspring. Visitors still would have the option ofdriving through the area when the parking lotwas full.

Visitor and Employee Access. Most visitorscould continue to drive their private vehicles toParadise. Visitors also would be able to takeshuttles to Paradise in summer and winter.Most NPS and concession staff who work atParadise would be required to take shuttlesduring the peak-use period. This action wouldgive visitors more opportunities to find parkingspaces.

The future shuttle service would be coordina-ted with the elimination of overflow parking toreduce traffic congestion and ensure effectivevisitor transportation within the park. Thesystem would be implemented with thecooperation of businesses, local communities,and regional authorities.

Traffic Circulation. To provide visitors withbetter views of the mountain and enable themto better appreciate the cultural resources ofthe National Historic Landmark District, thedirection vehicles drive on the valley roadwould be reversed on a trial basis. The westernhalf of the Paradise loop road would continueto be open to two-way traffic. Thus, visitorscould enter the Paradise area from the eastalong the valley road and exit to the west alongthe western half of the Paradise loop road. Toachieve this change, the park roads would bemodified to ensure visitor safety and smoothtraffic flows. This would include modificationsin the intersection along the Paradise Valley toStevens Canyon wye.

The results of the trial period would be evalu-ated from traffic flow, maintenance, safety,and visitor experience perspectives to deter-mine if this change should be made permanent.

Parking. All overflow parking would beprohibited in the Paradise area. This wouldinclude eliminating overflow parking in thefollowing areas:

• along the Paradise Valley Road from theParadise Inn to and beyond the 4thcrossing

• along the existing main entry road fromthe Paradise/Stevens Canyon wye to theupper Paradise parking area

• within the picnic area

Until carrying capacity indicators andstandards were established, the number ofparking spaces, tour buses, and shuttles woulddetermine how many people would be able tovisit Paradise. Except for parking spacesreserved for visitors with disabilit ies, parkingwould be available on a first-come, first-servedbasis. When the parking areas were full, visi-tors in private vehicles would be redirected toother parts of the park and encouraged to visitParadise at less busy times.

The parking area would be redesigned to makemore effective use of available space, improvecirculation, and provide shuttle drop-off areas.The number of designated parking spaces inthe existing parking area footprint at Paradisewould remain at about 750 spaces. However,the total number of parking spaces woulddecline with the elimination of overflow park-ing. This would be partially offset by requiringemployees, wilderness climbers, and wilder-ness campers to use shuttles.

Management techniques could be adopted andrefined to manage the parking lots. Thesecould include gating the parking lots and pic-nic area to ensure that visitors could alwaysdrive through the Paradise area but could onlystop when parking spaces were available.

Visitor Center . A value analysis studyperformed by the National Park Service in


82

1996 (NPS 1996e) found that the Henry M.Jackson Memorial Visitor Center does notmeet current code requirements or NPSguidelines for egress, accessibility, life andsafety, or fire protection. Rehabilitating thebuilding would be very costly. In addition, thebuilding space is inefficient, and large amountsof energy are required to run a snow-meltsystem to reduce snow loads on the roof. If thesnow-melt system were to fail, the structurecould collapse from snow loading.

Because of these limitations, the preferredalternative would include removing theexisting visitor center and replacing it with asmaller building. The structure would be sus-tainable and architecturally compatible withthe National Historic Landmark District.Concurrently, the Paradise area would be rede-signed to improve access, circulation, andparking.

The new facility would provide many of thesame visitor services as the current building.There also would be space for NPS andconcession support functions. Interpretation atthe new Paradise visitor center would focus onthe Paradise area rather than the whole park.

The new visitor center would be located withinthe already disturbed areas. There would be noincrease in disturbed ground or asphalt becauseof this action. A separate site-specific environ-mental document would be needed to analyzein detail the consequences of building a newvisitor center and associated site improve-ments.

Ohanapecosh

Existing visitor and administrative facilit ieswould be retained. Parking would be expandedin this area within the existing footprint byconverting part of the camping and day-usearea to about 15 additional designated parkingspaces, consistent with the cultural landscape.

A staging area for pack stock groups alsowould be established in the Ohanapecosh area.

White River

The availability of parking would influence thelevel of use of the White River area. The num-ber of parking spaces and the number ofshuttles would determine how many peoplewould be able to visit this area. Shuttle servicewould be provided to the White River camp-ground. Because no overflow parking wouldbe allowed, when the parking lot was full,visitors would have the option of accessing thearea via the Sunrise shuttle or driving to otherareas.

A shuttle staging area for the Sunrise/WhiteRiver areas would be developed at a locationto be determined (see below).

Sunrise

Visitor Access. From July through September,visitors could either take a shuttle to Sunrise ordrive their private vehicles and park at Sunrisein designated spaces. Once the parking lot wasfull, visitors would be required to take shuttlesto Sunrise or would be directed to other areas.

A staging area for the shuttles, consisting of aparking area, restrooms, and waiting facility,would be provided at a location to be deter-mined. The National Park Service would workwith Washington’s State Department ofTransportation, the U.S. Forest Service, andthe Crystal Mountain ski area to find a suitablestaging site that would have a low impact onthe environment.

Parking. Until carrying capacity indicatorsand standards were established, the number ofparking spaces, tour buses, and shuttles woulddetermine how many people would be able tovisit Sunrise. When the parking capacity atSunrise was exceeded, visitors could take theshuttle into the area, or would be directed to


83

other parts of the park and encouraged to driveto Sunrise at less busy times, such as onweekdays or during the fall.

Parking for tour buses and visitors with dis-abilit ies would continue to be provided. Thenumber of designated parking spaces in themain Sunrise parking area would be expandedwithin the existing footprint (including gravelareas), consistent with the cultural landscape.The number of designated parking spaces forprivate vehicles at Sunrise would increasefrom 260 spaces to about 300 spaces. Acultural landscape report would be prepared toaid in the final design. However, because nooverflow parking would be allowed, theoverall number of parking spaces at Sunrisewould decrease.

Visitor and Administrative Facilities.Additional picnic sites would be constructed atSunrise within the existing footprint toaccommodate more visitors. The approvedplan (Sunrise Development Concept Plan, NPS1992b) to construct a new ranger station andconcession facility with concession employeehousing to replace Sunrise Lodge would beimplemented. Other existing facilit ies wouldbe retained.

Mowich

The number of parking spaces and the numberof shuttles and tour buses would determinehow many people would be able to visitMowich.

Visitor Access. Mowich Lake Road would beclosed to vehicle traffic approximately 0.5 milefrom the lake, except for administrative uses.Visitors who wanted to visit the lake wouldthen walk from the new parking area to thelake.

To offer an opportunity for more visitors tocome to Mowich, without exceeding the area’sparking capacity, shuttle service for visitors

would be provided along the entire road, up toa new turnaround about 0.5 mile from the lake.The road would not be paved.

Parking. The 50-space parking area at the lakewould be removed. To replace this feature,approximately 115 new, designated, parallel-parking spaces would be provided along theshoulders of Mowich Lake Road, running westfrom the road’s new terminus. Some parkingspaces would be designated for recreationalvehicles and for visitors with disabilit ies. Nooverflow parking would be permitted. Aturnaround at the new road terminus could beused to drop off passengers and supplies.

The number and location of parking spaceswould be managed to meet the goals of pro-tecting park resources and providing diverserecreational opportunities. For example, somespaces could be reserved near the roadterminus for visitors staying at the campgroundand for wilderness campers with permits.

Camping and Picnicking. The camping areawould be reconfigured to provide designatedcampsites in the current footprint. New, fullyaccessible vault toilets would be constructed toreplace the existing toilet. Picnic sites wouldbe added to the Mowich Lake area, and newpicnic sites would be added near the Paul Peaktrailhead.

Carbon River

Carbon River Road is adjacent to the CarbonRiver, and some segments of the road arewithin the floodplain. In some areas, the road-bed is lower than the level of the water. TheNational Park Service has repeatedly imple-mented expensive measures to protect theroadbed, such as berming the riverbank,diverting the flow, and repairing the roadbed.The National Park Service cannot continue tomake major repairs to this road to ensure long-term vehicular access without adverselyaffecting river resources.


84

Visitor Access. The Carbon River road wouldbe kept open for personal vehicles as long aspossible. Although there would be no restric-tions on vehicles, high-clearance vehicleswould be recommended. Shuttle service alsowould be provided for visitors up to the IpsutCreek campground. A shuttle staging areawould be provided outside the park at alocation to be determined.

Private vehicles and shuttles would be permit-ted on the road until a major washout occurred.At that t ime, the road would be dedicated tononmotorized uses (hiking and biking). Untilthat occurred, the availability of parking wouldlargely control the level of use of the area.Administrative vehicles needed for preserva-tion, maintenance, and emergencies wouldcontinue to be permitted on the road. Theexisting historic road corridor would be main-tained in a manner consistent with the NationalHistoric Landmark District designation. Nopack stock would be allowed on the road.

Parking. The designated parking facilit ies inthe area would be maintained, but no overflowparking would be allowed.

Visitor and Administrative Facilities.Camping would continue as it is now untilthere was a major washout of the road, atwhich time the road would be closed to visitormotorized vehicles. The Ipsut Creek camp-ground would then be converted to a walk-in/bike-in camping area, consistent with theNational Historic Landmark Districtdesignation.

With the approval of the proposed boundaryadjustment (as described below), additionalcamping and picnic spaces would be providedin the boundary adjustment area near theCarbon River entrance.

In addition, new picnic sites would be added atthe existing housing and maintenance area atthe Carbon River entrance. However, the

picnic area at Falls Creek would be removeddue to its location in a washout area.

The acquisition of land as part of the proposedboundary adjustment discussed below wouldprovide an opportunity to relocate nonhistoricmaintenance functions and employee housingto an already disturbed site within theboundary adjustment area. If needed, aseparate environmental document would beprepared to support this action.


With a few exceptions, management in thewinter would be identical to that under the no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement).

Westside Road

As in the no-action alternative, Westside Roadwould not be plowed and would be managedfor skiing and snowshoeing. Visitors wouldpark near the intersection with the Nisqually toParadise Road.

Paradise

The road from Nisqually to Paradise wouldcontinue to be plowed for personal vehicles,and the use of the area for snow play, skiing,snowshoeing, snowboarding, and wintercamping would continue as in the no-actionalternative (continue current management). Asnoted above, visitors also would be able to takeshuttles to Paradise. (As in the summer actionsfor this alternative, a staging area for theshuttles would need to be established at alocation to be determined.) It is anticipated thatthe number of winter visitors would continueto increase, which could affect the quality ofthe winter experience at Paradise. If thisoccurs, the National Park Service wouldreevaluate the management of this area in


85

conformance with the future Paradise winteruse study (see “Implementation of the Ap-proved Plan” in “Direction for the Plan”).

Ohanapecosh

Under this alternative, the park staff wouldcontinue to work with the state to plow StateRoute 123 from the park boundary toOhanapecosh. Skiing, snowshoeing, andcamping would be encouraged.

White River

State Route 410 would not be plowed, and novehicles would be allowed beyond the gate atthe park boundary. To encourage winter activi-ties in this part of the park, the National ParkService would work with the state to improvethe existing sno-park at the park boundary.Skiing and snowshoeing would continue to beallowed on the road to the campground, as wellas beyond the Mather wye (State Route 410).

Mowich

The National Park Service would work withthe state to plow the road up to the gate nearthe park boundary at Paul Peak trailhead, andto establish and maintain a sno-park, using theexisting parking area and restrooms at the gate.This action would promote winter activity atthe gate area by skiers and snowshoers.

Carbon River

The road would not be plowed, and in the shortterm, existing uses would continue. Privatevehicles would be permitted to drive as far asIpsut Creek until there was a major washout ofthe road. Thereafter, the road would be closedto motorized vehicles. Skiing and snowshoeingwould be allowed, although this area typicallyhas insufficient snowfall for these activities.Hiking and biking would also be allowed, butuse of pack stock would not be permitted.

BO UNDARY ADJUSTMENT

Section 604 of Public Law 95-625 requires theNational Park Service in a general manage-ment plan to identify any potential changes inpark boundaries and to provide the reason forthe changes. The only boundary adjustmentproposed for the park would be adjacent to theCarbon River entrance. All other issuesconcerning the park’s boundaries and adjacentland management entities would be solved byprogrammatic activities involving coordinationand cooperation with land managers ratherthan by making boundary adjustments.

The National Park Service would seekcongressional authorization to expand theboundary of Mount Rainier National Park byabout 1,063 acres (see map). This boundarychange, if authorized, would incorporate landsin the Carbon River Valley, directly adjacentto the current Carbon River entrance of thepark.

This boundary change would be proposed toprovide for a publicly managed corridor alongthe upper portion of the Carbon River. Thiswould help protect important wildlife habitatfor federally listed threatened and endangeredspecies, including important nesting habitatand designated critical habitat for the marbledmurrelet (see the USFWS response letter to thedraft plan). Public ownership also would pro-vide additional opportunities for public use andenjoyment of the area and the enhancement ofscenic values and recreational opportunities.This action would include providing a publiclymanaged corridor for the southern terminus ofthe Foothills Trail.

The area of proposed boundary adjustmentincludes a mixture of public and private lands.Therefore, a variety of protection approacheswould be considered. These would include, butwould not be limited to, management by theNational Park Service or management byanother federal or state agency. Where privatelands were involved within the proposed


86

boundary addition, it would be recommendedthat any acquisition by the federal governmentthat was authorized by Congress would occuronly with the consent of the owner.

Congressional authorization also would besought to appropriate funds from the Land andWater Conservation Fund to immediatelyacquire a 210-acre tract of land betweenCarbon River Road and the Carbon River. Thepurpose of this acquisition, which is part of theproposed 1,063-acre parcel, would be to devel-op a drive-in campground and picnic area.These facilit ies would do the following:

• help the National Park Service meet thedemand for recreational camping in theupper Carbon River Valley

• help mitigate the eventual loss of the IpsutCreek campground as a vehicle-accessiblefacility

• allow the National Park Service to moveits administrative facilit ies from theCarbon River entrance, where somestructures are subject to flooding

If and when the boundary change occurred, thenew lands would be zoned and managedaccordingly. The visitor facilit ies, sensitiveresource/recreation, primitive (nonwilderness),and administrative zones probably would beapplied to the area.

NPS policies and special directive 92-11instruct that any recommendation to expandpark boundaries be preceded by determinationsthat the added lands would be feasible to ad-minister considering factors such as size,configuration, ownership, and cost, and thatother alternatives for management and re-source protection have been considered andwould not be adequate. Appendix E provides areview of these criteria for boundary adjust-ments as applied to Mount Rainier NationalPark.


The actions included in the preferredalternative would be implemented over thenext 20 years, as funding became available.Actions that would receive the highest priorityfor implementation would be those that

• addressed resource protection needs,particularly information needed forestablishing and refining resource-basedcarrying capacities

• remedied serious infrastructure concerns

• accommodated immediate visitorinformation, interpretation, or use needs

• would be required before subsequent stepscould be taken

• could be accomplished fairly quickly withrelatively lit t le t ime and money

The preliminary cost estimate for imple-menting the preferred alternative is shown intable 4. The initial gross cost estimate (year2000 dollars) for constructing new facilit ies,removing facilit ies, rehabilitating or restoringareas, and other elements included in thepreferred alternative is about $47.1 million.The figures are intended to give a generalindication of costs, and should not be used forbudgeting purposes. Actual costs to theNational Park Service would vary dependingon if and when actions were implemented, thesize and location of facilit ies, and contributionsby partners and volunteers.

Some of the major capital costs that would beassociated with the preferred alternative wouldinclude about $12.7 million for new welcomecenters outside the park, $14 million for a newvisitor center to replace the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center, and $16.8 million forshuttles and related facilit ies. The preliminarycost estimate does not include the cost of landassociated with the proposed boundary


88

back of map

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

89

adjustment or for staff for operating a shuttleservice.

Implementing the preferred alternative wouldrequire adding approximately 22 employees tothe park staff. Additional staff requirements, infull-time-equivalent employees, would includethe following:

Monitoring of resourceconditions 2.5Access and parking lotmanagement 2.0Interpretation and orientation 12.5Westside Road services 1.4Ranger patrols for zone limitsenforcement 3.6Mowich Lake Road services 0.2Total additional staff required 22.2

Because of the limited financial resourcesavailable, the park staff would need to pursuevarious means to fully implement the preferredalternative, such as seeking additional fundingsources and donations, developing cooperativeagreements, and jointly using facilit ies withother agencies.

• In the past, private landowners have some-times asked the National Park Service topurchase or acquire lands outside the park.Sometimes a nonprofit group is willing topurchase the land and donate it to theNational Park Service. The National ParkService would seek these types of oppor-tunities to reduce the cost to the federal

government of acquiring the proposed newlands and constructing administrative andvisitor facilit ies outside the park.

• The park staff would seek partnershipswith other agencies or groups to help sharein the costs of staffing or operating facili-ties or providing services. This couldinclude establishing a partnership or agree-ment with the U.S. Forest Service toprovide pre-trip and wilderness informa-tion at Forest Service facilit ies along allcorridors leading to the park, improvingthe management of visitors using trails thatconnect forest and park lands, and seekingpartnership arrangements for operatingproposed visitor welcome centers outsidethe park.

• The National Park Service could considerinviting commercial operators to providesome of the services and facilit ies pro-posed in this alternative. Details would beworked out in the upcoming commercialservices plan. For example, the proposedshuttle systems might be considered forcommercial operation.

Congressional authority would be needed forthe proposed Carbon River boundaryadjustment, as was done for Tahoma Woods.


90

TABLE 4: GROSS COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Action Gross CostsImprovements outside the park

State Route 706 welcome center $5,310,000Packwood area welcome center 2,003,500Northeast welcome centers 3,718,500Northwest welcome center 1,637,500

Improvements inside the park —Ricksecker Point — picnicking, parking, restrooms $127,000Paradise — rehabilitate and provide new exhibits 1,500,000

Paradise — replace visitor center 9,122,000Paradise — rehabilitate access, circulation, and parking 3,337,500Ohanapecosh — staging area for pack stock 88,500

Sunrise — add some additional parking and picnic sites 118,000SR 410 — sno park 9,500Carbon River — reclaim parking and picnic areas and add new picnic sites 19,500

Mowich Lake road/Paul Peak trailhead — add new picnic sites and sno-park 15,500Mowich Lake — camping and picnicking improvements 74,000

Vehicle access and transportationSouth area road system — improvements $678,500Paradise shuttles and staging 9,571,000Westside Road — improvements 767,000

Westside Road shuttles and staging 2,006,000Northeast area shuttles — vehicles and staging 3,134,000

Northeast area road system — improvements 1,193,500Carbon River Road — shuttle and staging 926,500Mowich Lake road — shuttle and staging 1,163,500

Mowich Lake — road and parking improvements 339,500Northwest area road system — improvements 295,000

Total $47,155,500

91

ALTERNATIVE 3: ADDITIONAL VISITOR USE OPPORTUNITIES

Alternative 3 is similar to the preferred alterna-tive (alternative 2) in many respects. Bothalternatives would set visitor carrying capaci-ties for the wilderness and nonwilderness areasof the park, eliminate overflow parking, andemphasize providing information to visitorsbefore they arrived at the park. However,alternative 3 would strive to provide someadditional visitor use opportunities withminimal resource impacts. Unless otherwisestated in the “Direction for the Plan” section,all existing park facilit ies would continue to bemaintained and existing recreational useswould continue to be permitted. Past decisionsregarding facilit ies, such as construction of theranger station/concession facility to replaceSunrise Lodge, also would be implemented.

PRO POSED ZONING

The same zones as described for the preferredalternative would be applied under alternative3. The wilderness and nonwilderness (summerand winter) zone allocation also would beidentical with the preferred alternative, withtwo exceptions: in alternative 3, WestsideRoad would be designated as a visitor facilit ieszone in the summer, and State Route 410would be designated a visitor facilit ies zone inwinter. For a description of the allocation ofzones, see the description of alternative 2. Fora summary of the uses permitted in each zone,see appendix C.

PARKWIDE ACTIO NS

Alternative 3 would be the same as thepreferred alternative with respect to

• visitor use and resource management(carrying capacity)

• interpretation, education, information, andorientation

• elimination of overflow parking• wilderness management and use• geologic hazards• management of tour buses• protection of air quality• preservation of natural soundscape• trail system

Under alternative 3, the operation of visitorshuttles would be different than the preferredalternative (alternative 2) as shown in table 3,above. The major differences are listed below.

• No shuttles would be provided alongWestside Road.

• A lower level of shuttle service would beprovided for the White River campgroundand Sunrise than in alternative 2.

• No shuttles would be provided alongMowich Lake Road.

Alternative 3 would eliminate pack stock, suchas horses and llamas, on most of the park’strails. Pack stock would continue to be per-mitted on the Pacific Crest Trail and theLaughingwater Creek Trail to access it, West-side Road, Carbon River Road, and theKlapatche Point and Wonderland Trails fromKlapatche Point to Ipsut Creek campground.This action would be taken to reduce potentialimpacts from pack stock, such as soil erosionand the spread of nonnative plants. Pack stockwould continue to be allowed on the PacificCrest Trail to be consistent with opportunitieson this trail outside the park. Pack stock alsowould be permitted on the two roads under thisalternative to provide additional opportunitiesfor this use in the park. As in alternative 2, apack stock staging area would be established inthe Ohanapecosh area in order for pack stockto access the Laughingwater Creek trail.


92


Management initiatives and recreation oppor-tunities that would be different from thepreferred alternative are as follows.

Westside Road

Visitors could drive privately owned high-clearance vehicles (but not other types of pri-vate vehicles) on the road beyond Dry Creek,and they could hike, ride bikes, and use packstock. Minor improvements would be made sothat private high-clearance vehicles could usethe road. Beyond the Dry Creek parking area,the road would be maintained in a mannerconsistent with the National Historic Land-mark District designation and for high-clearance vehicles. However, if a major sectionof the road was lost due to flooding, the futureuse of the road would be reexamined. Thismight include closing the road to vehiculartraffic. As in the preferred alternative, picnicsites would be added at Tahoma Vista, RoundPass/Marine Memorial, and Klapatche Point.No shuttle service would be provided underthis alternative, but visitors without high-clearance vehicles would continue to be able topark their vehicles near the junction of theWestside and Nisqually to Paradise Roads andhike or bicycle along the road.

Longmire

Longmire would be managed in the same wayas described under the preferred alternative. Inboth alternatives the former Longmire camp-ground would be reopened to the public forpicnicking as well as continue to be used forvolunteer-in-park camping.

Paradise

Under alternative 3, there would be two majordifferences in the way Paradise would be

managed in comparison to the preferredalternative:

• The number of designated parking spacesin the general Paradise developed areawould be increased from about 750 to1,250 (about 500 more spaces than in thepreferred alternative). Most of the newparking spaces would be designated alongthe road west of the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center.

• The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter would be rehabilitated to meetminimum code requirements and to im-prove the visitor experience. Existing useswould continue in rehabilitated spaces.The building heating, ventilation, andelectrical systems would be upgraded tomeet code minimums. Fire detection, firesuppression, and smoke evacuation sys-tems would be installed. The roof snow-melting system would continue to havehigh annual operational costs as well asrisk of failure, which could have asignificant effect on the structural integrityof the building.

Ohanapecosh

This area would be managed in the same wayas described under the preferred alternativeexcept that more parking spaces would beprovided in the camping/day-use area. About20 additional parking spaces would be desig-nated within the existing footprint. As in thepreferred alternative, a staging area for packstock groups also would be established in theOhanapecosh area.

White River and Sunrise

This area would be managed in almost thesame way as under the preferred alternative. Inboth alternatives shuttles would be providedfor visitors. However, in alternative 3 theshuttle system would be more limited.

Alternative 3: Additional Visitor Use Opportunities

93

Mowich

Additional improvements would be made toMowich Lake road, in comparison to thepreferred alternative. Unlike alternative 2, thelast 0.5 mile of the road would not be closed.Instead, to reduce the amount of sedimentationand pollutants entering the lake, the last 0.75mile of gravel road would be surfaced andother mitigation measures, such as sedimenttraps or filters, would be employed. Becausethe end of the road to Mowich Lake would bepaved, there would be an opportunity to pro-vide additional parking spaces along the road.About 170 parallel parking spaces would beprovided along the road for the last 0.75 mile.As in the preferred alternative, no overflowparking would be permitted, and use of thenew parking spaces would be managed.

Day and overnight visitors would continue todrive their private vehicles to Mowich Lakeuntil the parking area at the lake was full, butno shuttle service would be offered under thisalternative. As in the preferred alternative, newpicnic sites would be added, and the campingarea would be reconfigured; this alternativewould include a larger number of campsites.

Carbon River

With one exception, Carbon River would bemanaged in the same way in this alternative asin the preferred alternative. Current uses ofCarbon River Road would continue, includingthe use of private motor vehicles. In addition, ashuttle service would be established. Alterna-tive 3 would also provide for the use of packstock on Carbon River Road. As in the pre-ferred alternative, if a large portion of the roadwashed out in the future, the management anduse of the road for vehicles would be reexam-ined. This could include closing the road toprivate vehicle use and continuing to provideaccess via a shuttle service. The picnic area atFalls Creek also would be removed due to itslocation in a washout area.


Westside Road

As under the preferred alternative, the roadwould not be plowed. Under this alternative,however, to provide an opportunity for morevisitors to see the western part of the park inthe winter, visitors would be able to drive theirhigh-clearance vehicles (but not other types ofvehicles) up to Tahoma Vista or to the snow-line. Past this point visitors could ski andsnowshoe along the road. As in the preferredalternative, if major road rebuilding wasrequired due to flooding, vehicle use of theroad would be reexamined.

Paradise

Paradise would be managed the same way asin the preferred alternative. The road fromNisqually to Paradise would continue to beplowed for personal vehicles. Visitors wouldalso have the option of taking shuttles toParadise. (As in the summer actions for thisalternative, a staging area for the shuttleswould need to be established at a location to bedetermined.)

Ohanapecosh

Under this alternative, the National ParkService would work with the state to plowState Route 123 and Stevens Canyon Roadfrom the park boundary through Ohanapecoshto the Grove of the Patriarchs. The NationalPark Service also would work with the state toestablish a sno-park at the end of the plowedroad. As in the preferred alternative, skiing andsnowshoeing would be encouraged fromOhanapecosh.

White River

Under alternative 3, State Route 410 would beplowed to provide access for private vehicles


94

from the park boundary to the White Riverentrance. The National Park Service wouldwork with the state to establish a sno-park atthe end of the plowed road, consisting of aparking area and restroom. As in the preferredalternative, the existing sno-park at the parkentrance would be maintained, and skiing andsnowshoeing would be encouraged on the roadfrom the White River entrance up to and on tothe Fryingpan Creek trail, as well as beyondthe Mather wye (State Route 410).

Carbon River

Carbon River would be managed almost thesame way as in the preferred alternative. Theroad would not be plowed, and in the shortterm, existing uses would continue. Privatevehicles would be permitted to drive as far asIpsut Creek until there was a major washout ofthe road. Thereafter, the road would be closedto motorized vehicles. Skiing, snowshoeing,hiking and biking would be allowed. Unlikethe preferred alternative, in alternative 3 theuse of pack stock would be permitted.

BO UNDARY ADJUSTMENT

The same boundary adjustment proposed adja-cent to the Carbon River entrance in alternative2 would also be proposed under alternative 3.This boundary change, if authorized, wouldprovide for a publicly managed corridor alongthe upper portion of the Carbon River, whichin turn would provide added protection ofimportant wildlife habitat and more opportuni-ties for public use and enjoyment of the area.In addition to the proposed boundary changeauthorization for the Carbon River area,Congressional authorization would be soughtto appropriate funds to immediately acquire anapproximately 210-acre tract located betweenCarbon River Road and the Carbon River. Thepurpose of this acquisition would be to providefor the development of a public drive-incampground and picnic area and to allow theNational Park Service to move

administrative/support facilit ies from theCarbon River entrance.


As in the preferred alternative, new develop-ments and management actions proposed underalternative 3 would be implemented over thenext 20 years, as funding became available.Funding priorities would be the same as in thepreferred alternative. The National ParkService would also seek the same types ofalternative funding, including but not limitedto, donations, cooperative agreements, andjoint use of facilit ies with other agencies.

The preliminary cost estimate for implement-ing alternative 3 is shown in table 5. The initialgross cost estimate in year 2000 dollars forconstructing new facilit ies, removing facilit ies,rehabilitating or restoring areas, and otheractions included in alternative 3 is about $42.8million. This estimate does not include the costof land associated with the proposed boundaryadjustment or costs for staff operating a shuttleservice. As with the preferred alternative, thecosts in table 5 are intended to give a verygeneral idea of costs and should not be usedfor budgeting purposes.

Implementation of alternative 3 would requireadding approximately 21 employees to thepark staff. Additional staff requirements, infull-time-equivalent employees, would includethe following:

Monitoring of resource conditions 2.5Access and parking lotmanagement 2.0Interpretation and orientation 11.5Westside Road services 1.0Ranger patrols for zone limitsenforcement 3.6Mowich Lake Road services 0.2Total additional staff required 20.8


95

TABLE 5: GROSS COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE 3

Action Gross Costs

Improvements outside the parkState Route 706 corridor welcome center 5,310,000Packwood area welcome center 2,003,500Northeast welcome center 2,891,000Northwest welcome centers 1,639,500

Improvements inside the parkRicksecker Point — picnicking, parking, restrooms 127,000Paradise — rehabilitate/design new Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center exhibits 1,000,000

Rehabilitate visitor center 13,000,000Rehabilitate access, circulation, parking 1,180,000

Ohanapecosh — sno park 9,500Ohanapecosh — staging area for pack stock 74,000White River sno park 9,500Sunrise — add parking and picnicking 118,000Carbon River — reclaim parking/picnic areas and add new picnic sites 19,500Mowich Lake road/Paul Peak trailhead — add new picnic sites and sno park 15,500Mowich Lake — camping and picnicking improvements 74,000

Vehicle access and transportationSouth area road system — improvements 678,500Paradise shuttles and staging 9,571,000Northeast area road system — improvements 501,500Northwest area road system — improvements 295,000Westside Road — improvements 354,000Carbon River — shuttle and staging 2,553,500Mowich Lake — road and parking 1,359,500

Total $42,784,000

96

MITIGATING MEASURES

The following mitigating measures would beapplied to avoid or minimize potential impactson natural and cultural resources from construc-tion activities and visitor use. Except wherespecifically noted, these measures would applyto all alternatives.

NATURAL RESO URCES

Water Quality

Mitigating measures, such as sediment trapsplaced along a roadside, would keep relatedimpacts on water quality to a minimum.

Best management practices, such as the use ofsilt fences, would be followed to ensure thatconstruction-related effects were minimal and toprevent long-term impacts on water quality,wetlands, and aquatic species.

“Blue bags” would be used by climbers andwinter campers where restroom facilit ies werenot available to avoid water pollution due tohuman waste.

A dust abatement program would be used.Standard dust abatement measures wouldinclude watering or otherwise stabilizing soils,covering haul trucks, employing speed limits onunpaved roads, minimizing vegetation clearing,and promptly revegetating after construction wascompleted.

The park’s spill prevention and pollutionprogram for hazardous materials would be usedand would be updated on a regular basis.Standard measures could include hazardousmaterials storage and handling procedures; spillcontainment, cleanup, and reporting procedures;and limitations of refueling and other hazardousactivities to upland/nonsensitive sites.

New structures would be sited outsidefloodplains.

For new facilit ies, and to the extent practicablefor existing facilit ies, stormwater managementmeasures would be implemented to reduce non-point-source pollution discharge from roads,parking lots, and other impervious surfaces.Such actions could include oil/sediment separa-tors, street sweeping, infiltration beds, and useof permeable surfaces and vegetated or naturalfilters to trap or filter stormwater runoff.

Soils and Vegetation

Roadside mowing would be timed to assist inpreventing the spread of noxious weed species.

Efforts to reduce dust and soil loss wouldcontinue to be undertaken, as appropriate, for allexcavation, grading, construction, and otherdust-generating and soil-disturbing activities.These actions could include the following:

• sprinkling unpaved construction areas withwater to reduce fugitive dust emissions andcovering or seeding disturbed areas

• imposing speed limits for constructionvehicles in unpaved areas

• covering trucks hauling dirt and debris

• salvage and reuse of native soils

Work on campsites, roads, and other visitorfacilit ies both in and outside the park wouldcontinue to be planned to reduce impacts onvegetation. Site-specific surveys would identifyareas to avoid due to terrain or resource con-cerns. Proposed locations for picnic sites orcampsites would be surveyed for possiblespecial status plant species, and such sites wouldbe designed and maintained to discourage social(informal, user-created) trail development.

Mitigating Measures

97

To reduce the effects of habitat loss, construc-tion activities would be planned and imple-mented to avoid or minimize impacts. If impactscould not be avoided, construction activitieswould be planned and implemented in a waythat facilitated the restoration of nativecommunities.

Revegetation plans would be developed forareas impacted by major construction activities,and would continue to require the use of nativespecies, as well as plant and topsoil salvage.Revegetation plans would continue to specifysuch features as seed and plant sources, seedmixes, soil preparation, fertilizer, and mulching.Salvaged vegetation, rather than new planting orseeding, would be used to the extent possible.To maintain genetic integrity, all seeds used inrestoration would be collected in the projectarea. Plant material would be propagated fromseeds or plant stock collected in the project area.Use of nonnative species or genetic materialswould be considered only where deemednecessary to maintain a cultural landscape (e.g.,the lawns at Longmire) or to prevent severeresource damage, and would be approved by thepark’s plant ecologist.

Restoration activities would be institutedimmediately after construction was completed.Monitoring would be carried out to ensure thatrevegetation was successful, plantings weremaintained, and unsuccessful plant materialswere replaced.

Where parking is to be removed, rehabilitationwould include removal of the existing surface,tillage to improve infiltration, revegetation withnative species, and application of effective soilmulch.

Whenever possible, specimen trees would beretained and protected from construction-relateddamage. Trees removed during constructionwould be used in trail construction, mulch, orother construction material, or would remain on-site as habitat.

Wildlife

To the extent possible, new or rehabilitatedfacilit ies would be sited to avoid the followingsensitive wildlife habitats:

• major wildlife travel areas or corridors

• feeding and resting areas

• bear-denning sites

• nesting or brood-rearing areas

• native fish habitat

• sensitive amphibian habitat

Construction activities would be timed to avoidsensitive periods, such as nesting or spawningseasons. Ongoing visitor use and parkoperational activities could be restricted if theirpotential level of damage or disturbancewarranted doing so.

Measures would be taken to reduce the potentialfor wildlife to get food from humans. Wildlife-proof garbage containers would be required indeveloped areas (including visitor centers, picnicareas, trails, interpretive waysides, and camp-grounds). Food storage poles, designed toprevent bears and rodents from eating campers’food, would be installed at wilderness campsites.Visitors would continue to be educated about theneed to refrain from feeding wildlife through theuse of signs attached to picnic tables and postedon kiosks in campgrounds and picnic areas.

Special Status Species

Surveys would be conducted for special statusspecies before deciding on taking any action thatmight cause harm. In consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, National MarineFisheries Service, and Washington Departmentsof Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources,measures would be taken to protect any sensitivespecies whether identified through surveys orpresumed to occur.


98

Construction projects would be designed so thattrees suitable for the following would not beremoved:

• marbled murrelet habitat, which includestrees greater than 32 inches diameter atbreast height with suitable branches for nestplatforms and high canopy closure (Ralph etal. 1995)

• spotted owl nest trees (broken tops, naturallyoccurring cavities), roost sites (relativelydense vegetation with high canopy closure);or foraging areas (high canopy closure andcomplex structure)

It is possible that construction activities (e.g.,noise, dust, increased human presence) couldadversely affect individual spotted owls ormarbled murrelets if they were found nestingand rearing young in the immediate vicinity of aproject area. If nest sites were discovered afterconstruction activities began, work would behalted and there would be additional consulta-tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Consultation would determine the need foradditional mitigating measures.

Guidelines to avoid impacts on spotted owls andmarbled murrelets are listed in the accompanyingtext boxes. Whenever possible, constructionactivities would be timed to avoid the sensitivenesting period for northern spotted owls betweenMarch 1 and September 30. If necessary, someconstruction activities might be permitted duringthe late nesting season from August 1 to Septem-ber 30. Construction activities also would betimed to avoid the sensitive nesting period formarbled murrelets between April 1 and September15; if necessary, some construction activitiesmight be permitted during the late nesting season,from August 6 to September 15. Similarly, to thedegree possible, sensitive spawning times for fishand sensitive periods for other species would alsobe avoided. Construction activities taking placeduring these sensitive periods would proceedfollowing appropriate consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National MarineFisheries Service.

GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOIDIMPACTS ON SPOTTED OWLS

Whenever possible, complete all work betweenSeptember 30 and March 1.

For work in areas below 4,800 feet, between March 1and July 31:

• Helicopters would need to fly at least 2,600 feetabove the tree canopy level.

• Blasting operations would need to be conductedat least 1 mile away from suitable habitat.

• Motor vehicle and chainsaw noise would haveto occur at least 0.25 mile away from suitablehabitat.

For work in areas below 4,800 feet, between August1 to September 30:


• Blasting operations would need to be conductedat least 0.5 mile away from suitable habitat.

• Motor vehicle and chainsaw noise would have tooccur at least 0.25 mile away from suitable habitat.

GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOIDIMPACTS ON MARBLED MURRELETS

Whenever possible, complete all work betweenSeptember 15 and April 1.

For work in areas below 3,500 feet, between April 1to August 5:


• Blasting operations would need to be conductedat least one mile away from suitable habitat.


Mitigating Measures

99

For work in areas below 3,500 feet, between August6 and September 15:


• Blasting operations would need to be conducted atleast 0.5 mile away from suitable habitat.


Park managers would determine the food plantsand breeding habitat for the valley silverspot,whulge checkerspot, and Fender’s soliperlanstonefly and conduct surveys for these plants(butterflies) and aquatic habitats (stonefly) prior toany proposed actions.

Park managers would also continue to surveydowned logs and other appropriate habitats forspecial status salamanders prior to approval andimplementation of preferred alternatives, such aschanges to wilderness campsites and roadside treeremoval. Surveys would also continue to beconducted for other species that may occur withinthe park, particularly when these species could beaffected by proposed actions.

To complete ongoing consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, a programmatic agree-ment to analyze the effects of routine park opera-tions would be completed. For activities andactions not covered by this programmatic agree-ment, the park would continue to consult with theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a case-by-casebasis as specific actions were formulated

CULTURAL RESO URCES

In consultation with the Washington StateHistoric Preservation Office, tribal officials, theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, andother interested parties, under all the alternativesthe park staff would continue to apply thefollowing measures to avoid or minimize

impacts on historic properties, archeologicalresources, and ethnographic resources.

All ground-disturbing undertakings, such as theaddition of campsites, restroom facilit ies, andparking areas, would be assessed for thepresence of archeological resources, and surveyswould be conducted before the implementationof the preferred alternative. Archeological moni-toring would also be continued during construc-tion in areas considered to have potential forundisturbed resources, to ensure that sites wereavoided and to evaluate uncovered resources. Ifarcheological resources were identified andcould not be avoided by project redesign, datarecovery excavations would be completed beforeconstruction.

If unknown archeological resources were dis-covered during construction, work in thatlocation would stop until the resources wereproperly recorded and evaluated. Measureswould be taken to avoid further resource impactsor to mitigate their loss or disturbance. Incompliance with the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act of 1990, thepark staff would also notify and consult withconcerned tribal representatives regarding thetreatment of human remains and funerary andsacred objects should these be discovered.

Tribal officials would be consulted beforeactions were implemented that would have thepotential to affect ethnographic resources. TheNational Park Service would continue to abideby existing cooperative agreements and wouldpursue additional agreements with culturallyaffiliated tribes to avoid resource impacts, allowaccess for traditional gathering and otherapproved activities, and minimize potential useconflicts in culturally sensitive areas.

The park’s National Historic Landmark Districtwould be protected to the greatest extent pos-sible by ensuring that any new constructionwithin the district or within viewshed proximitywould be compatible with the district’s historiccharacter and setting and would preserve con-


100

tributing elements of the cultural landscape.Cultural resource impacts resulting from visitoruse would also be carefully monitored, andmeasures would be carried out to divert visitorsfrom culturally sensitive areas and to protectsuch resources from damage.

All undertakings affecting historic buildings,structures, and contributing elements of thecultural landscape would be carried out inaccordance with the park’s design guidelines,The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for theTreatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995c),and Guidelines for the Treatment of CulturalLandscapes (NPS 1996d).

If adverse effects on historic buildings, struc-tures, and contributing cultural landscape ele-ments could not be avoided, appropriatedocumentation would be carried out inaccordance with the standards and guidelines ofthe Historic American Buildings Survey(HABS) and the Historic American EngineeringRecord (HAER). Other possible mitigatingmeasures would be developed and implementedas necessary in consultation with the StateHistoric Preservation Office, the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation, tribal officials,and other interested parties.

GEO LO GIC HAZARDS (AVALANCHES)

The park staff would continue to take thefollowing measures parkwide to reduce the riskof avalanches to park visitors and employees.

• Conduct daily snow surveys to determinehazardous conditions.

• Post daily weather forecasts (updated asneeded), including avalanche forecasts fromthe National Weather Center, to informvisitors about current park conditions.

• Post signs and other media alerting thepublic to avalanche danger zones

• Close roads during high hazard periods.

The following measures would be used specif-ically for alternative 3, where new winter accessand road plowing along State Route 410 wouldoccur.

• Snow surveys would be completed twicedaily as dictated by avalanche terrain andconditions; this would include snow pitanalysis to determine snow conditions atvarious snow depths.

• New avalanche hazard signs would beinstalled along State Route 410. These signswould inform visitors of the avalanche haz-ards along the road and would also identify“no stopping” areas along the road wherehigh avalanche hazards exist.

101

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Environmentally preferred is defined as “thealternative that will promote the national envi-ronmental policy as expressed in §101 of theNational Environmental Policy Act. Section 101states that “ . . . it is the continuing responsibilityof the Federal Government to . . .

(1) fulfill the responsibilit ies of each generationas trustee of the environment for succeedinggenerations;

(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful,productive, and aesthetically and culturallypleasing surroundings;

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses ofthe environment without degradation, risk toheath or safety, or other undesirable andunintended consequences;

(4) preserve important historic, cultural, andnatural aspects of our national heritage, andmaintain, wherever possible, an environmentwhich supports diversity, and variety ofindividual choice;

(5) achieve a balance between population andresource use which will permit highstandards of living and a wide sharing oflife’s amenities; and

(6) enhance the quality of renewable resourcesand approach the maximum attainablerecycling of depletable resources.”

The environmentally preferred alternative is theNPS preferred alternative for the Mount RainierNational Park General Management Plan. Thisalternative satisfies the national environmentalgoals: the alternative provides a high level ofprotection of natural and cultural resourceswhile concurrently providing for a wide range ofneutral and beneficial uses of the environment.The alternative maintains an environment thatsupports a diversity and variety of individualchoices. And it integrates resource protectionwith an appropriate range of visitor uses.

The preferred alternative surpasses the otheralternatives in realizing the full range of national

environmental policy goals in section 101. Theno-action alternative does not provide as muchresource protection as the preferredalternative — more resource impacts would beexpected with increasing use levels in the no-action alternative. Visitor experience impactsalso would likely increase under this alternative.Thus, compared to the preferred alternative, theno-action alternative does not meet as well thefollowing national environmental policy goals:

• attain the widest range of beneficial uses ofthe environment without degradation

• preserve important natural aspects andmaintain an environment that supportsdiversity and variety of individual choice

• achieve a balance between population andresource use

Alternative 3 provides some additional visitoruse opportunities and access to Mount RainierNational Park. However, there would be a higherpotential for impacts on northern spottedowls — a federally listed threatened and state-listed endangered species — under thisalternative compared to the preferred alternative.It also presents greater threats to public healthand safety than the preferred alternative:opening State Route 410 in the winter wouldexpose visitors to avalanche hazards. Thus,alternative 3 does not meet the following policygoals as well as the preferred alternative:

• attain the widest range of beneficial useswithout resource degradation and risk tohealth or safety

• preserve important natural aspects

• enhance the quality of renewable resources

102

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDEREDBUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER

Several other actions and alternative conceptswere considered by the planning team formanaging Mount Rainier but were eliminatedfrom further analysis. Two of the initialalternatives were dropped because there werevery few differences in the managementdirections and zoning schemes compared to theother alternatives. The following actions werenot analyzed because they were found not to beviable or feasible under current conditions.

ES TABLISH A PARKWIDE EMPLO YEETRANSPORTATIO N SYSTEM

This concept was considered as a means ofreducing vehicular parking demands andencouraging a shift towards more efficient andenvironmentally sensitive transportation modes.The system was dropped from detailedevaluation because of the high cost oftransporting employees to remote locations inthe park. However, shuttles are currently beingused to take employees to Tahoma Woods,Longmire and Paradise.

INSTITUTE AN EMPLO YEE SHUTTLETO SUNRISE AND TH EWHITE RIVER CAMPGROUND

Instituting an employee shuttle would free upspaces for visitors to park in these areas.However, this option was not consideredbecause of the small number of employees thatwork in this area (who also work differentschedules). Sunrise also is a remote location foremployees, with no nearby community; it wouldtake a lot of t ime for a shuttle to pick up a fewemployees scattered over a large area, resultingin a high cost of running a shuttle for a longdistance.

BUILD NEW PARKINGFACILITIES IN TH E PARK

Building new parking facilit ies was notevaluated in detail due to the restrictionsimposed by wilderness boundaries and thenegative impacts of parking expansion on thepark’s environment. Building additional parkingareas in the park was also not considered viablebecause it would introduce an increased urbancharacter and would interfere with visualquality. The locations where additional parkingis most needed are within the National HistoricLandmark District, and new parking areas wouldbe likely to conflict with and degrade the cul-tural landscape in the historic district. Somealternatives include modified parking lots incertain areas.

INSTITUTE A PARKWIDEVO LUNTARY REMO TE PARKINGAND SHUTTLE SYSTEM

This concept would maintain the existing levelof private vehicle access and parking within thepark. Staging areas would be developed outsidethe park near the entrance stations. Visitors inprivate vehicles could voluntarily park at thestaging areas and transfer to shuttles to accesskey activity areas. Shuttle transfer points couldbe located within the park to accommodatetravel between major activity areas. The park-wide voluntary shuttle system concept was notforwarded for detailed analysis due to its lowridership potential. Few visitors would be likelyto use a voluntary shuttle system based onexperience in other recreational and urbansettings.

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Not Evaluated Further

103

REQ UIRE REMO TE PARKINGAND SHUTTLES PARKWIDE

A parkwide mandatory remote parking andshuttle concept was studied to identify the levelof shuttle services, equipment, and facilit ies thatwould be required for all day-use visitors to parktheir vehicles near the park boundary and to takepublic transportation to primary activity areasthroughout Mount Rainier. Private vehicle tripsthrough the park along State Route 123 andState Route 410 would be allowed. But all otherprivate vehicular, day-use traffic would beprohibited on park roads beyond the entrancegates. This concept would require a fleet ofapproximately 200 transit vehicles and morethan 40 acres of parking lots. The high cost of aparkwide mandatory system and the negativeimpacts of such a system on visitor convenienceand visitor experience would make this conceptunworkable in Mount Rainier.

INSTITUTE A MANDATO RYTRAILH EAD SHUTTLE

The concept of prohibiting parking at trailheadsalong the Nisqually entrance road on weekendsin the summer and of providing a special shuttlefor trail users was considered. This concept wasset aside due to high costs and the need todevelop new parking areas that would duplicateexisting parking, and because all but a fewtrailheads have enough parking spaces to servethe trails reached from the trailhead.

INITIATE HO RSE WAGO N TO URS

The use of horse-drawn wagons was consideredas a means of bringing visitors from a remoteparking area to activity areas along CarbonRiver Road. This idea was dropped due to thehigh costs of maintaining the wagons and caringfor the horses, the need for extensive mainten-ance of the unpaved road to ensure an acceptablequality of ride for visitors, and the potential forintroducing exotic species into the park.

INITIATE SNOW COACH TO URS

The use of snow coaches to provide access toactivity centers and to bring visitors into remoteareas in the park during the winter was evaluatedconceptually. There was no local experience onwhich to base estimates of demand for snowcoach tours. The largest similar operation is atYellowstone National Park. Based on Yellow-stone values, the passenger fares for snow coachservice could range from $40 to $90 per person.Also, the heavy, wet snow prevalent in MountRainier would be difficult to groom adequatelyto afford a comfortable ride to visitors. Becauseof the high costs, uncertain market conditions,and inappropriate snow conditions, this conceptwas dropped from further evaluation.

RELOCATE TH E WHITE RIVER ANDCOUGAR ROCK CAMPGROUNDSAND TH E LO NGMIRE FACILITIES

As noted earlier, the White River and CougarRock campgrounds and the Longmire area are inhigh hazard areas. Debris flows in these areascould result in high casualty rates and the de-struction of facilit ies (see the “Affected Envi-ronment” chapter). Consequently, it has beensuggested that these facilit ies be removed ormoved to safer locations. This idea was notincorporated in the alternatives for several rea-sons. Although there is a risk associated withkeeping these facilit ies open for public use, it isnot possible to predict when a debris flow wouldoccur at these sites — an event could occurtomorrow or in the next 100 years. A debris flowcould also occur at t imes when few people are inthe areas, such as the winter. No other suitablelocations exist in the park to move all of thesefacilit ies to due to geologic hazards and desig-nated wilderness. In addition, moving the facili-ties would have an adverse impact on theNational Historic Landmark District. Finally, thepublic strongly opposed this action when it wasproposed during this planning process — peoplepreferred to accept the risk rather than lose thechance to stay at the campgrounds. Instead, the


104

alternatives emphasized informing andeducating people about the geologic hazards andthe risk of staying in these areas.

ELIMINATE O R EXPAND TH EPARADISE SNOW PLAY AREA

Snow play (sledding) is a recreational use that iscurrently permitted only at Paradise (supervisedon weekends and holidays). Proposals weremade during the planning process to eliminatethe Paradise snow play area as well as to allowunrestricted snow play in most of the park. Bothactions were rejected. Expanding the locationswhere snow play occurs would pose majorsafety hazards for visitors. Park staffing is inade-quate for grooming and adequately patrollingother areas. Although this activity does not con-tribute to satisfying the purposes for which thepark was established, and can occur in otherareas besides Mount Rainier (e.g., White Passand Crystal Mountain), it has been permitted atParadise for many years. The existing activity isnot inconsistent with the purposes of the park, isbelieved to have had a minimal impact on parkresources, and is an activity enjoyed by manypeople. Thus, snow play would continue to bepermitted only at Paradise under all of thealternatives.

ELIMINATE SNOWBOARDINGIN TH E PARK

Snowboarding has been a permitted recreationaluse in Mount Rainier. Concerns have beenraised regarding the appropriateness of thisactivity, given that it can occur in other areasoutside the park and can impact vegetation andsoils when conducted inappropriately. However,there is no direct evidence that snowboarding isimpacting underlying vegetation in the park,provided that the snow is of sufficient depth.The existing activity also is not inconsistent withthe purposes of the park, has minimal impact onpark resources, and is enjoyed by many people.Thus, snowboarding would continue to bepermitted under all of the alternatives.

SET A CARRYING CAPACITY FO RWINTER USE AND SET LIMITS O NSNOW CAMPING AT PARADISE

This action was not carried forth because winteruse levels have not been increasing at a rate thatis believed to threaten desired resource andsocial conditions in the park. Paradise receivesthe highest level of winter use in the park. Snowcamping, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing,and snowboarding are not known to be causingresource damage, assuming these activities onlyoccur when snow levels are of sufficient depth.Although this plan does not set winter carryingcapacities, winter uses would be studied andmonitored for resource impacts. If use levelssubstantially increased in the future and over-crowding occurred, or if unacceptable resourceimpacts were found to be occurring, winter usecarrying capacities could be established.

REO PEN WESTSIDE RO ADTO ALL PRIVATE VEHICLES

Since flooding in 1992, Westside Road has beenclosed to private motor vehicles at Dry Creek.The road could be repaired to allow all privatevehicles to drive to the end of the road. Thisaction was not pursued due to the potential forfuture floods to wash out the road, the cost inrepairing the road, and liability issues. Usersalso enjoy being able to hike and bike in thisarea without encountering motor vehicles, andthere have not been many requests to reopen theroad to motor vehicles. Instead, the alternativesexamine the possibility of opening the road tolimited use by high-clearance vehicles, permit-ting a shuttle on the road, and keeping the roadclosed to motor vehicles.

CO MPLETELY REHABILITATETH E H ENRY M. JACKSO NMEMO RIAL VISITO R CENTER

This action was rejected because rehabilitatingthe structure would be very costly given the

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Not Evaluated Further

105

many problems with the building. Over the longterm, the cost of maintaining the existing visitorcenter would be greater than the cost of buildingand maintaining a new, smaller visitor center.Even if the visitor center was completely re-habilitated, it would continue to look out ofplace in the cultural landscape and the NationalHistoric Landmark District. The large building

also would continue to be expensive to heat, andlarge amounts of space still would be likely notto be able to be effectively used. (Underalternative 3 the visitor center would berehabilitated to meet minimum health and safetyand accessibility standards and to provide somevisitor experience improvements.)

106

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 6 provides an overview of the keydifferences among the alternatives for managingMount Rainier National Park for the next 20years. As discussed previously, alternative 1, theno-action alternative, would continue currentmanagement practices into the future. The twoaction alternatives are alternative 2, the preferredalternative, and alternative 3, which wouldprovide additional visitor use opportunities.

Table 7 provides more information on thefeatures of each of the alternatives. This includesboth parkwide management actions and actionsthat would be implemented within specificgeographic areas. More detailed descriptions ofthe various features of the alternatives can be

found throughout this “Alternatives, Includingthe Preferred Alternative” chapter.

Table 8 summarizes the impacts of thealternatives. Detailed information on the impactsevaluation is provided in the “EnvironmentalConsequences” chapter. The table highlightsonly long-term effects, because short-termimpacts (most of which would be associatedwith construction) would occur for only alimited period of time and would be mitigated tothe extent that they would become negligible orminor.

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DI FFERENCES AMON G THE ALTERNATIVES

Feature

Alternative 1: No Action(Continue Current

Management)

Alternative 2:Proposed

Action

Alternative 3:Additional Visitor Use

Opportunities

Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center Continue to use Replace Refurbish

Use a visitor carrying capacity framework toensure the protection of park resources and qualityof the visitor experience

No Yes Yes

Provide shuttles to reduce the need for parking No Yes Yes

Eliminate overflow parking No Yes Yes, but provideadditional parking spaces

Allow privately owned motor vehicles onWestside Road

No No, but accessby shuttles

Yes

Use welcome centers outside the park to directsummer tra ffic to areas with available capacity

No Yes Yes

Reduce use of pack stock on trails No Yes Yes, and more stock usethan alternative 2

Increase management of tour buses No Yes Yes

Boundary adjustment and land acquisition in theCarbon River area

No Yes Yes

Plow State Route 410 in the winter to the WhiteRiver entrance and State Route 123/StevensCanyon Road through Ohanapecosh to the Groveof the Patriarchs

No No Yes

Gross cost estimate $0 $47,155,500 $42,784,000

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative(Continue Current Management)


Alternative 3:Additional Visitor Use Opportunities

Focus of AlternativeRespond to issues on a case-by-case basis. Nomajor new visitor use management initiatives.

Comprehensive approach with emphasis onresource protection while providing foradditional visitor use opportunities.

Protect resources while providing moreopportunities for visitor use in different waysthan alternative 2.

Parkwide ActionsPark zoning Maintain existing zoning based on “Statement

for Management” (NPS 1988b) and W ildernessManagement Plan (NPS 1992c).

Establish new prescriptive management zones asidentified through the general managementplanning process.

Same as alternative 2, except with differentzones for Westside Road and State Route 410.

Resource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitors. Donot establish visitor carrying capacities in thepark.

Establish carrying capacity framework. Identifyindicators and standards for resource conditionsand visitor experiences.


Interpretation,education,information, andorientation

Rehabilitate park interpretive programs andexhibits as part of the ongoing interpretiveprogram.

Rehabilitate park interpretive programs andexhibits as part of the ongoing interpretiveprogram. Provide more in-depth and focusedinterpretation at visitor centers and museums.


Maintain the Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center in its current condition.

Replace the Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter with a new, smaller, visitor center.

Rehabilitate the Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center to meet minimum coderequirements and improve visitor experiences.

Work with partners to provide information atexisting visitor contact stations, but provide nonew visitor facilities outside the park.

Establish new welcome centers on major roadsleading to the park and use other means toprovide visitors with information, orientation,and interpretive services.


Maintain wilderness information centers in theircurrent locations.

Incorporate wilderness information centers inthe new visitor facilities.


Wilderness dayand overnight use

Manage wilderness according to WildernessManagement Plan (NPS 1992c). Follow thezones and standards in the plan.

Establish new management zones and identifyindicators and standards for resource conditionsand visitor experiences that address day use andovernight use.


Regulate overnight use in the wilderness areathrough permits.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

Trailhead access Allow overflow parking at all trailheads. Limit parking to designated spaces only. Same as alternative 2.


108

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES (Continued)




Winter overnightuse

Continue drive-in winter camping at SunshinePoint near the Nisqually entrance. Allowcamping at Paradise when snow depth is at least5 feet.


Informally encourage a 2-foot snow depthminimum for camping in the wilderness area.

Formally adopt a 2-foot snow depth minimumfor camping in the wilderness area.


Trail system No new management initiatives. Addressmanagement issues as time and funds allow.

Provide minor physical modifications tononwilderness trails to keep visitors on the trails.Implement such management actions as moreintensive visitor education, ranger patrols, signs,and fines for going off-trail.


Geologic hazards Continue current efforts to alert visitors topotential geologic hazards such as debris flows,volcanic eruptions, and glacial outburst floods.

Take additional steps to educate visitors andemployees about the threat of geologic hazardsand actions to take in case of specific events.This could include better publications, Websites, warning signs, and evaluation of additionalescape trails or routes.


Air quality Work with partners to maintain and improve airquality, but do not initiate new efforts.

Take additional actions to reduce emissionsources within the park, such as increasingpublic education, limiting the number ofcampfires, establishing no-burn days, or banningcampfires during critical weather conditions.


Preserving naturalsoundscapes

Enforce existing noise policies in the wildernessarea.

Enforce existing noise policies in the wildernessarea. If problems arise due to aircraft overflightsor land-based noise sources, implementadditional actions to control noise.


Management ofpack stock

Allow pack stock on designated trails and roads. Allow pack stock on the Pacific Crest Trail andLaughingwater Creek Trail to access it.Establish a staging area for pack stock groups inthe Ohanapecosh area.

Allow pack stock on the Pacific Crest Trail,Laughingwater Creek Trail, Westside Road,Carbon River Road, and connecting trails fromIpsut Creek campground to Westside Road.Establish a staging area for pack stock groups inthe Ohanapecosh area.

Management oftour buses

No new efforts to manage tour buses. Implement tour bus management procedures,such as more efficient use of bus parking spaces,limits on locations and times for buses stopping,and encouraging tours at non-peak times.


109





Boundary No changes to the park boundary. Implement (subject to congressional approval) aboundary adjustment of approximately 1,063acres at the Carbon River entrance.


Actions by Geographic AreaWestside Road — SummerVisitor access Private vehicles could continue to drive up to the

existing road closure at the Dry Creek parkingarea.

No private vehicle access. Allow high-clearance private vehicles only.

Visitors could park near junction with theNisqually to Paradise Road.


No shuttles. Provide a visitor shuttle during the peak season,with shuttle staging area outside the park.

Provide no shuttles.

Continue closure to vehicles beyond Dry Creek. Maintain the road for shuttles, and make minorimprovements to allow shuttle service. If there isa major washout, re-examine the future use ofthe road for shuttle service.

Maintain the road for high-clearance vehicles,and make minor improvements to allow use bythese vehicles. If a major washout occurs, re-examine the future use of the road for vehicles.

Visitor facilities No new visitor facilities. Provide new picnic sites at Tahoma Vista,Round Pass/Marine Memorial and KlapatchePoint.


Activities Encourage bicycling, hiking, and pack stock. Encourage hiking and bicycling, but no packstock.


Longmire — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces (physicalcarrying capacity) to manage visitor use.


Parking Allow overflow parking. Prohibit overflow parking. Same as alternative 2.

Campground Use for volunteer-in-park camping. Same as alternative 1, plus open part of the areafor public picnicking.


Employee access Maintain existing shuttles for park andconcession employees.



110





Ricksecker Point — SummerVisitor facilities No new visitor facilities. Add several walk-in picnic sites and associated

parking spaces.Same as alternative 2.

Paradise — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces, tour buses,and shuttles (physical carrying capacity) tomanage visitor use.


Visitor access Visitors could continue to drive private vehiclesto Paradise, with parking on a first-come, first-served basis.

Most visitors could drive private vehicles toParadise, with parking on a first-come, first-served basis.


Use shuttles for climbing concession guests. Same as alternative 1, plus provide shuttleservice for all visitors during peak-use period.


Employee access Provide an employee shuttle. Require concession employees and most NPSstaff to take shuttles during the peak-use period.


Traffic flowcirculation

Continue current direction of traffic flow (two-way road to the Paradise Inn parking lot,becoming a one-way road past the inn and alongParadise Valley Road).

On a trial basis, reverse direction of traffic flowon the Paradise Valley Road.


Parking Provide 750 designated parking spaces andallow overflow parking for approximately 500additional cars.

Redesign the parking lot to be more efficient andimprove circulation. Maintain the number ofdesignated parking spaces at about 750 spaces.Prohibit overflow parking.

Redesign the parking lot to be more efficient andimprove circulation. Provide about 1,250designated parking spaces, with new parkingspaces along the road west of the visitor center.

No new initiatives to manage the use of parkingspaces.

Manage the mix of parking spaces available forday-use visitors, tour buses, and inn guests toprovide for efficient use of designated spaces.


Henry M. JacksonMemorial VisitorCenter

Maintain but do not rehabilitate the visitorcenter.

Replace the visitor center with a smaller visitorcenter.

Rehabilitate the visitor center to meet minimumcode requirements and improve the visitorexperience.

111





Ohanapecosh — SummerParking Maintain existing facilities. Provide about 15 more parking spaces within the

existing footprint.Provide about 20 more parking spaces within theexisting footprint.

White River — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces and shuttles(physical carrying capacity) to manage visitoruse.


Visitor access All visitors could continue to drive privatevehicles into White River on a first-come, first-served basis.

Provide shuttle service to the public parking areaadjacent to the campground.

Same as alternative 2, except provide a lowerlevel of shuttle service.

Sunrise — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces, tour buses,and shuttles (physical carrying capacity) tomanage visitor use.

Same as alternative 2, except provide a lowerlevel of shuttle service.

Visitor access All visitors could continue to drive to Sunrise,with parking on a first-come, first-served basis.

Visitors could drive to Sunrise until the parkinglot is filled.


No shuttles. Provide shuttle service to Sunrise. When themain parking lot is full, require all visitors totake shuttles.

Same as alternative 2

Develop a shuttle staging area at a location to bedetermined outside the park.


Parking Continue to provide 260 designated parkingspaces for vehicles.

Provide additional designated parking spaceswithin the existing footprint (including gravelareas), consistent with the cultural landscape (upto 300 spaces).



112





Allow overflow parking for up to 340 vehicles. Eliminate overflow parking, which woulddecrease the availability of parking.



Manage the mix of parking spaces for day-usevisitors and tour buses to provide for efficientuse of designated parking.


Visitor andadministrativefacilities

Maintain existing facilities. P lace additional picnic facilities within theexisting footprint.


Mowich Lake — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces and shuttles(physical carrying capacity) to manage visitoruse.

Same as alternative 2 except shuttles would notbe used to manage visitor use.

Visitor access Visitors could continue to drive to MowichLake.

Visitors could drive to a new road terminus,about 0.5 mile from the lake, and then walk tothe lake.


No shuttles. Provide shuttles along the road to the newterminus. Develop a shuttle staging area outsidethe park.


Maintain the gravel road. Maintain the gravel road. Surface the last 0.75-mile of the gravel road tothe lake.

Parking Maintain the existing 50 designated parkingspaces.

Remove the existing designated parking spacesand provide parallel parking spaces for about115 vehicles along the road’s shoulders, west ofthe road’s new terminus.

Same as alternative 1, but provide about 170designated parallel parking spaces along the last0.75 mile of the road.

Allow overflow parking along the roadway. Allow no overflow parking. Same as alternative 2.


Manage a mix of parking spaces for day-usevisitors and campers to provide for the efficientuse of designated parking spaces.


113





Camping andpicnicking

Visitors could continue to walk to camping areain the existing disturbed area at the end of theroad. No designated campsites would beprovided.

Reconfigure the existing camping area toprovide designated campsites.

Same as alternative 2, except provide morecampsites.

Maintain existing picnic sites. Add picnic sites at Mowich Lake and locate newpicnic sites at Paul Peak.


Carbon River Area — SummerResource andvisitor usemanagement

No major new initiatives to manage visitor use. Implement resource and visitor experienceindicators and standards. Until these are adopted,use the number of parking spaces (physicalcarrying capacity) and shuttles to manage visitoruse.


Visitor access Visitors could continue to drive, hike, bike, oruse pack stock to Ipsut Creek.

Visitors could drive to Ipsut Creek until a majorstretch of road washes out. Subsequently, closethe road to private motor vehicles hikers andbikers could continue to use the road.

Same as alternative 2 plus allow the of use packstock along the road to Ipsut Creek.

No shuttles. Provide shuttles along the entire road to IpsutCreek. This includes establishing a shuttlestaging area outside the park..


Maintain the road, and continue to repair majorwashouts.

Repair and maintain the road in a mannerconsistent with the National Historic LandmarkDistrict designation.


Allow pack stock. Do not allow pack stock. Same as alternative 1.Parking Maintain existing facilities and overflow

parking.Same as alternative 1, but discontinue overflowparking.


Visitor andadministrativefacilities

Maintain the Ipsut Creek campground. When major washout closes the road, convertIpsut Creek campground to a walk-in, bicycle-incampground.


Maintain the existing picnic sites at Ipsut Creekcampground and Falls Creek.

Same as alternative 1, except remove the FallsCreek picnic area; also, in conjunction with therecommended boundary adjustment, providenew picnic sites at the existing entrance andhousing/maintenance area.



114




No new facilities. In conjunction with the recommend boundaryadjustment, develop a new drive-in campgroundand picnic area outside the current boundary.


Maintain existing administrative facilities. In conjunction with recommended boundaryadjustment, relocate nonhistoric maintenancefacilities and employee housing to a developedsite in the proposed boundary adjustment area.


Westside Road — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

No plowing. Visitors could continue to drive upto gate near the junction with the Nisqually toParadise road junction.

Same as alternative 1. No plowing. Allow private, high-clearancevehicles up to Tahoma Vista or snowline. If amajor washout occurs, re-examine the future useof the road.

Paradise — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

Plow the road from Nisqually to Paradise andallow visitors to drive to Paradise.

Same as alternative 1, but also give visitors theoption of taking a shuttle to Paradise. Establish astaging area for the shuttles.


Snow play Allow only in the designated area, and onlywhen there is at least 5 feet of snow cover.


Ohanapecosh — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

Plow State Route 123 for private vehicles fromthe park boundary to Ohanapecosh.

Same as alternative 1. P low State Route 123 for private vehicles fromthe park boundary to the Grove of Patriarchs.

Maintain existing parking facilities. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1, but work with the state toprovide a sno-park at the end of the plowed road.

Activities Visitors could continue to ski, snowshoe, andsnowboard.

Encourage skiing, snowshoeing, andsnowboarding.


White River — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

No plowing. Same as alternative 1. P low State Route 410 for private vehicles fromthe park boundary to the White River entrance.

No motor vehicles allowed past the gate at thepark boundary.

Same as alternative 1. Allow motor vehicles up to the White Riverentrance.

Work with the state to maintain the existing sno-park, but do not improve the facility.

Work with the state to improve the existing sno-park.

Maintain the existing sno-park, and work withthe state to provide a new sno-park at the end ofthe plowed road.

115





Activities Allow skiing and showshoeing on the road to thecampground and beyond the Mather wye (StateRoute 410).

Same as alternative 1. Encourage skiing and snowshoeing on the roadfrom the White River entrance to the FryingpanCreek area, as well as beyond the Mather wye.

Mowich — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

No plowing. Work with the state to plow the road for privatevehicles to the gate near the park boundary at thePaul Peak trailhead.


Visitors could drive on the road only up to thegate at Paul Peak trailhead or to the snowline.


No new facilities. Work with the state to provide a sno-park at thegate near the park boundary.


Carbon River Area — WinterPlowing andvehicle access

No plowing. Visitors could continue to drive asfar as Ipsut Creek, except during temporaryclosures (such as heavy snow or downed trees).

Same as alternative 1. When there is a majorwashout of the road, re-examine use.

No plowing. Prohibit private motor vehicles andallow hiking and bicycling only.


116

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Impact TopicAlternative 1: No-Action Alternative

(Continue Current Management)Alternative 2:

Preferred AlternativeAlternative 3:

Additional Visitor Use Opportunities

Natural Resources

Air quality This alternative would result in a minoradverse impact on air quality resulting fromincreased park visitation.

Minor beneficial impact would result comparedto alternative 1 through the use of visitor shuttlesto replace some private vehicles, by taking othermeasures to control air pollution sources withinthe park, and by using carrying capacity frame-work to indicate when air protection manage-ment actions were needed.

Impacts would be similar to alternative 2.

Water quality andwater resources

Increasing human use would adversely affectwater quality by increasing levels of sedi-ments, pollutants (primarily from motorvehicles), and nutrients in the lakes andstreams. Impacts would be minor andlocalized.

Minor to moderate beneficial impacts fromimplementing a carrying capacity framework andbetter design of reconfigured areas. Preservingland in the boundary adjustment area would havea moderate beneficial impact.


Floodplains Minor to moderate adverse impacts onfloodplain values along small sections ofseveral rivers and streams would occur due tolevee maintenance and riverbank protection.

Most impacts would be similar to alternative 1.Moderate benefits would occur from notmaintaining bank protections along Westside andCarbon River Roads following a major washout.


Wetlands No impact on wetlands would occur becausemeasures would be implemented to avoidwetland areas.

Impacts would be similar to alternative 1. Impacts would be similar to alternative 1.

Soils andvegetation

Increased visitor activities would have minor,long-term, adverse impacts on soils andvegetation, with moderate impacts in somehigh-use areas, such as Paradise Meadowsand Spray Park.

A minor to moderate beneficial effect wouldresult from preserving forests and riparianhabitat within boundary adjustment area andimplementing a carrying capacity framework.Minor adverse impacts in localized areas wouldresult from modifying or constructing parkinglots, picnic areas, and the replacement visitorcenter at Paradise.

Impacts similar to alternative 2, except that therewould be a higher potential for minor adverseimpacts in localized areas due to more trails beingopen to stock use and increases in use at Paradiseand Mowich. Minor adverse effects also wouldresult from rehabilitating the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center.

117

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (Continued)





Wildlife Adverse wildlife impacts would be negligibleto minor. Increased human use would dis-place or disturb wildlife, condition wildlife toassociate food with people, and injure or killwildlife in collisions with motor vehicles.

Implementing proposed boundary adjustmentand a carrying capacity framework would haveminor to moderate long-term beneficial effects.Minor short-term adverse impacts in localizedareas would result from construction projects andopening Westside Road to shuttles.

In addition to the impacts in alternative 2, minor tomoderate, adverse, long-term impacts would resultfrom opening the Westside Road to private motorvehicles.

Special StatusSpecies

Mitigating measures would minimizepotential effects of slight increases in visitoruse that could disturb special status species ortheir habitats. Alternative 1 would be unlikelyto adversely affect these species.

This alternative would be unlikely to adverselyaffect special status species or habitats. OpeningWestside Road to shuttles may affect, but wouldnot be likely to adversely affect, the northernspotted owl, marbled murrelet, and northerngoshawk.

This alternative has potential to adversely affectnorthern spotted owls nesting near State Route 410when winter plowing occurs. Opening WestsideRoad to private vehicles might affect, but not likelyto adversely affect, northern spotted owl, marbledmurrelet, and northern goshawk. No other specialstatus species likely to be adversely affected.

Geologic Hazards

Visitors and employees exposed to volcanicand nonvolcanic geologic hazards becausemany existing development sites wouldremain in hazard zones. These conditionswould present negligible to major impactsdue to risks to future visitors and employees.

Major to negligible long-term impacts due tovolcanic and nonvolcanic hazards would con-tinue. Minor beneficial effects fro mdisseminating additional information on safetyhazards and from removing facilities at CarbonRiver entrance.

Impacts would be similar to alternative 2, but therewould be an additional moderate to major adverseimpact due to avalanche hazards associated withthe opening of a portion of State Route 410 in thewinter.

Cultural Resources

ArcheologicalResources

Visitor increases would have no adverseeffects because established resourceprotection measures would be used.

Same as alternative 1. With the application ofappropriate mitigation measures, constructionactivities would have a minor to negligibleimpact, although there could be an adverse effecton unknown resources.


Ethnographicresources

No adverse effects on either the ability ofNative Americans to procure plants in park oron known traditional cultural properties.

Impacts would be similar to alternative 1. Impacts would be similar to alternative 1.


118






Historic resources,including NationalLandmark HistoricDistrict

No adverse effects would result from thisalternative.

No adverse effects fro m this alternative;.beneficial effects would result from reversingtraffic flow on Paradise Valley Road and fromeliminating overflow parking, which would helpreestablish the historic roadside character of thedistrict and reduce effects on visual character.

No adverse effects would result from thisalternative. Beneficial effects would be similar toalternative 2.

Henry M. JacksonMemorial VisitorCenter

Retaining structure in its current capacitywould have no adverse effect on the buildingbecause its historical integrity would bepreserved.

Removing this facility would have no adverseeffect because mitigation approved by the statehistoric preservation officer would beimplemented.

Rehabilitating structure according to standards forhistoric structures would have no adverse effect onthe building should it be eligible for listing on theNational Register of Historic P laces.

Visitor Experience

Visitor access Negligible effect during off-peak periods.Continued congestion and inconvenientparking would adversely affect visitor accessat peak-use times. This would be a long-termmajor adverse impact.

Visitor access at peak times improved by re-ducing congestion and providing shuttles,resulting in moderate beneficial effects. Minoradverse impacts could result when some visitorsinconvenienced and/or displaced by restrictionson overflow parking. Some people might nothave access to Mowich Lake, a minor adverseimpact. If road was closed due to major flooddamage there would be a moderate to majorlong-term adverse impact.

Visitor access at peak times improved by reducingcongestion and providing shuttles, resulting inmoderate beneficial effects. Minor adverse impactscould result when some visitors inconvenienced byrestrictions on overflow parking. Eliminating over-flow parking at Sunrise and providing a lower levelof shuttle service than in alternative 2 would have aminor to moderate adverse impact. If Carbon RiverRoad closed after a major washout, there would bea moderate to major long-term adverse impact.

Range andenjoyment ofactivities

Negligible effect during non-peak times.There would be no substantial change in therange of available visitor activities, althoughcongestion at times of peak use would causemajor adverse impacts on visitor enjoymentin the long term.

No major activities would be eliminated oradded, but reductions in congestion would have amajor beneficial effect on visitor experience andenjoyment. If Carbon River Road closed by amajor washout, there would be a moderate tomajor adverse impact on visitor experiences.

Impacts would be similar to alternative 2, butadded winter uses areas at Westside Road, Groveof the Patriarchs, and access along State Route 410would be a minor beneficial effect.

Convenience ofinformation

Negligible effect during nonpeak periods.During peak-use times continued practiceswould have a major adverse impact onconvenient access to information because ofcrowding at available facilities.

Major beneficial impacts would result frommaking information in the park and gatewaycommunities widely available.


119






Wilderness valuesand experiences

In most of the wilderness area during off-peakperiods, visitors would continue to find out-standing opportunities for solitude and forprimitive, unconfined recreation. Long-termminor to moderate adverse impacts on peak-period summer wilderness users and theirexperiences would continue in or near majorday use areas, near roads and trailheads, andalong major climbing routes.

Opportunities for solitude and for primitive,unconfined recreation would be maintained inmost wilderness areas and improved in someareas, resulting in a moderate beneficial impact.However, increased restrictions could cause aminor adverse impact on some wilderness userswho might feel their access was adverselyaffected.


Socioeconomic Environment

Regional context There would not be any new parkemployment or new constructionemployment. Impacts from increasedvisitation would be negligible.

Beneficial impacts would result from increasedpark employment and construction, and thepark’s attraction to regional tourists. Impactswould be minor in relation to the regionaleconomy.

The contribution of increased park employmentand construction would be greater than underalternative 2, but would still be a relatively minorfactor in the regional economy.

Gatewaycommunities

Modest increases in park visitors wouldincrease visitor expenditures in gatewaycommunities, producing beneficial minorimpacts.

Moderate beneficial socioeconomic impactswould result from welcome centers, shuttlestaging areas, park construction activities, andincreased park visitation.


Regionalrecreationalopportunities

Regional recreational opportunities would notchange from i mplementing alternative 1.Therefore, there would be a negligibleimpact.

Improvements to existing opportunities in thepark would produce a minor beneficial impact onregional recreational opportunities.


Concessions Impacts on park concessioners and othercommercial businesses would be negligible,but positive, due to higher seasonal businessactivity associated with increased parkvisitation.

Beneficial economic impacts on parkconcessioners and other commercial businesseswould be minor.


(blank)

Affected Environment

122

(blank back)

123

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing environ-ment of Mount Rainier National Park and thesurrounding region. It is focused on the parkresources, uses, facilit ies, and socioeconomiccharacteristics that have the potential to beaffected by the alternatives if they were imple-mented. Some features such as floodplains andendangered species are discussed because theyprovide context or must be considered in anenvironmental impact statement.

There are numerous sources of information onthe natural and human environment of MountRainier National Park. These include theMount Rainier National Park home page(http://www.nps.gov/mora) and bibliography(http://www1.nature.nps.gov/nrbib/index.htm).The following are some of the other resourcesthat were used in the preparation of thischapter:

Flora of Mount Rainier National Park(Brockman 1947)

The Geologic Story of Mount Rainier(USGS 1969a)

Surficial Geology of Mount RainierNational Park (USGS 1969b)

A Visitor’s Guide to Mount RainierGlaciers (Driedger 1986)

The Forest Communities of Mount RainierNational Park (Franklin et al. 1988)

The Forests of Mount Rainier (Moir 1989)

Wilderness Management Plan (NPS 1992c)

National Historic Landmark Nomination,Mount Rainier National Park (NPS 1996b)

Landmarks in the Landscape (Kaiser 1997)

Wilderness by Design: Landscape,Architecture, and the National Park Service(Carr 1998)

Carbon River Road ReconstructionEnvironmental Assessment (NPS 1998a)

Flora of Mount Rainier National Park(Biek 2000)

124

IMPACT TOPICS

RELEVANT IMPACT TO PICS

The Council on Environmental Quality (1978)guidelines for implementing the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) require thatthe description of the affected environmentmust focus on describing the resources andpeople that may be affected by the alternatives.Impact topics were developed to focus theenvironmental analysis and to ensure thatalternatives were evaluated against relevanttopics. The topics, listed below, are based onpublic and other agency concerns identifiedduring scoping; federal laws, regulations, andorders; and NPS Management Policies (NPS1988a). A brief rationale for selecting eachimpact topic is provided below.

Natural Resources

Air Quality. Mount Rainier is a class I airquality area. The Clean Air Act requiresfederal land managers to protect park airquality related values, which include scenic,natural and cultural resources. Air qualityimpacts have occurred in the park due torecreational use and are a concern, as areregional effects on the park. Changes in visitoruse patterns and access in the alternativescould affect the park’s air quality.

Water Resources and Water Quality. Thewater resources in the park are protected andmanaged under the Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972, and theClean Water Act of 1977. NPS ManagementPolicies (NPS 1998a) also require the protec-tion and conservation of water quality in thepark. Water is an important resource in MountRainier. The headwaters of several drainagesare in the park, including the White, Puyallup,Carbon, Mowich, and Nisqually Rivers. Anydegradation of water quality would be of

concern not only to the National Park Service,but to those downstream as well.

Floodplains. Executive Order 11988 requiresthe examination of the impacts on floodplains.From an ecological perspective, the rivers andstreams radiating from Mount Rainier are akey feature of Mount Rainier National Park,influencing vegetation patterns, creating andlinking different habitats, and providing im-portant wintering habitat for many speciessuch as elk and deer. As transitional zonesbetween upland and riparian communities,floodplains represent a diverse range of habitattypes. Park development and infrastructure arefocused on floodplains because they are lowerin elevation, melt out from winter snow earlier,and provide level ground in steep mountainlandscapes. Floodplains also pose risks tohuman health and safety and to park develop-ments. Although the alternatives being con-sidered do not propose new developments infloodplains, several existing facilit ies wouldremain in floodplain areas.

Wetlands. The water resources in the park,including wetlands, are protected and managedin accordance with Executive Order 11990“Protection of Wetlands” and NPS Director’sOrder 77-1 and its accompanying proceduralmanual. This guidance further requires theexamination of the impacts on wetlands.

Soils and Vegetation. The Organic Act andNPS Management Policies (NPS 1988a) bothrequire the protection and conservation of soiland vegetation resources that could be affectedby actions that would change human use anddevelopment patterns in the park.

Wildlife . As described for soils and vegeta-tion, the Organic Act and NPS ManagementPolicies require the protection and conserva-tion of wildlife resources that could be affectedby actions changing the human use and devel-

Impact Topics

125

opment patterns in the park. The park’s mam-mals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish areimportant park resources, important also tovisitor experiences. Any loss of wildlife habitator decreases in wildlife populations would beof concern to park managers, visitors, and thepublic.

Special Status Species. The EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, as amended, requires anexamination of impacts on all federally listedthreatened or endangered plant and animalspecies. NPS Management Policies repeat thisrequirement and add the further stipulation thatthe analysis examine impacts on state-listedendangered, threatened, or rare species, andfederal species proposed for listing. MountRainier supports populations of federal andstate threatened or endangered species, speciesproposed for federal listing, species ofconcern, state sensitive species, and statecandidates for listing.

Geologic Hazards

Public health and safety is of major importanceto park managers. NPS Management Policies(NPS 1988a) state that “the National ParkService and its concessioners, contractors, andcooperators will seek to provide a safe andhealthful environment for visitors and em-ployees.” However, Mount Rainier is an activevolcano that presents considerable hazards topark visitors, employees, and infrastructure.The primary geologic hazard is from debrisflows. Many of the park’s developed sites arelocated on debris flow deposits in valley bot-toms, and 7 of 23 developed sites in the parkare in a debris flow hazard zone with an esti-mated recurrence interval of less than 100years (Scott et al. 1992; Hoblitt et al. 1995).Other potential hazards are pyroclastic flows,ash fall, and lava flows (if Mount Rainiererupts), as well as snow avalanches, rock falls,and landslides.

Cultural Resources

Under the requirements of section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act, theOrganic Act, NPS Management Policies, andother relevant cultural resources regulationsand policies, the National Park Service isrequired to consider the effects of its under-takings on historic properties and culturalresources, and to carry out appropriate mea-sures for their protection and preservation,particularly in adherence to the Secretary ofInterior’s Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties.

Archeological Resources. The ArcheologicalResources Protection Act and the NationalHistoric Preservation Act require the evalua-tion and documentation of effects on archeo-logical resources. Ground disturbance asso-ciated with development undertakings coulddisturb unknown archeological resources inproject areas. Archeological resources aretherefore considered a relevant impact topic.

Ethnographic Resources. Mount Rainierholds special sacred significance for a numberof regional Native American tribes, and issuesregarding tribal access for cultural andreligious purposes have been the subject ofpark/tribal agreements. Ethnographic resourcesare therefore addressed.

Historic Resources, Including the NationalHistoric Landmark District. Actions con-sidered under the alternatives have the poten-tial to affect historic properties and variousfeatures of the cultural landscape identified ascontributing to the significance of the park’sNational Historic Landmark District or historicbuildings and structures. Of particular concernare the effects on historic patterns of circula-tion and use, and the historic character ofroadside landscapes and developed areas.

The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter. This is the park’s primary visitorcenter. Although the visitor center does not

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

126

contribute to the National Historic LandmarkDistrict, it potentially meets the eligibilitycriteria for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places. Therefore, any actions in thealternatives that would have the potential toaffect this property would be of concern andwould be a relevant impact topic.

Visitor Experience

This impact topic relates to the quality of thevisitor experience, which is significant to parkmanagers and visitors. One of the purposes ofMount Rainier is to provide for public enjoy-ment. During the scoping period the publicexpressed concern about crowding and con-gestion, access to different parts of the park,and the adequacy of interpretive services. Thealternative actions and proposed managementzones could affect many visitors’ experiencesin the park, particularly in the most popularareas such as Paradise and Sunrise.

Access and Transportation Facilities andServices. Actions in the alternatives that wouldchange the amount of traffic, alter parking orshuttle services, affect access to different partsof the park, or change distribution patternsthroughout the park have the potential to im-prove or detract from the quality of the visitorexperience. These actions would be of interestto visitors, park managers, and the public.

Range and Enjoyment of Activities. Thistopic looks at how the range of activitiesavailable to visitors and the quality of thevisitor enjoyment would change as a result ofimplementing the alternatives. Changes inavailable visitor opportunities, as well asfactors that affect visitors’ enjoyment ofactivities, would determine what a visitorwould experience. The alternatives would alsochange the character of the visitor experienceby changing the number of vehicles that visi-tors would encounter on park roads and atactivity areas, especially on sunny summerweekends. Reductions in the presence of

vehicles would improve the visitor experienceby removing an element which conflicts withthe wilderness and scenic values of the park.

Convenience and Accessibility ofInformation. The management alternativeswould also affect what people do while theyare in the park. The availability and conveni-ence of information/interpretive facilit ies out-side the park and in the park are an importantconsideration in the quality of the overallvisitor experience. Providing visitors withmore information, improved park orientation,and greater interpretive opportunities to learnabout the park and its resources can consid-erably improve the visitor experience.

Wilderness Experience. One of the purposesof Mount Rainier National Park is to ensurethat wilderness values are maintained andprotected. With 97% of Mount Rainier desig-nated as wilderness, these values are key tomany visitors’ experiences and to the manage-ment of the park. Any decreases in opportuni-ties for solitude, the apparent naturalness of thepark, and other wilderness values would be ofconcern to park managers, visitors, and thepublic. During the scoping period the publicexpressed concerns regarding impacts onresources and visitor experiences as a result ofincreasing visitation in the wilderness area.The alternatives could result in changes inuses, use levels, patterns, and visitor distribu-tion in the nonwilderness, which in turn couldaffect wilderness values. The new managementzones also could affect wilderness values.


Mount Rainier National Park affects land usesadjacent to the park, the economy of localgateway communities, and recreational oppor-tunities on adjacent lands. Local residents andothers are concerned about changes in themanagement of Mount Rainier affecting theirlives and socioeconomic environment.

Impact Topics

127

Regional Context. The effect of changes inoverall economic activity related to the park,such as employment, tourism expenditures andlocal procurement for park construction andoperations would affect, to some degree, theeconomy of the region surrounding the park.At the same time, the overall change ineconomic activity and population growth in theregion would affect the potential number ofrecreational visitors to the park.

Regional Recreational O pportunities.Actions in the alternatives could affect visitoruse in other nearby recreational areas. Inparticular, implementing a carrying capacityframework could displace some visitors, whomight decide to visit other areas in the region.Depending on the number of people who weredisplaced from the park, the visitor experiencesoffered in these areas and management of theareas could be affected.

Gateway Communities. The gateway com-munities would be directly and indirectlyaffected by actions taken in the park. As notedabove, changes in visitation levels and patternshave the potential to affect the future of thesecommunities. Proposed developments in andoutside the park also could affect the localcommunities.

Concessions. Actions proposed in the alterna-tives could adversely or beneficially affect thepark’s concessioners. For example, establish-ing carrying capacity, requiring concessionguests to take shuttles into the park, andchanging parking spaces could all affect con-cessioners. This in turn could affect the experi-ence of clients and other visitors in the park.

IMPACT TO PICS CONSIDEREDBUT NO T ANALYZED IN DETAIL

Several potential impact topics were dismissedbecause they would not be affected, or thepotential for impacts under all of the alterna-tives would be negligible. These topics are

mentioned below, with an explanation of whythey were not considered in detail.

Conformity with Local Land Use Plans

The basic land use of the park as a public rec-reation and wilderness management area is inconformance with local land use plans, andbecause the proposed management zoneswould not change these basic uses, there wouldbe no conflict with local land use planning.The additional recreation opportunities in theplan, including added campground and picnicsites and encouraging expanded winter recre-ation (skiing, snowshoeing, and snowboarding)are also consistent with the basic land uses inthe park and local land use plans. Therefore,there is no need to analyze conformity withlocal land use plans in more detail.

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands

Even though soil surveys have not been con-ducted in Mount Rainier National Park, nounique agricultural soils are believed to exist inthe park (Natsuhara 2000). Based on a soilsurvey outside the park, three soil map unitsthat border the park are considered primefarmland if they are irrigated. Although thesesoils may be present in the park along severaldrainages at lower elevations, no irrigationsystems are in place, which is a condition forthese soils to be considered prime farmland.Because irrigation systems do not exist in thepark and there is litt le likelihood of such sys-tems being installed, impacts on prime farm-lands need not be considered in more detail.(Natsuhara 2000). In addition, it is expectedthat none of these soils would be impacted bythe construction of NPS facilit ies.

Natural or Depletable ResourceRequirements and Conservation Potential

None of the alternatives being consideredwould result in the extraction of resources


128

from the park. Under all of the alternativesecological principles would be applied toensure that the park’s natural resources weremaintained and not impaired.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions toAddress Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations,”requires all federal agencies to incorporateenvironmental justice into their missions byidentifying and addressing disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health or environ-mental effects of their programs and policieson minorities and low-income populations andcommunities.

For the purpose of fulfilling Executive Order12898, in the context of the National Environ-mental Policy Act, the alternatives addressedin this plan were assessed during the planningprocess. It was determined that none of thesealternatives would result in significant direct orindirect adverse effects on any minority orlow-income population or community. Thefollowing information contributed to thisconclusion:

• The developments and actions in the alter-natives would not result in any identifiablehuman health effects. Therefore, therewould be no direct or indirect effects onhuman health within any minority or low-income population or community.

• The impacts on the natural and physicalenvironment that would occur due to anyof the alternatives would not significantlyand adversely affect any minority or low-income population or community, or bespecific to such populations orcommunities.

• The alternatives would not result in anyidentified effects that would be specific toany minority or low-income community.

• The Mount Rainier planning team activelysolicited public participation as part of theplanning process and has given equal con-sideration to input from persons regardlessof age, race, income status, or othersocioeconomic or demographic factors.

• The park staff has consulted and workedwith the affected Native American tribes incooperative efforts to manage the recrea-tional potential of the park and its resour-ces effectively and will continue to do so.No adverse effects were identified thatdisproportionately affect the tribes.

• Impacts on the socioeconomic environ-ment due to the alternatives would beminor or positive and would occur mostlyin the geographic area near the park. Theseimpacts would not occur at one time butover a number of years, mitigating theireffects. Such impacts would not be expect-ed to substantially alter the physical andsocial structure of nearby communities.

Special Status Species ThatDo Not Occur in the Park

Listings of federally-listed species occurring inPierce and Lewis Counties provided by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife included several speciesthat were subsequently determined not to occurin Mount Rainier National Park. These speciesare Oregon vesper sparrow (Contopuscooperi), western gray squirrel (Sciurusgriseus), river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi),pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentata),Columbia torrent salamander, and Kincaid’slupine (Lupinus sulphereus kincaidii). Becausethese species are known not to occur in thepark, they were not considered in the analysisof impacts on special status species.

129

NATURAL RESOURCES

AIR Q UALITY

Mount Rainier National Park is in a mandatoryclass I air quality area, as defined in the CleanAir Act of 1977. A class I designation allowsvery lit t le additional deterioration of airquality. Some of the adjacent U.S. ForestService wilderness areas (e.g., Goat RocksWilderness and Alpine Lakes Wilderness) arealso designated as class I areas.

In the past several sources inside MountRainier National Park contributed to air pollu-tion in the park. Eliminating fireplaces in mostpark structures and eliminating wildernesscampfires have helped improve the park’s airquality from its historic levels. However,numerous sources in the region now affect thepark’s air quality to a much greater degree (seebelow).

The air quality in the park varies from excel-lent to poor, depending on the pollutants beingmeasured, the location in the park, the seasonand time of day, the direction the wind isblowing, and other factors. The pollutants ofmost concern to park air quality are fineparticulates, sulfates, and ozone.

The annual average visibility levels at MountRainier are about 55 kilometers, which is lessthan the typical 130 kilometers in the ColoradoPlateau and the central Rocky Mountains, butgreater than the 20 to 30 kilometers typical ofmany eastern sites. Visibility conditions atMount Rainier National Park are degraded byconcentrations of fine particulates. On theaverage, about 53% of the visibility reductionis caused by sulfate fine particulates, 19% byorganic fine particulates, and 15% by soot fineparticulates. Visibility at the park is among theworst of the class I areas in the western UnitedStates.

Monitoring of sulfates and nitrates, precursorsto acid precipitation, at La Grande (25 kilome-ters west of Mount Rainier), has shown sulfateion concentrations in precipitation greater thanthat observed at most other parks in the PacificNorthwest. The chemistry of cloud watersamples taken at Paradise has shown some ofthe lowest pH levels (down to pH 3.2) andhighest levels of acidity of any taken in thestate (U.S. EPA 1999). Data from TahomaWoods and Paradise also show higher levels ofsulfates and increasing levels of nitrates.

Elevated ozone levels (above 80 parts perbillion) have also been recorded in and nearthe park, including Longmire (during thesummers of 1987 and 1988), Carbon River(during 1989 to 1992), and Tahoma Woodsand Paradise. Monitoring conducted in 1995–1996 showed higher levels of ozone at higherelevations, suggesting that plant species athigher elevations may be at risk to ozone-induced damage. The annual maximum 1-hourozone levels at Mount Rainier (80–110 partsper billion) are about 20–30 parts per billionhigher than those typically measured at theother NPS monitoring sites in North Cascadesand Olympic National Parks.

Mount Rainier’s peak ozone levels arecomparable to those measured at other NPSunits in the Colorado Plateau but are signifi-cantly lower than ozone concentrationsmeasured in NPS units in southern California,the Northeast, and the east-central UnitedStates. The ozone levels measured at the parkalso are well below the new U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) 8-houraverage ozone standard, which is designed toprotect human health.

Within Mount Rainier, the primary humansources of air pollutants are motor vehicles,generators, heating systems, the few remainingwood stoves in park buildings, and campfire


130

smoke. Campfire smoke during summer candegrade local air quality, especially near parkcampgrounds at Ohanapecosh, Cougar Rock,White River, and Sunshine Point. Air qualitydegradation can also occur when there are longbackups of traffic at the park entrances andidling cars or tour buses in parking lots ofpopular areas.

Most of Mount Rainier’s air pollution is due toexternal stationary and mobile sources in thePuget Sound region. The park is surrounded byKing, Pierce, Lewis and Yakima Counties, allof which the Environmental Protection Agencyhas designated as nonattainment areas (moder-ate) for particulate matter. Particulate matterincludes dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquiddroplets directly emitted into the air by sourcessuch as factories, power plants, cars,construction activity, fires, and natural wind-blown dust. Particulates formed in the atmo-sphere by condensation or the transformationof emitted gases such as sulfur dioxide andvolatile organic carbons are also consideredparticulate matter.

Several studies undertaken by the NationalPark Service and others have shown that sulfurdioxide emissions from the Centralia PowerPlant, located in Centralia, Washington, con-tribute significantly to reductions in visibilityand acid deposition in Mount Rainier NationalPark. The park is approximately 80 kilometersnortheast and downwind of the Centraliaplant — the largest single point source forsulfur emissions in Washington State and thewestern United States.

Other sources of pollutants that affect the parkare urban transportation in the Seattle-Tacomaarea, industrial facilit ies north of the park, andarea lumber, pulp, and paper mills. Slashburning associated with logging on private,state, and national forest lands also contributesto additional emissions of fine particulates inthe area. Wildfires in the park or region canadd large quantities of particulates, carbonmonoxide, volatile organic compounds, and

other pollutants in the area. Emissions ororganic compounds from trees also contributea minor amount to visibility degradation.

WATER RESO URCES ANDWATER Q UALITY

Water is integral to all park ecosystems. Parkwater resources are diverse − alpine lakes,waterfalls, glacially fed rivers, and mineralsprings. The streams and rivers of MountRainier National Park, which have been alteredvery litt le by humans, represent outstandingexamples of the original pristine aquatic ecosys-tems of North America. Their unique character-istics make them valuable recreationalresources; in addition, these rivers and streamsmay serve as benchmarks for identifyingchanges in area environmental conditions andnatural resources. The history of natural dis-turbance and the complex mosaics of riverinelandforms have strongly shaped the develop-ment and composition of stream ecosystemsemerging from the slopes of Mount Rainier.

Both glacial and nonglacial drainages originateon the slopes of Mount Rainier. The mountainhas 26 major glaciers, covering 35 squaremiles — the largest single mountain glacialsystem in the 48 contiguous states. For thepurposes of managing water resources of thepark, nine major watersheds have beendelineated. With the exception of HuckleberryCreek and a portion of the Ohanapecosh River,the rivers and streams within the park boun-dary originate from glacial meltwater. Drain-age area ranges from 13,300 acres in thePuyallup watershed to 41,400 acres in theOhanapecosh drainage.

With some exceptions (including the northernwatershed of the Carbon River, southernwatershed of the Nisqually River, Berry Creek,and some tributaries to Chenuis Creek) allrivers and streams within the park boundaryoriginate inside the boundary. Approximately470 rivers and streams within Mount Rainier

Natural Resources

131

National Park are shown on U.S. GeologicalSurvey 7.5 minute quadrangles (scale1:24,000); 383 are perennial and 84 areintermittent. Mineral geothermal springs arefound on the summit of Mount Rainier, atLongmire, and at Ohanapecosh. Cold springsalso occur throughout the park.

A total of 405 lakes are shown within the parkon U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quad-rangles. Of these, 310 are permanent lakes, andthe rest are intermittent. At approximately 123acres and 57 feet deep, the exceptionally clearMowich Lake is the largest and deepest lake inthe park.

The absence of baseline information on thephysical, chemical, and biological characteris-tics of park surface and groundwater makes itdifficult to detect water quality changes;however, because most of the park’s streamsoriginate in the park, sources of contaminationare limited, and the quality of most surfacewaters is thought to be generally good.

The following threats to the park’s waterresources have been identified:

• vehicle use and stormwater runoff fromroads and parking lots

• visitor use impacts (e.g., potential changesto water quality of lakes and rivers fromhuman waste and sedimentation ofshorelines)

• atmospheric input from human sources(anthropogenic) sources (e.g., acidprecipitation)

• the failure of park infrastructure (sewerlinebreaks, storage tank leaks) routine parkoperations (such as sewage “bypass”occasions, hazardous material spills duringroutine servicing of fuel tanks)

Stormwater and snowmelt runoff from roadsand parking lots may be affecting the quality

of adjacent waters. Several park roads areadjacent to streams, rivers, and lakes and arewithin their watersheds. Such roads include theStevens Canyon road adjacent to ReflectionLake and Lake Louise, State Route 410 adja-cent to T ipsoo Lake, and the Mowich Lakeroad, which descends adjacent to MowichLake. The large parking areas at Sunrise,Paradise, and Longmire are used extensivelyduring summer, and those at Longmire andParadise are used year-round. During rainfallevents a sheen of oil can be seen on waterflowing into storm drains in these lots.

The destination of outflow from all stormdrains has not been determined; however, mostpark storm drains do not receive treatment viaexisting sewer systems. Although runoff maybe a temporary event and dilution may lessenthe effects, heavy rainfall could result in peri-odic shocks or “pulses” of contaminants intopark surface waters. The stormwater runoffmay contain heavy metals, petroleum deriva-tives (including hydrocarbons), ammonia,suspended solids, rubber, zinc, lead, copper,nickel, chromium, additional nutrients andcoliform bacteria. These may be affecting thepark’s water quality to an unknown degree.

In general, the higher the percentage ofimpervious area, the higher the volume ofrunoff is into adjacent areas. This runoff maybe transported to nearby streams and lakes ormay infiltrate to shallow groundwater.Increased runoff may also cause stream bankor shoreline loss and may result in damage ordestruction of wildlife habitat.

A comparison of data for Mowich Lake from a1967 limnological study with 1988–94 dataindicates that the maximum clarity of the lakeappears to have been reduced by about 15%–25%. Primary production appears to haveincreased slightly, and chlorophyll concen-trations at the bottom of the clear lake appear tohave increased as well. Deposits of dust andrunoff from the adjacent unpaved access road


132

are thought likely to be affecting the lake water(NPS 1995a; NPS 1998b).

Nutrient loading indicates that at current uselevels, human wastes are contributing mini-mally to the enrichment of lakes in the parkand that some lakes are particularly sensitive.Preliminary sampling at two sites below CampMuir in 1994 showed elevated levels of nitrate-nitrite, ammonia nitrogen, and Kjeldahl nitro-gen (NPS 1995a). Giardia lamblia cysts andother evidence of water contamination havebeen documented throughout the wilderness(NPS 1986). The park has been conducting ahigh altitude waste removal/blue bag programsince 1984 to help reduce this contamination.

Acid deposition may be affecting the park’swaters to an unknown degree. Many lakes inthe park and other high mountain lakes in thesurrounding Cascade Mountains have lowacidic buffering capacity. Streams are similarlysusceptible when flowing over granitic sub-strate through small drainage basins. Geology,soil, and vegetation types in many parts of thepark present the “ ingredients” for susceptibilityto acidic precipitation. Of the park lakes thathave been inventoried, 29% have beenidentified as being extremely sensitive to aciddeposition (NPS 1999c).

FLOO DPLAINS

The rivers and streams radiating from MountRainier are a significant feature linking thepark’s glaciers with the Puget Sound regionand other marine ecosystems. In addition toserving as a source of fresh water for urbanareas far downstream, the rivers are importantwildlife habitat and influence area vegetationpatterns by flooding and channel shifts.Floodplains provide important winteringhabitat for many wildlife species. As transitionzones between upland and riparian communi-ties, floodplains contain a diverse range ofhabitat types. The value of floodplains is

recognized by NPS Management Policies andother legislation.

Floodplain Processes

Floodplain processes at Mount Rainier aredynamic and complex. The rivers drainingMount Rainier are steep-gradient rivers thatradiate outward from the Mount Rainiervolcano and that carry vast amounts of water,sand, gravel, and boulders. Because of thesediment and debris they carry downstream,the banks and floodplains of these rivers areextremely unstable, as evidenced by theirbraided channel pattern and eroding banks.Deposition of glacial sediments by floods anddebris flows is the primary cause of streamchannel instability in valleys throughout thepark. Because of this instability, the 100-yearand 500-year floodplains associated withMount Rainier rivers are not static, butcontinue to evolve and change.

Channel deposition in three rivers was investi-gated to determine how unstable riverbeds areand to determine how long typical floodplainassessments are accurate in areas throughoutthe park. The three rivers evaluated wereWhite River, Tahoma Creek, and NisquallyRiver. On the White River in the early 1960s,net stream deposition in a reach 1.5 milesbelow Emmons Glacier was found to be 1.08feet in 3 years (Fahnestock 1963). The bed ofTahoma Creek between river miles 3 and 6deposited 6.6 feet in 6 years, followingincreased glacial outburst activity from SouthTahoma Glacier (Walder and Driedger 1993).Data on the Nisqually River at Longmireindicated deposition was approximately 3 to 4feet in 12 years at three closely located crosssections of the river (Nelson 1986; NPS1994a). Measured and estimated rates ofdeposition from these three sites ranged fromnear 0.5 to more than 1 foot per year.

Floods can occur in the park any time through-out the year and can be triggered by a number

Natural Resources

133

of events, including glacial outbursts, precipi-tation, enhanced melting of snow and ice, andvolcanic activity. Precipitation-induced flood-ing and debris flows are extremes on acontinuum of hydrologic/ geologic events.

Precipitation-induced flooding typically occurstwice a year on rivers at Mount Rainier. Thelargest and most frequent floods occur duringlate fall and early winter, when heavy rainfallmelts snow at high elevations. These floodshave high peak flows and continue to damageboth the Carbon River Road and WestsideRoad. Spring floods occur in April and Maywith rapid melting of snow. These floodstypically have smaller peak flows, but are oflonger duration that the fall and winter floods.

Floods from melted glacial ice (meltwater)occur primarily during the summer and fall.This type of flooding on streams draining thelarge glaciers is highest during late July andAugust. Glacial meltwater streams alsoexperience daily cycles of discharge that are anafternoon hazard for hikers.

Floods from glacial outbursts are a special typeof flood caused by a massive, sudden releaseof water from a glacier and are known to occuron either sunny or rainy days in summer or fall(Walder and Driedger 1993). Tahoma Creek isexperiencing outburst floods from SouthTahoma Glacier. Nisqually Glacier frequentlyproduced outburst floods in the 1950s and1960s, but has not produced one since 1990.

Extreme floods are known to trigger debrisflows (or lahars) that are composed of water,ice, sediment, and other debris in the rivers andstreams that flank the volcano. Debris flowscan begin as outburst floods from glaciers,then transform into sediment-dominated flowsas they move down the steep, debris-chokedvalleys. In general, debris flows occur lessfrequently, but are far more destructive thanwater-dominated floods. Debris flows arediscussed further under “Geologic Hazards.”

Floodplain Management

Floodplain studies for many of the developedsites at Mount Rainier National Park wereconducted to categorize developmentaccording to the Floodplain ManagementGuideline (NPS 1993b). The objectives of theFloodplain Management Guideline and itssubsequent revisions are to avoid adverseimpacts from occupancy and modification offloodplains, and to avoid development infloodplains wherever there is a workablealternative. This is to ensure the safety ofvisitors and employees and to protectimportant park resources from the direct andindirect effects of flooding.

The results of the floodplain studies (shown intable 9) indicated that 10 development sites areexempt from the guideline. Actions that areexempt from this guideline (“exceptedactions”) are the park functions that may belocated near streams and rivers for the enjoy-ment of visitors but that do not involve over-night occupation. Entrance stations, accessroutes, and internal roads and picnic facilit ies,campgrounds, and day-use facilit ies aregenerally considered excepted actions.

To determine whether facilit ies or develop-ments might be in the floodplain, preliminaryfloodplain assessments were conducted at theremaining 13 developed sites with overnighthousing and sensitive facilit ies. The results ofthese studies indicated that 9 of these 13 siteswere outside their regulatory floodplains (a100- or 500-year floodplain, depending on thefunctions of facilit ies at the site) Two sites, theCarbon River entrance and the Ipsut Creekcampground, appeared to be within the regula-tory floodplain. The Longmire complex andSunshine Point campground also appeared tobe within a floodplain, but further studies indi-cated that they are outside the regulatoryfloodplain, although prone to outburst flood-ing. Floodplain issues surrounding Longmire,the Sunshine Point campground, the Carbon

134

TABLE 9: PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT SITESACCORDING TO THE FLOOD PLAIN MANA GEMENT GUIDELINE (NPS 1993B)

Excepted Actions Outside Regulatory Floodplain Inside Regulatory Floodplain

Box Canyon overlook Cougar Rock camp tender house Carbon River entrance facilities

Box Canyon picnic area Longmire complex Ipsut Creek campground

Camp Muir Mowich Lake campground Longmire complex levee a/

Camp Schurman Nisqually entrance housing Sunshine Point campground levee a/

Chinook Pass picnic area Ohanapecosh housing

Falls Creek picnic area Paradise

Grove of the Patriarchs Sunrise

Kautz Creek Sunshine Point campground

Narada Falls overlook Tahoma Woods housing

Stevens Canyon entrance White River entrance and housing

White River tender house

River entrance, and the Ipsut Creek camp-ground are discussed below.

Longmire. The Longmire compound,including housing and administrative facilit iesand fuel storage sites, is built on a debris flowterrace approximately 10 feet above theNisqually River floodplain. Past studies placedthis facility outside the 500-year floodplain ofthe Nisqually River (Nelson 1986). However, a1959 flood that inundated the compoundbrought this study into question.

The National Park Service performedhydraulic modeling in 1994 to estimate the100-year and 500-year floodplain boundariesfor a precipitation-induced flood event and theboundaries for a 500-year outburst flood alongthe Nisqually River near Longmire (NPS1997b). The discharge associated with a 500-year outburst flood was evaluated because thedischarge would be substantially larger thanthe discharge associated with a rain-relatedflood (32,000 cubic feet per second versus5,200 cubic feet per second).

The output from the model indicated that 100-year and 500-year precipitation floods wouldbe contained within the channel of the Nis-qually River and would not flood the Longmire

compound. However, the velocities would befast enough to cause severe erosion alongunvegetated channel banks, such as the leveeconstructed to protect the compound.

Model output further indicated that flood flowsfrom a 500-year outburst flood would exceedthe channel capacity and flood the Longmirecompound. Based on these results, the flood in1959 was most likely a small debris flow thatmay have started as an outburst flood from theNisqually Glacier rather than a precipitation-induced event. Sediment deposition in theNisqually River where the river exits a canyonnear Longmire most likely caused floodwaterto be diverted into the compound.

Sunshine Point Campground. Like Long-mire, the Sunshine Point campground is out-side the regulatory floodplain for precipitation-related events, and like Longmire, was affectedby prior flooding along the Nisqually River asa result of outburst flood activity from theNisqually Glacier. Because outburst floodingfrom the glacier has decreased over the pastfew decades, the probability that this sitewould flood from such an event is small.However, like Longmire, continued sedimentdeposition in the Nisqually River channelcould cause higher flood elevations and require

Natural Resources

135

continued maintenance within the regulatoryfloodplain to avoid erosion of the leveesprotecting the campground.

Ipsut Creek Campground. A preliminaryfloodplain assessment in 1994 determined thatthe campground is in a high flood hazard areaadjacent to the floodplain of the Carbon River(NPS 1997b). The many channels that form thelarge braided channel network in this area shiftconstantly. Numerous modern and old floodchannels crisscross the floodplain. Flood flowthrough the channels is shallow, but rapid.Depths of flow for the 50-year and 100-yearfloods in the main channel of the Carbon Riverare only 3.5 feet, but velocities are estimated at8 feet per second.

A detailed floodplain study conducted after the1994 assessment indicated that parts of thecampground, former walk-in sites, and theentrance road occupy very low parts of thefloodplain. Most of the campground rests on alow terrace, 5 to 6 feet above the modern orcurrent channel. The walk-in sites were iso-lated by swift water in a side channel duringeven small flood events. As a result, these siteswere permanently closed in 1997. High floodhazard occurs in this area with discharges of1,000 cubic feet per second or greater.

Hydraulic model output indicated that most ofthe campground is outside the existing 100-year floodplain. However, the unstable natureof braided channels and the location of parts ofthe campground at lower elevations than theactive river channel suggest that the 100-yearfloodplain boundaries from the model may notbe accurate for very long. Therefore, the 100-year floodplain boundaries have been locatedto include the low-elevation channels on thesouthwest end of the valley and to include thecampground.

Over the next few decades it is anticipated thatcontinued deposition in the modern channeland upstream channel alignment would causethe Carbon River to shift to the south, isolating

and claiming all or parts of the campground,and causing considerable damage to roads,trails, and other facilit ies.

Carbon River Entrance. An entrance station,a ranger station, and a housing and administra-tive area are located in the vicinity of theCarbon River entrance. The entrance station iscategorized as an excepted action under theFloodplain Management Guideline because itsfunction depends on a road that is intermit-tently in the floodplain. The ranger station andthe housing and administrative area are notexcepted actions.

Initial floodplain studies performed in 1994suggested that the entrance and housing facili-ties were within the 100-year floodplain (asnoted in table 9). Detailed floodplain assess-ments performed in 1996 using hydraulicmodels indicated that all the facilit ies areoutside the 100-year regulatory floodplain.Historic flooding observed at the entrancestation probably was caused by a shift in thechannel of June Creek (a tributary to theCarbon River) to the west of the entrance area.(This apparently occurred since the publicationof the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute mapin 1971.) Flooding that does occur at theentrance involves less than 2 feet of standingwater and very low velocities.

However, there is other evidence that thefacilit ies are within the floodplain. The pres-ence of floodplain soils, a levee, and anapparent absence of volcanic tephra (clasticmaterial ejected from a volcano) suggest thatlarger floods might have occasionally inun-dated this site in the recent past. Thus,although the hydraulic model suggests other-wise, because of the erosion of soils and thepotential for floods to inundate the site, theentrance facilit ies are within the regulatoryfloodplain (J. Riedel, NPS geologist, pers.com., July 10, 2001).

Channel changes in the next few decades alsocould threaten these facilit ies through bank


136

erosion. Such channel changes, a common fea-ture of park rivers, have resulted in the migra-tion of the Carbon River from its north bank toits south bank over the past few years. For thisreason the road, which is below the river insome places, has been flooded more often withsmaller flood discharges.

WETLANDS

Wetlands are areas that are inundated orsaturated by surface or ground water oftenenough and long enough to support a preva-lence of vegetation typically adapted for life insaturated soil conditions. Most park wetlandswere identified based on the National Wet-lands Inventory maps (USFWS 1984) and aparkwide wetlands survey (NPS 2000c). Thetechniques in the Wetlands DelineationManual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987)also were used to ensure compliance withsection 404 of the Clean Water Act, which isadministered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The wetland assessments indicated that thereare at least 2,500 wetlands in the park. Thesemaps document more than 2,000 acres ofpalustrine (typically called marshes, swamps,and bogs) and deepwater wetlands, and riverinewetlands along approximately 225 miles ofrivers and streams.

Wetlands in the park exhibit a wide diversity ofshapes, sizes, and depths and can be perma-nently to temporarily flooded. The bottom typeof wetlands in the park is usually open water,unconsolidated shore, streambed, aquatic bed,forested, emergent, or shrub/scrub vegetation.

The park’s wetlands are found in the forest,subalpine, and alpine environments.

• Concentrations of wetlands can be foundin subalpine parklands such as Spray Park,Elysian Fields, Mazama Ridge, and MirrorLakes.

• Forested regions with large numbers ofwetlands include Golden Lakes, ReflectionLakes, and Marsh Lakes.

• Nonwilderness areas with large numbersof wetlands are Westside Road, Paradise,Sunrise, Carbon River Road, and MowichLake Road.

SO ILS AND VEGETATIO N

Soils

Few studies have assessed park soils. The bestsoils information available for Mount RainierNational Park is a general description of aclassification system for forest soils that wascompleted as a master’s thesis (Hobson 1976)and some soil texture data from restorationsites. No systematic soil mapping has beenconducted in the park.

The higher elevations of Mount Rainier aregenerally composed of solid rock and talusslopes with virtually no topsoil. The lowerelevations are composed of glacial t ill. Thevalley bottoms contain layers of mixed rockswith some benches of silt in flatter areas, all ofwhich were deposited by streams and glaciers.The subalpine meadows have very shallow,loose, friable soils and are easily eroded byfoot and horse traffic.

Hobson (1976) developed a classificationsystem for forest soils based on the geologicalorigin, relief, and drainage features of the park.According to this classification system, thefour most common soil groups in the park’sforested areas are as follows:

• Tephra soils are pyroclastic depositsidentified by individual ash layers. Thesesoils are the result of volcanic eruptions ofMount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and to alesser extent, Mount Mazama. Althoughpumice deposits in the park are thin, thesoil they form supports the subalpine and

Natural Resources

137

alpine meadows that many visitors come toenjoy.

• Colluvial soils are unstable soils that arerapidly drained and consist of coarse,unconsolidated, mixed parent materials.These soils are generally found on slopesat all elevations, but especially steepslopes and south-facing aspects.

• Alluvial soils are soils that formed fromriver deposition, glacial outburst floods,and ephemeral streams carrying snowmeltdischarge from upper shores. These soilsare often found in major river valleys,along streams, on wet benches where fine-textured water-deposited materials areoften mixed or interbedded with tephras,and on alluvial slopes and fans.

• Mudflow soils are surface or subsurfaceparent materials within the rooting zonethat are the result of lahars (volcanicmudflows). These soils may also containtephra W (a volcanic ash layer from aMount St. Helens eruption) or alluvial orcolluvial surface deposits.

Cryptobiotic soil crusts are the foundation ofhigh-elevation ecosystems. It has been shownthat these crusts act to bind soil particlestogether, thus increasing soil stability. In thealpine ecosystems of Mount Rainier, crypto-biotic cover appears to be associated with theestablishment of heather communities andsome fellfield vegetation. Although prelimi-nary research has documented the correlationwith soil crusts, no research has been conduct-ed to identify species compositions, tocorrelate cover with environmental conditions,or to quantify their occurrence at a landscapelevel.

In desert and tundra ecosystems, crusts havebeen shown to increase rainfall infiltration,reduce sediment production and runoff, andfacilitate the establishment of vascular plantsby enhancing nutrient and water availability

for these plants. Arid lands research indicatesthat visitor trampling of cryptobiotic soils cansignificantly decrease nutrient cycling and altersuccessional patterns.

Native Vegetation

Climatic, topographic, and soil conditionscombine to give Mount Rainier some of themost diverse vegetation in the CascadeMountains. Different vegetative communitiesare present at different elevations in the park,ranging from temperate rainforest to alpinetundra.

Forests cover approximately 58% of the park.Low-elevation forests are distributed from thepark’s boundary at 1,700 feet to about 2,700feet elevation and are dominated by westernhemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Mid-elevation forestsextend from 2,500 feet to 5,000 feet elevationand contain Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis),Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootka-tensis), western white pine (Pinus monticola),and noble fir (Abies procera).

Above 4,500 feet, trees become less dense asthe forest grades into subalpine parkland.Higher elevation forests are dominated bymountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana),subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Alaska yellowcedar and Pacific silver fir. Forest ages rangefrom young stands (less than 100 years old)invading on moraines left by receding glaciersand on burned areas to old-growth stands(1,000 or more years old). Stands older than1,000 years exist along State Route 123, theStevens Canyon road, in Cougar Rock camp-ground, and in the area between Ipsut Creekand Mowich Lake (BRW Inc. 1994).

Subalpine parkland covers approximately 23%of the park; vegetation in this zone is a mosaicof tree clumps and herbaceous meadowsextending from 5,000 feet to about 7,000 feet


138

elevation. The depth and duration of the snow-pack limits tree cover in subalpine meadows.Meadow vegetation can be categorized in fivebroad vegetation types (Henderson 1974): (1)heath shrub, dominated by ericaceous speciessuch as heather and huckleberry; (2) lushherbaceous vegetation dominated by tallperennials, including Sitka valerian, subalpinelupine, and green hellebore; (3) low herba-ceous vegetation dominated by fanleafcinquefoil and pussytoes, often with lesseramounts of black sedge; (4) wet sedge in low,wet areas dominated by sedges and sometimeswith alpine aster and pussytoes; (5) and drygrass, found on well-drained sites common onthe east side of the park and dominated bygreen fescue and subalpine lupine.

Dominant tree species in the subalpine zoneare subalpine fir, mountain hemlock, andAlaska yellow cedar. Whitebark pine andEnglemann spruce are present on drier sites onthe east side of the park. Elsewhere, whitebarkpine has been identified as a keystone species,because it has profound effects on the ecosys-tem that are disproportionately great inrelationship to its abundance.

The alpine zone extends from treeline to themountain’s summit. Approximately 50% ofthis zone is covered by permanent snow andice and the remainder by alpine vegetation,which can be described by four broad vegeta-tion types (Edwards 1980): fellfields, talusslopes, snowbeds, and heather communities.Talus slopes and snow beds have small, well-spaced groups of plants that are often over-looked by park visitors and casual observers.Talus slopes and ridgetops are among the firstareas free of snow and thus have the longestgrowing season. Snow beds have the shortestgrowing season and may not be snow-freeevery year. Fellfields and heather communitieshave an intermediate growing season. Fell-fields are areas with gentle slopes covered bysmall rocks and small, dispersed groups ofplants such as sedges, penstemons, and asters.

The heather types are the oldest knowncommunities in the park. Some heathercommunities have persisted in the park for upto 10,000 years (Edwards 1980).

Mount Rainier National Park’s plant species listincludes approximately 890 species of vascularplants, including nearly 40% of the region’snative tree species. Over 250 species of fungiand lichens have been documented in the park.

Exotic Plant Species

About 149 exotic (nonnative) plant species arefound in the park. Most nonnative speciesgrow in disturbed habitat below 5,500 feet.Their presence is the result of human inter-vention, not natural migration. About 10% ofthe species are aggressive, capable of invadingundisturbed natural areas and dominatingnative plant communities. These speciesinclude: common burdock (Arctium minus),spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii ),diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), oxeyedaisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum),Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle(Cirsium vulgare), tansy ragwort (Seneciojacobea), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare),Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum),Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), flat pea(Lathyrus sylvestris), Japanese knotweed(Polygonum cuspidatum), giant hogweed orgiant cowparsnip (Heracleum mategazzianum),foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), orange hawk-weed (Hieracium aurantiacum), and mullein(Verbascum thapsus).

Surveys of exotic species distribution wereconducted in Mount Rainier National Park in1965 and 1989 and repeated in 1998. Theresults of the early study indicated that mostexotic species were found along roads, trails,and in developed zones. Hikers, cars, and horseuse were identified as the primary means ofseed dispersal. The presence of exotic speciesaway from roads may indicate that wind or off-trail hikers are also effective vectors of exotic

Natural Resources

139

plant seeds. The 1989 and 1998 surveys inven-toried plots established along road edges by theearlier study. This survey documented the per-sistence of species over the 33-year interim, theintroduction of new species, and the presence ofweeds in some sites located away from roads.

Human Impacts

The most commonly observed human impactsin the park are the loss of vegetation and soil.The most severe damage is in subalpine andalpine meadows, which are popular destina-tions for day hikers and cross-country campers.Damage ranges from trampled vegetation incampsites or informal (social) trails to severelyeroded social or designated trails, some over 3feet deep.

Initially, human trampling bends or breaksaboveground plant parts. Once the sitebecomes easily recognizable as a social trail orcampsite, human use often escalates. Due tothe short growing season, many plant speciesare unable to initiate new growth followingrepeated trampling, and vegetation loss quicklyoccurs. Continued use results in soil compac-tion or soil loss following the vegetation loss.Social trails on sloping hillsides may also actas channels for surface water runoff duringrainy periods or during snowmelt, resulting insoil erosion.

Surveys of human impacts have been con-ducted since the 1960s. A parkwide humanimpact monitoring system was initiated in the1970s. In 1985 a parkwide program to docu-ment quantitative measurements of social trailsand campsites was also initiated.

Impacts in the Paradise Meadows were inven-toried in 1986 and 1987 with the use of thesocial trail inventory methodology. Quanti-tative measurements used were the mapping ofeach impact on topographic maps and aerialphotographs; the length, width, depth, aspect,and slope of each impact; and vegetation type.

Approximately 89% of the impacts were in theform of social trails; the remaining impactswere large bare areas used as rest stops andviewpoints. An examination of aerial photosrevealed that many impacts were over 20 yearsold, and some were actually early trails thathad been closed or relocated.

Qualitative observations addressed humanimpacts on wildlife, the presence of rarespecies, photographs, and observed use levels.Surveys completed on heavily used sites docu-mented impacts ranging from compacted soilswith minimal soil loss to social trails over4,000 feet long and more than 3 feet deep.More than 29% of the area surveyed (main-tained and social trails) contained significantor severe human impacts (compared to areaswith minimal or no impacts). By 1999, only2% of this area had been restored. The Para-dise Meadow Plan (NPS 1989b) identifies 913human-caused bare ground impacts, with 28.5miles of social trail compared to 13.5 miles ofmaintained trails. The total surface area of allimpacts was 11.8 acres, or 1.3% of the studyarea.

Large-scale restoration of human impacts inthe Paradise Meadow was initiated in 1987. Todate restoration work has been initiated on 142impacted sites in the meadow. Of this total, 69sites (48%) have been planted, stabilized, andfilled. Active restoration (planting and seed-ing) has been discontinued on about half of theplanted sites (32 sites) in the hope that theplants present on the site will continue toincrease in cover. The sites that have not beenrestored are still in a bare ground condition.

Studies of human impacts have been done inthe Muir corridor, above Paradise, since thelate 1960s. The Muir corridor is within thecurrently designated Muir snowfield wilder-ness management zone. A total of 86unauthorized campsites were documented in1987 and 1988. In 1995, 21 new unauthorizedcampsites were inventoried, and actions weretaken to begin the restoration process. Forty-


140

three more campsites were identified andobliterated in 1997. In most instances, thecampsites had been developed on new sitesand were not reestablished at former campingsites. Most campsites were found in rockyareas such as fellfields and talus slopes.

A total of 74 social trails were documented inthe Muir corridor in 1987 and 1988. Socialtrails ranged in length from 14 feet to 1,900feet, with an average length of 194.5 feet. Thesurface area of social trails ranged from 88 to757 square feet, with a total surface area of4,187 square feet. Most social trails meanderedthrough all vegetation types present. In 1997the social trails were still visible, despitevegetation restoration in campsite areas. Suchimpacts, although they include vegetationchanges, are not limited to impacts onvegetation.

Other areas where the effects of intensivehuman use have led to severely eroded areasand bare ground are Spray Park, Mowich Lake,Reflection Lake, and T ipsoo Lake. Data docu-menting human impacts at Sunrise and SprayPark are also available. Similar data, althoughqualitative, rather than quantitative, areavailable for Mowich and T ipsoo Lakes.

WILDLIFE

Mammals

Fifty-six species of mammals are known tooccur in Mount Rainier National Park, withfive others that are likely but have yet to bedocumented. Many small mammals inhabit thepark: deer mouse, Gapper red-backed vole,yellow-pine chipmunk, Townsend’s chipmunk,dusky shrew, vagrant shrew, hoary marmot,pika, and snowshoe hare. Small mammals areclosely intertwined with biological productionin the plant communities. Changes in plantproduction may alter small mammal popula-tions. In turn, small mammals may impactplant communities. Very litt le is known of thecomplex food web between small mammalian

herbivores, their plant foods, and other mam-mal and bird species that depend on them forfood. A change in small mammal populationsoften leads to a fluctuation in the abundance ofanother species.

The distribution and status of small carnivorespecies found in Mount Rainier is unknown.Known species include coyote, red fox,raccoon, pine marten, short-tailed weasel(ermine), long-tailed weasel, mink, spotted andstriped skunk, river otter, and bobcat.

Because Mount Rainier National Park is thelargest area of late-successional forest in theCascade Range of southern Washington, it islikely an important habitat for bats. A batinventory began in summer 2000. Recentinvestigations documented a nursing colony ofthe long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) at Long-mire. Six other bat species have been recordedin the park, including the state- and federal-sensitive Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotustownsendi), for which there is a single record.All of the park’s bat species forest-dwellinginsectivores. The park’s bats play importantroles in controlling insect numbers and indispersing nutrients within the ecosystem.Large snags and large live trees can serve asimportant maternity roosts, day roosts, andhibernation shelters.

Large mammals found in the park are blackbear, cougar (mountain lion), deer, elk, andmountain goat. Black bears commonly inhabitshrub/forest and subalpine areas and denalmost exclusively in forested areas. An esti-mated 180 black bears inhabit the park for atleast some part of the year. An unknownproportion of these 180 bears reside whollywithin the park; the rest cross back and forthacross park boundaries from national forestand private lands. Because no studies havebeen conducted to give a more accurateestimate, the population estimate is based onnumbers of observations and the amount ofsuitable habitat.


142

(blank back)

Natural Resources

143

Black bears often can be found in nonwilder-ness areas as well as in the wilderness. There-fore, there is a high potential for bear/humaninteraction. Although no hunting is allowed inthe park, bear hunting is allowed on all sur-rounding lands. Poaching of black bears hasbeen known to occur and may reflect thedemand for high priced illicit bear parts on theblack market.

Little is known about the status of the cougarpopulation in Mount Rainier National Park, butcougars, while hunting for food, could come incontact with park visitors and employees. In1999 there were more than 30 observations ofmountain lions in the park. One of theseencounters was a near-attack by a mountainlion on a small child hiking with his parents ona popular wilderness area trail. No one wasinjured in the incident, but it illustrates that thepotential for dangerous encounters withhumans exists.

Little information exists on the park’s twosubspecies of deer populations. The black-tailed deer, the most common subspecies, isfound throughout the park up to timberline.The mule deer, the larger subspecies, isuncommon, being found only occasionally atthe higher elevations near the park’s easternboundary. The two subspecies readily hy-bridize, and intergrades may be common onthe east side of the park. In summer individualsof both subspecies move to the higher mead-ows, where they live until snow arrives. Inwinter they congregate in the lower areas ofthe park and may leave the park duringparticularly severe winters.

The elk that inhabit the park are descendants ofRocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni)that were introduced in the vicinity of the parkbetween 1912 and 1933. Today elk inhabit thepark in fluctuating numbers. In 1999 an esti-mated 1,100 animals were in the park, downfrom 1,500 in the late 1970s (NPS 1999b). Elkin the western half of the park use low-lying

river bottoms. Elk in the eastern part of thepark are separated into north and south herds,divided at Cayuse Pass. The two herds arefairly distinct entities, although some mixing isknown to occur between the groups. Elk fromthe northern herd occasionally wander throughthe Sunrise area and are seen during the earlymornings, but they do not stay long because ofheavy visitor use in the area (NPS 1996b).

Clearcutting on adjacent national forest andprivate lands between 1950 and 1969 affectedwinter range conditions for elk by providingsignificantly more acreage of higher qualityforage than did the mature forests. The higherquality winter habitat probably resulted ingreater overwinter survival of elk because theywere able to maintain better physical conditionover the winter. As the forests have undergonesuccession and replanting, the quality of forageplants, with respect to elk, has decreased, andoverwinter habitat quality has gone down in thesucceeding 40 years. Today timber companiesuse the revenue collected from the fees theycharge for hunting on their lands to manipulatehabitat to enhance elk winter forage. Many ofthe elk that overwinter in lowlands surroundingthe park use subalpine meadows in the park assummer range.

An estimated 400 mountain goats live in thepark. Although information on the status ofmountain goat populations is lacking, it isknown that goat populations outside the parkhave been decreasing for several years.Mountain goats in Mount Rainier move fromhigh elevation summer range to lower elevationforested winter range. Some goats probablymove seasonally onto national forest lands andare hunted when outside the park. Some animalsare probably poached each year from inside oroutside the park, and predation, falls, andavalanches kill some. Logging, the creation ofaccess roads, and hunting on adjacent lands mayalso be affecting the park populations to anunknown degree.


144

Birds

More than 229 species of birds have beenobserved in Mount Rainier National Park, with90 of these species known to nest in the park.The distribution of birds correlates roughlywith life zones in the park. The lowest areas ofthe park with mature forests (below 3,500 feet)provide suitable habitat for many bird species,including northern spotted owl, northerngoshawk, marbled murrelet, barred owl,Cooper’s hawk, varied thrush, brown creeper,red-breasted sapsucker, common flicker,pileated woodpecker, gray jay, Steller’s jay,red-breasted nuthatch, Townsend’s warbler,Pacific-slope flycatcher, chestnut-backedchickadee, and winter wren.

The mixed forests of western white pine,mountain hemlock, and Pacific silver fir of thenext zone (3,500 to 5,000 feet) provide habitatfor blue grouse, sharp-shinned hawk, golden-crowned kinglet, northern three-toed wood-pecker, hermit thrush, and yellow warbler.

Between 5,000 and 6,500 feet, in areascharacterized by mixed forest and subalpinemeadows, there is habitat for Clark’s nut-cracker, common raven, red-tailed hawk,American kestrel, rufous hummingbird,mountain bluebird, and Lincoln's sparrow.Many of these birds can be found in otherzones, depending on the season.

Snowfields, glaciers, and bare rock outcropscharacterize areas above 6,500 feet (over 80square miles of the park). The white-tailedptarmigan can be found in this zone along withthe gray-crowned rosy finch and the Americanpipit .

Many species of raptors seasonally inhabit oruse the park — osprey, bald eagle, northernharrier, sharp-shinned hawk, Swainson’s hawk,rough-legged hawk, golden eagle, and merlin.In addition to the species mentioned above,resident raptors are kestrel, red-tailed hawk,peregrine falcon, western screech-owl, great

horned owl, northern pygmy owl, and northernsaw whet owl.

Several species of Neotropic migrant birds passthrough the park during migration, such asolive-sided flycatchers (Contopus borealis) andTownsend’s warblers (Dendroica townsendi).However, none are known to depend on parkhabitats exclusively during the breeding season.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Eleven species of amphibians and five speciesof reptiles are known to be present in the park.Terrestrial amphibians include the ensatina,found in or under woody debris; the westernredback salamander, found near seepages orstreams, under logs and other woody debris;and the Larch mountain salamander. The larchmountain salamander is found in forested andtalused environments that provide cool, moistconditions under wood or rock substrates.

Amphibians associated with aquatic systems inthe park are tailed frog, Pacific chorus frog,Pacific giant salamander, Cascades frog, north-western salamander, long-toed salamander, red-legged frog, rough-skin newt, western toad(boreal toad), and Van Dyke’s salamander.Tailed frogs and Pacific giant salamanders arefound in many park streams. Cascades frogs,northwestern and long-toed salamanders, andrough-skin newts are found in many park wet-lands, lakes, and ponds. The red-legged andPacific chorus frogs are found in some lowerelevation ponds and wetlands. Western toads,although historically more abundant, have notbeen found in great numbers in recent years.During recent surveys, only three western toadbreeding populations have been documented inpark lakes and ponds.

Amphibians are an ongoing focus of concerndue to recent serious worldwide populationdeclines. Amphibians are sensitive indicatorsof environmental conditions and constitute amajor portion of animal biomass in many park

Natural Resources

145

habitats. In forested areas, they may exceed thecombined weight of all vertebrates. Amphibi-ans play a key role in the food chain becauseof their large numbers and their high position.

Recent studies in North Cascades National Park(Liss et al. 1995), Crater Lake National Park,and Mount Rainier National Park have clearlydemonstrated that multiple age classes of non-native salmonids (brook trout and others) have agreat impact on native lake communities, whichevolved under fishless conditions. Fish preda-tion affects lake food webs, altering nutrientcycling, the structure of benthic and macroin-vertebrate communities, and the distribution,behavior and abundance of prey species. Fishpredation has also been shown to have a majorimpact on amphibian abundance, behavior, anddistribution, especially salamander populations,even when that fish population is not verydense. In some cases, salamander prey havebeen eliminated from lakes and ponds.

Reptiles found in the park are northwesterngarter snake, western terrestrial garter snake,common garter snake, rubber boa, and northernalligator lizard. Surveys conducted by park stafffrom 1991-1992 documented these species invarious habitats throughout the park.

Fish

The National Park Service has good historicalinformation on native fish populations inMount Rainier’s lakes and rivers, based on fishstocking, creel census data, and known loca-tions of fish passage barriers that would haveprevented the establishment of fish in the ab-sence of stocking. However, historical nativefish distributions in the park’s streams are lessfully understood. The present status of nativefish populations also are not well understoodbecause of the widespread stocking ofnonnative fish, dam construction outside thepark, and a general lack of knowledge aboutthe historic and introduced patterns of fishoccurrence in park rivers and streams.

No park lakes are known to have supported afish population before fish stocking began inthe early 1900s. This may be attributed to acombination of the following factors: naturalbarriers to upstream migration, frequent catas-trophic events (floods, debris flows), a lack ofsuitable spawning sites, and low productivity(attributed to low nutrient concentrations).Larger park rivers and streams and most of thelakes were repeatedly stocked, thereby intro-ducing both native and nonnative species intomany high elevation areas that were histor-ically devoid of fish. Stocking was halted after1972, consistent with NPS ManagementPolicies. As mentioned above, current researchindicates that the presence of nonnative fishhas had a negative effect on park amphibianpopulations.

Eight native fish species are found in the park:rainbow trout/steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout,Dolly Varden, bull trout, mountain whitefish,Chinook salmon, and Coho salmon. Severalnative species of sculpin also are found in thepark, and other sculpin were introduced.

Several hatchery strains of rainbow and cut-throat trout were widely stocked throughoutthe park and may have hybridized or replacednative stocks within their historic ranges. Othernonnative species that were introduced into thepark lakes are hatchery strains of brook trout,which are widely distributed; brown trout,which were only planted in one of the GoldenLakes (and which no longer occur); and somesculpin species (Lake George).

The construction of the Electron Dam on thePuyallup-Mowich drainage and the Alder andLaGrande Dams on the Nisqually haveblocked anadromous fish from passage to theserivers and their upstream tributaries in thepark. Mud Mountain Dam on the White Riveralso blocks fish passage, but anadromous fish(Chinook, Coho, and steelhead) are transportedaround the dam, thereby conceivably allowingaccess to the White River, the West Fork of theWhite River, and Huckleberry Creek basins.


146

Chinook salmon have been observed in theWhite River drainage adjacent to the parkboundary. Salmon migration in the Cowlitzand Ohanapecosh Rivers is blocked by dams atRiffe Lake and Mayfield Lake. However,Coho salmon are still transported around thedams. The Carbon River is the only majordrainage without constructed dams blockingfish passage. However, a steep canyon about 8miles downstream from the park boundarymay be a partial barrier during certain riverflows.

Invertebrates

With the exception of some aquatic species ofmacroinvertebrates and zooplankton, litt le isknown about the distribution, abundance, orwhich species of invertebrates are found inMount Rainier National Park. Invertebratesmay represent 85% of the biomass and areessential to the ecological processes of parkold growth forests (Asquith et al. 1990).Invertebrates inhabit many different areas ofthe coniferous forest of Mount Rainier, includ-ing coarse woody debris, leaf litter, soil,understory vegetation, tree canopy and snags.It is estimated that there may be up to 20,000species of invertebrates in the Pacific North-west forests (USFS and BLM 1994b).

In addition to the forests, invertebrates alsoplay key roles in the subalpine, alpine, andaquatic areas of the park. Insects act aspollinators of many subalpine flowers. Thesnowfields and glaciers support a variety ofinvertebrates, including annelid worms,insects, and spiders. Three native freshwatermussels inhabit the park, Oregon floater,western or Cascades floater, and western pearl-shell. Two other species potentially occur inthe park, western ridge mussel and theCalifornia floater.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, the National Marine Fisheries Service,

and park records, eight federally listed threat-ened or endangered wildlife species occur orhave the potential to occur in the park:• northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

caurina)• marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus

marmoratus)• bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)• gray wol f (Canis lupus)• Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)• grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)• chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)• bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

In addition, the coastal cutthroat trout (O.clarki clarki), proposed for federal threatenedstatus, occurs in the park, although the cur-rently listed population (Columbia River) isbelieved to have been introduced (NPS 1920 etseq.). The Coho salmon (O. kisuytch) is alsoproposed for federal listing and has been his-torically found in the park; current populationswithin the park are unknown. Although popu-lation sizes and numerical trends within thepark are generally unknown for most species,some detailed study has occurred regardingnorthern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, andbull trout, and some analysis of potential lynxhabitat has been done adjacent to the park’snortheastern boundary. (See table 10 for moreinformation on habitat needs and occurrence.)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identi-fied the following other species as occupyingthe park:

• northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)• olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)• peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)• long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)• long-legged myotis (M. volans)• Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)• western toad (Bufo boreas)• Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei)• Larch mountain salamander (P. larselli)• Fender's soliperlan stonefly (Soliperla fenderi)

Natural Resources

147

Other species of concern that may inhabit thepark are the following:

• Californi a wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)• Paci fic fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)• Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremeri) (a

butterfly)• Whulge checkerspot (Euphydryas editha

taylori)(a butterfly)

Many federally listed species also are listed bythe Washington Department of Fish and Wild-life as endangered, threatened, candidate, orsensitive species. Of the species identifiedabove, northern spotted owl, peregrine falcon,gray wolf, grizzly bear, and fisher are listed asstate endangered. Marbled murrelets, baldeagles, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), andCanada lynx have state threatened status. Thenorthern goshawk, California wolverine, Pacif-ic Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus town-sendii townsendii), Chinook salmon, bull trout,western toad, Van Dyke’s salamander, andCalifornia floater (Anodonta californiensis) areall state candidate species, and the larch moun-tain salamander is a state sensitive species.

The following 14 rare plant species identifiedas sensitive by the state of Washington areknown to occur in Mount Rainier NationalPark. Of these, the obscure Indian paintbrushand Mount Rainier lousewort are consideredendemic to the park and the local area.

• obscure Indian paintbrush (Castillejacryptantha)

• Mount Rainier lousewort (Pedicularisrainierensis)

• lance-l eaved grapefern (Botrychiumlanceolatum)

• common moonwort (B. lunaria)• northern moonwort (B. pinnatum)• northern microseris (Microseris borealis)• Wheeler’s bluegrass (Poa nervosa)• crested wood fern (Dryopteris cristata)• curved woodrush (Luzula arcuata)• northern wild licorice (Galium kamtschaticum)• skunky Jacob’s-ladder (Polemonium viscosum)• pygmy saxifrage (Saxifraga rivularis)• blackened sedge (Carex atrosquama)• tall agoseris (Agoseris elata)

The status, habitat needs, and occurrence ofspecial status species, including federal andstate listed species, are shown in table 10.

148

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERALLY LISTED AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES

Status a/

Species FWS WA Habitat Needs/Occurrence

Birds

Northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina)

FT SE The northern spotted owl is a medium sized nocturnal owl thatpreys primarily on small mammals. The owl is stronglyassociated with mature or old growth forests that are

structurally complex − they contain trees of several species, sizes, and ages, contain standing and down dead trees, and havemultistoried canopies. Moreover, the birds require large amounts of such habitat. Median home range sizes are typically onthe order of 3,000 to 5,000 acres per pair. Spotted owls nest in cavities or platforms in trees, and in good habitat, pairs aretypically spaced about 1–2 miles apart. Spotted owls are long-lived, territorial birds, often spending their entire adult life inthe same territory.

Habitat degradation and loss threaten this species with extinction. Much of the remaining habitat is highly fragmented. Inaddition, barred owls (Strix varia) have invaded much of the range of the northern spotted owl during the last 30 years andhave displaced and hybridized with spotted owls (Dunbar et al. 1991; Thomas et al. 1993; Hamer et al. 1994). Since listing,Anderson and Burnham (1992) indicate northern spotted owl populations are continuing to decline throughout their range andthis decline may be accelerating. Large scale analysis of the northern spotted owl over 23% of its range, including MountRainier National Park, indicated that populations were either relatively stable or were experiencing a decline (3.9% annuallyfor female owls) (Franklin et al. 1999). Critical habitat for the species has been designated within Lewis and Pierce Counties,but the designation does not include lands within Mount Rainier National Park.

The northern spotted owl is an uncommon year-round resident of the park (breeding between March and September), and theentire park is a congressionally reserved area for spotted owl habitat. Essentially, any forested habitat up to 4,800 feet isconsidered northern spotted owl habitat. In the park, 68,000 acres are suitable habitat. Approximately 85% of that suitablehabitat was surveyed between 1997 and 1998. A total of 13 pairs of adult owls, nine activity sites with at least one adult andseven fledglings were documented. In addition, six nest locations were identified and 29 birds were banded. Many knownlocations for spotted owls are within 1 to 2 miles of the park boundaries. They have been reported in forests along WestsideRoad, near the Longmire complex, at Ohanapecosh, near the Sunrise complex, along the State Route 410 corridor, and alongCarbon River Road. Numerous nest activity sites have been located in the park.

Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratusmarmoratus)

FT ST The marbled murrelet is a small seabird that feeds on fish inocean waters within 1 mile of the shore. Due to their secretivenature and cryptic coloration, information on the distributionand abundance of marbled murrelets in Washington has been

difficult to gather (NPS 1996a). Marbled murrelets nest in forested areas up to 50 miles from their saltwater foraging areas.Nest trees need to be in a stand that is open enough for them to fly through, yet the canopy must have enough cover to hidethe nests from predators. Typically such conditions have only been found in old growth or later serial stands, however someyounger stands with a high degree of structural diversity and limb-malforming infestations (i.e., mistletoe) may also besuitable.

The marbled murrelets’ threatened status is thought to be principally due to a loss of nesting habitat due to commercial timberharvesting. Forest fragmentation also may be making nests near forest edges vulnerable to predation by other birds, such asjays, crows, ravens, and great horned owls. In addition, increased human activities in forests, such as picnic grounds, canattract corvids and thus increase the chances of predation (USFWS 1991, 1992). Critical habitat for the species has beendesignated within Lewis and P ierce Counties, but the designation does not include lands in Mount Rainier National Park.

Potential marbled murrelet habitat is distributed throughout the park, especially along major river corridors below 3,500 feet.Confirmed nesting occurs in the northwest corner of the park in the Carbon River and Mowich River drainages, and murreletshave been detected along the Nisqually River within the park.

Natural Resources

149

Status a/


Approximately 22,000 acres of the park are considered suitable nesting habitat. The best nesting habitat is in lower old-growthforests below 750 meters. Mid-level forests (750-1450 m) have some suitable nesting habitat. The old growth forests in thepark’s western river valleys may be some of the best remaining nesting habitat in the southern Puget Sound area because theysupport large, intact stands of old-growth forest within 40 miles of the birds’ marine foraging area.

Limited non-systematic inventories for murrelets were conducted from 1995-1997, primarily in the northwestern portion of thepark. A total of 891 murrelet detections were made in 1995, 92 in 1996 and 220 in 1997. These detections represent an unknownnumber of murrelets because an individual bird may be detected numerous times over the course of the monitoring season. Someof these detections, however, were identified as an indication of nesting occupancy based on observations of bird behavior on 42occasions in 1995, 3 in 1996 and 69 in 1997. In addition, four other suspected nesting areas, based on repeated observations ofmurrelets exhibiting nesting behavior, were identified in 1997.

Bald eagle b/

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)FT ST Bald eagles primarily occur along Washington’s coast, rivers,

and large lakes and reservoirs. They probably just migratethrough the park. Wintering bald eagles may occur in thevicinity of Mount Rainier from October 31 through March 31.It is possible that bald eagles enter the park during the summermonths to fish the sub alpine lakes; however, there is no recordof bald eagles nesting in the park. Known nesting occurs 15 milesoutside the park’s western boundary.

Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis)

FSC SC Generally, goshawks nest in trees in mature or old growthconiferous forests. Goshawks have been observed in MountRainier National Park regularly by visitors and biologists.

Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi)

FSC _ This flycatcher prefers forest edges adjacent to open areas, suchas burns, montane meadows, and sub alpine parklands. Thisspecies breeds in the park.

Oregon vesper sparrow(Pooectetes gramineus affinis)

FSC SC This species does not occur in the park.

Peregrine falcon c/

(Falco peregrinus)FSC SE Peregrine falcons nest mainly on cliffs along rivers or near

lakes. In the spring and fall, migrant peregrine falcons may bepresent near the park for short periods. Nesting peregrinesoccur in the vicinity of Tum Tum Peak on the park’s west side.

Ferruginous hawk(Buteo regalis)

-- ST Nests in cliffs or trees; frequents arid plains and openrangeland. Ferruginous hawks are a migrant species in MountRainier.

Mammals

Gray wolf(Canis lupis)

FE SE Gray wolves are wide-ranging carnivores that inhabit forestsand open tundra. Hunting and other human activities eliminatedthe gray wolf fro m Washington by the early 20th century.

However, wolves appear to be naturally recolonizing Washington, especially northern Washington, from Canada.

Mount Rainier contains ample habitat for gray wolves and abundant prey. Historically, the gray wolf was found in the park.Taylor and Shaw (1927) cite numerous observations of wolves from the late 1800s into the 1920s. There are 26 reported wolfsightings in the park’s computerized database, which dates back to 1980; however, no observations have been verified bybiologists in the last 80 years. No systematic surveys, however, have been conducted in the park.


150

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERALLY LISTED AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES (continued)

Status a/


Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis)

FT ST In the Cascade Mountains, lynx live in the spruce-fir forests ofthe high mountains. Older, mature forests with downed treesand windfalls provide cover for denning sites, escape, and

protection from severe weather. The distribution and abundance of lynx tend to be tied to that of its primary prey, thesnowshoe hare. Canada lynx probably never have been abundant in the lower 48 states because of a lack of lynx andsnowshoe hare habitat. Their numbers also declined due to overtrapping in the 1980s and from a loss of forest habitat causedby development and urbanization, forest fire suppression, and unsuitable types of forest management. Bobcats and coyotesalso have spread into lynx habitats, because packed snow trails were created by recreational activities, and the bobcats andcoyotes have outcompeted the lynx for food and space.

Although Mount Rainier has suitable habitat for lynx and snowshoe hare in subalpine forests and alpine areas below treeline,there are no confirmed reports of the species in the park since Taylor and Shaw (1927) documented lynx in the 1920s. Nosystematic surveys, however, have been conducted in the park.

Grizzly bear(Ursus arctos)

FT SE Grizzly bears are omnivores that inhabit semi-open country,usually in mountain areas. They require large home ranges from30 to 100 square miles in size (Van Gelder 1982). The parkcontains suitable grizzly bear habitat, but there have never beenconfirmed sightings of grizzlies in the park. In 1993, grizzlybear tracks were identified adjacent to the west side of the park.

California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus)

FSC SC The California wolverine is a resident of high elevationconiferous forests and subalpine areas. Wolverines use vastareas for hunting, sometimes as much as 100 square miles (VanGelder 1982). Although noted as a potential inhabitant ofMount Rainier by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andthought likely to be present, the California wolverine has notbeen documented in the park since 1933.

Pacific fisher(Martes pennanti pacifica)

FSC SE Pacific fishers prefer dense forests with extensive, continuouscanopies and complex forest floor structure, and they are oftenassociated with wetland forests and riparian areas. Fisher

populations have declined throughout much of their range during the last half of the 19th century and the early part of thiscentury, and they may be on the verge of extinction in Washington.

Mount Rainier contains suitable habitat for fishers, including large forage areas away from human influences, but there havebeen no confirmed sightings. Jones and Raphael (1991) conducted a systematic study on the abundance and habits of fishers inthe southeastern corner of the park but did not detect them. Pacific fishers have not been documented in the park since 1947.

Western gray squirrel(Sciurus griseus)

_ ST This species does not occur in the park.

Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis)

FSC _ This species typically prefers forestlands and heavy chaparral.(Sumner and Dixon 1953). A nursing colony has beendocumented at Longmire.

Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans)

FSC _ This bat forages over ponds, streams, open meadows, and forestclearings. Night roosts are usually in caves or mines. It hasbeen identified as being present in Mount Rainier.

Natural Resources

151

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERALLY LISTED AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES (continued)

Status a/


Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat(Plecotus townsendii townsendii)

FSC SC Townsend’s big-eared bats hibernate in caves and use caves,lava tubes, and abandoned buildings for breeding and roostingsites. Nursery colonies are extremely sensitive to humanactivity, and sites are readily abandoned if disturbed. The batwas confirmed in the park near Longmire in 2000.

Fish

Chinook salmon(Puget Sound “ESU”)(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

FT SC Chinook are easily the largest of any salmon, with adults oftenexceeding 40 pounds. Chinook use a variety of freshwaterhabitats, but it is more common to see them spawn in largermain stem rivers or tributaries.

In Mount Rainier, likely habitat for Chinook salmon includes the Carbon, White, Mowich, and Puyallup Rivers, the WestFork of the White River, and Huckleberry Creek. In the past Chinook salmon have been documented in the Carbon River justoutside the park boundary (D. Nauer, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, pers. com.). Sal mon are likely to be present insmall numbers in the park, although the park staff has not documented them as being present or spawning.

Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)

FT SC Bull trout habitat is characterized by clear cold water, silt-freerocky substrate in riffle run areas, well-vegetated streambanks,abundant in stream cover, deep pools, relatively stable flow

regime and streambanks, and productive fish and aquatic insect populations. Historically, they were found in most major riversystems in the Pacific Northwest. In Mount Rainier, bull trout are present in the White, West Fork, Carbon, and PuyallupRivers and their tributaries.

Coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisuytch)

FPROP -- Coho were historically found in the White, Carbon, North andSouth Puyallup and Mowich rivers. No recent surveys havebeen conducted to determine their current presence in the park.It is likely, however that they are present in small numbers inthese rivers today.

Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)

FPROPFT

_ The USFWS listed the eastern Cascades portion of the coastalcutthroat as threatened in April 1999 . Coastal cutthroat on thewest side of the Cascades were found not warranted for listingat the same time. Coastal cutthroat have been documented inthe park; however, this documentation suggests that this specieswas introduced on the east side and was not historically presentin park waters there.

River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)


Pacific lamprey(Entosphenus tridentata)

FSC _ This species does not occur in the park.

Reptiles and AmphibiansNorthwestern pond turtle(Clemmys marmorata)

FSC SE This species does not occur in the park.

Oregon spotted frog(Rana pretiosa)

FC SE This species does not occur in the park.


152

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES (continued)

Status a/


Red-legged frog d/

(Rana aurora)_ _ The red-legged frog occurs in park low elevation (below 4,000

feet) wetlands.

Tailed frog d/

(Ascaphus treui)_ _ Tailed frogs inhabit many of the park’s clear, fast-flowing

streams.

Cascades frog(Rana cascadae)

FSC _ Cascade frogs are a montane species, primarily occurring above800 meters in montane meadows, marshes, and ponds (U.S.Forest Service 1995). Distribution of the Cascades frog in thepark is not well known. Surveys have documented theseamphibians in the Huckleberry; Carbon, Mowich; Puyallup,Nisqually, Cowlitz, Ohanapecosh, and White River.

Western toad(Bufo boreas)

FSC SC Western toads were formerly more abundant, but recently theyhave been found only in a few montane lakes and wetlands inthe park.

Columbia torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton kezeri)


Larch Mountain salamander(Plethodon larselli)

FSC SS Larch mountain salamanders are found in forested and talusenvironments that provide cool, moist conditions under woodor rock substrates. The salamander has been found near thepark boundary and is in the park.

Van Dyke’s salamander(Plethodon vandykei)

FSC SC Van Dyke’s salamander is found in a variety of habitats,including streambanks, upland forests, talus, and seeps, at alarge range of elevations. Salamanders have been documentedin the Mowich drainage and just outside the park boundary nearLongmire.

MollusksCalifornia floater (mussel)(Anodonta californiensis)

_ SC Freshwater mollusks can inhabit permanent water bodies of allsizes. Mussels may also be found in sand-gravel substrates thatare stable. The California floater is expected to occur in thepark but has not yet been documented.

Insects

Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri)

FSC SC No records of this species in the park have been identified, butthey may occur in the park.

Whulge (Edith’s) checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori)

FSC SC No records of this species in the park have been identified, butthey may occur in the park.

Fender’s soliperlan stonefly(Soliperla fenderi)

FSC _ This species has been identified on three occasions nearWestside Road.

PlantsWater howellia(Howellia aquatilis)

FT _ Surveys in potential habitat have not identified this species, andit is believed not to occur in the park.

Kincaid’s lupine(Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii)

FP _ This species and its habitat do not occur in the park.

Natural Resources

153

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERAL- AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES (continued)

Status a/


Obscure Indian paintbrush(Castilleja crypantha)

_ SS This small (6 to 12 inches) multistemmed perennial plant isendemic to Mount Rainier National Park and the local area. Theplant is known to exist at 25 sites in Mount Rainier and in 2sites adjacent to the park’s border. Populations are located inmoist, well-drained meadows in the northern part of the park.Surveys showed that individual populations often hadnumerous stems/individuals but no seedlings. Based onsurveys, there apparently is great variability in populationtrends among locations and between years.

Pale larkspur(Delphinium leucophaeum)

FSC _ This species does not occur in the park.

Mount Rainier lousewort(Pedicularis rainierensi)

_ SS This plant species has been observed in 34 locations insubalpine meadows throughout the park.

Lance-leaved grapefern(Botrychium lanceolatum)

_ SS This plant species has been observed in three locations in thepark; however, no additional information is available onlocations of occurrence or habitat.

Common moonwort(B. lunaria)

_ SS No information is available on locations of occurrence orhabitat, although one voucher specimen of this species is in thepark herbarium.

Northern moonwort(B. pinnatum)

_ SS There are two voucher specimens (1888, c. 1960) of this plantfrom unspecified locations in the park. No additionalinformation is available on locations of occurrence or habitat.

Northern microseris(Microseris borealis)

_ SS This plant species has been observed in four locations in thepark; however, no additional information is available onlocations of occurrence or habitat.

Wheeler’ s bluegrass(Poa nervosa)

_ SS Surveys for this species have not been completed. Based onhabitat availability, it is expected to occur in the park.

Crested wood-fern(Dryopteris cristata)


Curved woodrush(Luzula arcuata)

_ SS This plant species has been observed in one location in thepark; however, no additional information is available onlocations of occurrence or habitat.

Northern wild licorice(Galium kamtschaticum)

_ SS This plant species has been observed in the park; however, noadditional information is available on locations of occurrenceor habitat.

Skunky Jacob’s-ladder(Polemonium viscosum)

_ SS There is one voucher specimen (1896) of this species in thepark herbarium. No additional information is available onlocations of occurrence or habitat.

Pygmy saxifrage(Saxifraga rivularis)


154

TABLE 10: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES (CONTINUED)

Status a/


Blackened sedge(Carex atrosquama)


Tall agoseris(Agoseris elata)


a/ Status:

FE = Federally Endangered: Listed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service as a species that is indanger of extinction throughout all or a significantportion of its range.

FT = Federally Threatened: Listed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service as a species that is likelyto become an endangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or a significantportion of its range.

FPROP = Federal Proposed: Species for whichthe USFWS has proposed in the Federal Registerlisting as threatened or endangered.

FC = Federal Candidate: Species for which theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficientinformation to propose for listing as threatened orendangered.

FSC = Federal Species of Concern: Specieswhose conservation standing is of concern to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but for which statusinformation is still needed.

SE = Washington State Endangered: Any speciesnative to the state of Washington that is seriouslythreatened with extinction throughout all or asignificant portion of its range within the state.

ST = Washington State Threatened: Any speciesnative to the state of Washington that is likely tobecome an endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout a significant portionof its range within the state without cooperativemanagement or removal of threats.

SC = Washington State Candidate: Includesspecies that the department will review for possiblelisting as state endangered, threatened, or Sensitive.A species will be considered for designation as astate candidate if sufficient evidence suggests thatits status may meet the listing criteria defined forstate endangered, threatened, or sensitive.

SS = Washington State Sensitive: Any speciesnative to the state of Washington that is vulnerableor declining and is likely to become endangered orthreatened throughout a significant portion of itsrange within the state without cooperativemanagement or removal of threats.

— = No designation

b/ Bald eagles were proposed for delisting on July 6,2000. Delisting is expected to occur in October2000. They will remain fully protected species.

c/ The peregrine falcon was delisted in August 1999.Peregrines remain fully protected species and arestate listed.

d/ The red-legged frog and tailed frog have been onmany USFWS service lists and so they remain onthis list, although not included in the March 14,2001 letter from the USFWS.

155

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

HISTO RY

Mount Rainier has an extensive historicgeologic record of activity, including lavaflows, ash eruptions, avalanches, and debris ormudflows. The volcano has erupted manytimes. The last major eruptions occurred ap-proximately 1,000 years ago. The most recenteruptions to have produced a recognizabledeposit (pumice) occurred between 1820 and1854. Unverified newspaper reports also reportnear-summit eruptions (ash and steam) asrecently as 1894, although these were toosmall to produce distinguishable deposits onthe lower slopes of the volcano. The mostrecent eruption to have produced lava occurredbetween 1,000 and 2,000 years ago. Today, thethreat of mudflows is particularly acutebecause of the weakened array of rocks alteredby hot acidic waters within the volcano and thepresence of an extensive glacial cap. Earth-quakes, although they may be associated withperiodic volcanic activity, are also a threat inand of themselves.

PO TENTIAL HAZARDS

Volcanic Eruptions

As an active volcano, Mount Rainier presentsvolcanic geologic hazards that could be devas-tating to park visitors, employees, and facilit ieswithin and beyond the park. Other geologichazards include flooding, glacial outburstfloods, snow avalanches, landslides, and rockfalls. Flooding hazards were discussed abovein the “Floodplains” section; the following dis-cussion focuses primarily on potential volcanichazards because these would likely be moredevastating than the more frequent geologichazards such as avalanches, rockfalls andglacial outburst floods.

The National Research Council recognized thepotential for considerable geologic hazards

when they named Mount Rainier a DecadeVolcano Study Area. The primary geologichazard at Mount Rainier is debris flows (Scottet al. 1995; National Research Council 1994;Hoblitt et al. 1995). Debris flows and pyro-clastic flows have caused about 86% of theloss of life worldwide in 20th century volcanicdisasters (Blong 1984; T illing et al. 1989). Ithas also been suggested that some types ofdebris flows could occur without a warningfrom precursor-type volcanic activity (Scott etal. 1995). Other hazards at Mount Rainier arepyroclastic flows, lateral blasts, tephra fall,lava flows, and nonvolcanic geologic hazardssuch as avalanches and landslides, as discussedbelow. Development sites in the park that areexposed to these types of hazards are identifiedin table 11.

The National Research Council (1994) hasstated that volcanic hazards or volcano relatedevents that are likely to pose threats to personsor property include the following:

• volcanic eruptions — the eruption of ashflows and tephra (ash or pumice)

• edifice failure — the gravitational collapseof a portion of the volcano

• glacial outburst floods — the suddenrelease of meltwater from glaciers andsnowpack or from glacier dammed lakeson the edifice

• lahars or debris flows, and debrisavalanches — gravitational movement ofcommonly water-saturated volcanic debrisdown the steep slopes of the volcano andinto nearby valleys

156

TABLE 11: SITES AT MOUNT RAINIER WITHIN VOLCANIC AND NONVOLCANIC HAZARD ZONES

Park Site

Case IDebris Flow

Zone

Case IIDebris Flow

Zone

Case IIIDebris

Flow Zone

Hydro-thermallyAltered

Rock

Non-volcanicGeologicHazard

Pyroclastic FlowZone

Tahoma Woods X XNisqually entrance X X X XSunshine Point campground X X X XKautz Creek X X XWestside Road X X X X XLongmire X X XCougar Rock campground X X XParadise XCamp Muir X XNarada Falls picnic area X X XBox Canyon picnic area X X XOhanapecosh X X XStevens Canyon entrance X XWhite River entrance X X XWhite River campground X X X XCamp Schurman X X XSunrise XMowich Lake XCarbon River entrance X X XFalls Creek picnic area X X XIpsut Creek campground X X X

Debris Flows

Recent geologic mapping and studies of debrisflow deposits in valleys surrounding the vol-cano have contributed to a greater understand-ing of Mount Rainier’s volcanic hazards. Thisresearch was used to create hazard assessments(hazard zones) that identify where debris flowscould occur and at what frequency (recurrenceinterval) and magnitude they might occur.Several investigations have provided detailedmapping of debris flow hazard zones at MountRainier (Scott et al. 1995; Scott and Vallance1995; Hoblitt et al. 1995).

• Case M debris flows — These are extremecase I flows. The Osceola mudflow, whichreached the Puget Sound region near

Auburn, nearly 5,600 years ago is anexample of a case M debris flow.

• Case I debris flows — These are the largestflows and may be composed of cohesivedebris that originates as enormousavalanches of weak, chemically alteredrock from the volcano. The averagerecurrence interval of a case I debris flowis estimated at 500 to 1,000 years. TheElectron mudflow, which occurred about550 years ago is an example.

• Case II debris flows — These arecomposed of relatively large noncohesivedebris flows containing coarser materialsthan case I flows. Case II flows have anestimated recurrence interval of 100 to 500


158

back of map

Geologic Hazards

159

years. Such an event occurred at KautzCreek in 1947.

• Case III debris flows — These may bemoderately large debris avalanches orsmall, noncohesive debris flows thattypically reach to the base of the volcanonear the park boundary. The recurrenceinterval for case III flows is estimated at 1to 100 years.

Debris flows, in terms of the potential effectsand probability of occurrence, constitute thegreatest volcanic hazard in the Cascade Range(Hoblitt et al. 1995). Debris flows consist ofslurries of water and sediment (60% or moreby volume) that look and behave much likeflowing concrete. Debris flows are sometimescalled mudflows or, when they originate onvolcanoes, lahars (Hoblitt et al. 1995).

The White River Valley is the site of the mostdevastating mudflow Mount Rainier is knownto have unleashed. The Osceola mudflow datesfrom about 5,600 years ago. It exhumed thenortheast flank and summit of Mount Rainierand inundated the valleys of the White Riverand its West Fork, covering a total area ofmore than 195 square miles (Dragovitch et al.1994). The mudflow, estimated to containmore than 4.9 billion cubic yards of material,deposited a layer up to 30.5 meters (100 feet)thick and buried the areas where the towns ofEnumclaw, Buckley, Orting, Puyallup, Sumnerand Auburn are now located. A portion of themountain also collapsed and formed theParadise lahar.

More recent and smaller collapses from thewest flank of Mount Rainier produced theRound Pass mudflow (Nisqually and PuyallupRivers: 2,800 years ago; more than 200 millioncubic yards) and Electron mudflow (PuyallupRiver: 550 years ago; 340 million cubic yards)among others (Crandell 1971; Scott et al.1995). For comparison, Mud Mountain Dam(White River) has a capacity of approximately170 million cubic yards and Alder Dam

(Nisqually River) has a capacity of approxi-mately 375 million cubic yards. Mud MountainDam might contain an Electron-sized mud-flow, but because the Alder Reservoir is water-filled, an Electron-sized event could lead todam failure with catastrophic results. Neitherdam could influence an Osceola-sizedmudflow.

The Paradise lahar (4,500–5,000 years ago)inundated the Nisqually River Valley, at leastto the former town of National. The Nationallahar (1,200–1,700 years ago) retained a sig-nificant amount of sediment as it traveleddownstream onto the Puget Sound lowland(below La Grande).

Many developed sites in the park are locatedon debris flow deposits in valley bottoms.Preliminary results of geologic mapping onMount Rainier indicate there is no apparenttrend toward a decreasing eruption volume atMount Rainier. Thus, potentially sizableeruptions would continue into the future(Sisson 1995), resulting in additional debrisflows and other hazards.

Recent geologic mapping of the volcano hasshed important new light on which valleys inthe park might host a large debris flow or smalldebris avalanche (Sisson 1995; Zimbelman1995; Crowley and Zimbelman 1997). Thismapping identified zones of rock on thevolcanic edifice that have been weakened byfractures, faults, and the alteration of mineralsto weak clay minerals by hot gases (hydro-thermal alteration). Valleys that have theseweakened rocks in their headwaters, particular-ly where these rocks are undercut by glaciers,are more likely to host debris flows. In general,the zone of maximum hydrothermal alterationfollows a northeast to southwest band thatbisects the volcano. Fractures caused by down-slope movement of the hydrothermally alteredrocks have been mapped at Little TahomaPeak, on the east side of the volcano and atSunset Amphitheater, on the west side.


160

The Tahoma Creek, Nisqually River, WhiteRiver, Muddy Fork of the Cowlitz River, andPuyallup River all descend from areas ofweakened rock.

Pyroclastic flows are another volcanic hazard.These are dense mixtures of hot rock frag-ments and gases that flow down valleys duringeruptive periods. Because of their high speedand high temperature, pyroclastic flows maydestroy virtually everything in their paths.Although pyroclastic flows may occur as aresult of an eruption, their pathway wouldlikely be limited to the area within the parkboundary.

Other Hazards

As mentioned, other volcanic hazards at MountRainier include lateral blasts (such as occurredat Mount St. Helens in 1980), tephra fall, andlava flows. All the park’s developed areas arewithin a 22-mile (35-kilometer) diameterlateral blast zone mapped by Crandell andHoblitt (1986) and Hoblitt et al. (1995). Mapsfor tephra fallout hazard are not detailedenough to distinguish among park developedareas because Mount Rainier is within tephrafallout zones from several other CascadeRange volcanoes. Past tephra fallout, however,from eruptions of Mount Rainier has beenlargely confined to the east half of the park dueto prevailing westerly winds (Crandell 1967).Lava flow hazard is minimal at all sites(Crandell 1967; Hoblitt et al. 1995).

Nonvolcanic geologic hazards also occur atMount Rainier. Snow avalanches, rockfalls(often related to weakened areas, many ofthem hydrothermally altered), landslides,debris torrents, and other hazards haveoccurred throughout the park. On December14, 1963, the largest rockslides on MountRainier in historic time occurred on its eastflank. About 4 billion cubic feet of rock fell ina series of avalanches from the steep side ofLittle Tahoma Peak (Crandell 1969). Although

most rock fell on the Emmons glacier, sometraveled to within 0.6 mile of the White Rivercampground (Scott and Vallance 1994).

Additional information on volcanic andnonvolcanic hazards for specific areas of thepark is provided in the following sections.

Nisqually Entrance and Sunshine PointCampground. All current development sitesin the Nisqually Valley below the junction ofTahoma Creek are threatened by hydro-thermally altered rocks in the Sunset Amphi-theater area (Zimbelman 1995). This site islocated in a case II debris flow inundationzone, with a recurrence interval estimated at100–500 years (Hoblitt et al. 1995).

Westside Road. Westside Road was closed atDry Creek due to outburst flood activity onTahoma Creek. Below Dry Creek the road is ina case III debris flow inundation zone. Afterleaving the old picnic area, the road ascendsout of the case III debris flow inundation zoneinto the case II and I inundation areas, beforedropping in elevation into a case III inundationarea at the bridge across the Puyallup River.The north end of the road on Klapatche Ridgeis outside the debris flow hazard area. Theunstable bedrock on the slopes of Mount Wowcreates a nonvolcanic geologic hazard. Theseslopes have sent several mass movements intothe Tahoma Creek valley (Scott et al. 1995).The road crosses a small talus field and rock-fall hazard east of Lake Allen, and a largertalus field / rockfall and snow avalanche areabetween Dry Creek and the former picnic area.Visitors parking at the current end of the road(Dry Creek) are exposed to safety hazardsfrom rockfall.

Longmire. The Longmire developed area(including district offices, museum, NationalPark Inn, gas station, warehouse, garages,employee residences, duplexes, CommunityBuilding, wastewater treatment plant, OldLongmire campground, and various associated

Geologic Hazards

161

facilit ies) is on an alluvial fan at the mouth of asmall canyon on the Nisqually River. Thislandform is built by debris flows, the mostrecent of which is less than 500 years old(Crandell 1967). This site was mapped in acase III debris flow inundation zone and is alsovulnerable due to its proximity to the volcano.

Recent hydraulic modeling (NPS 1997b)indicates that 100-year and 500-year precipi-tation floods would be contained in theNisqually River and would not flood the camp-ground. The model output also indicated that a500-year outburst flood on the Nisqually Riverwould exceed the channel capacity and floodthe campground.

Campground flooding occurred in the 1950s asa result of outburst flood activity from theNisqually Glacier when a sudden and massiveamount of water was released from the glacier.Glacier activity has decreased over the pastfew decades, and the likelihood that Longmirewould flood from such an event in the nearfuture is negligible.

The mineral springs and meadows justnorthwest of the Longmire developed area area potential source of lethal volcanic gases.Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and otherpotentially dangerous emissions are known tohave been lethal to animals at the site(Zimbelman, pers. comm. 1997) but pose litt lerisk to trail hikers passing through the area.

Cougar Rock Campground. Overnight use atthe Cougar Rock campground is highly haz-ardous because of its proximity to the volcanoand the site’s location on a low-elevationdebris flow terrace within the case III inunda-tion zone (Hoblitt et al. 1995). The terrace wasformed by several debris flows, including theNational and Paradise lahars, which inundatedthis site in the last 5,000 years.

Rockfall is a safety concern at the southwestend of the campground. Cliffs on a ridgedescending from Rampart Ridge are producing

large rocks, as identified by an accumulationof talus. Cougar Rock Campground could bethreatened by a potential landslide 1.5 miles(2.5 km) upstream on the west side of theNisqually River at an elevation of 5,600 feet(1,707 m). This slope was undercut by theNisqually Glacier and is covered with unstableglacial sediments. The landslide was firstidentified and mapped by Crandell in 1969.

Paradise . Park developments in the Paradisearea include the Paradise Inn and Annex,Guide House, Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center, Paradise Ranger Station, adormitory complex, and a wastewatertreatment plant and related facilit ies. Thesedevelopments are on the south flank of thevolcano at an elevation of approximately 5,260feet (1,604 m). This location places it less than6.5 miles (10 km) from the summit crater, butit is located on a bench above the floors of theParadise and Nisqually Valleys. Paradise is notin any debris flow inundation area mapped byHoblitt et al. (1995). However, the Paradiselahar did cross the site 4,500–5,000 years ago(Crandell 1971), and its location near thesummit makes it one of the most vulnerablesites for volcanic hazards associated witheruptions.

Evacuating this site would continue to be aconcern because access roads on both sidescross case III inundation areas. StevensCanyon is the proposed route (Crandell 1967),although depending on the location of debrisflow activity; the road west to Longmire couldbe safer. Nonvolcanic geologic hazards are aconcern in accessing the area through ava-lanche and rockfall terrain on the Paradise toNisqually Road.

Stevens Canyon Entrance. This area islocated in a case II inundation zone. Nonvol-canic geologic hazards, such as rockfall alsoexist in the Stevens Canyon area.

Ohanapecosh. Park developments atOhanapecosh include a ranger station and


162

office, a maintenance complex, a visitor center,employee housing, a campground, and asewage treatment facility. Visitors and parkemployees are exposed to hazards because theOhanapecosh developments are located in acase II inundation zone on a series of riverterraces and bedrock benches along theOhanapecosh River (Hoblitt et al. 1995).Nonvolcanic geologic hazards also threatenvisitors and employees at the site, primarily thepotential failure of the weak rocks of theOhanapecosh formation on the east valleywall. Hydrothermal alteration and weakeningof these rocks probably would continue, asindicated by the presence of the hot springs.

White River Entrance. There are hazards inthis valley due to the presence of fractured,hydrothermally altered bedrock on LittleTahoma Peak and Steamboat Prow (Zimbel-man et al. 1994, 1995; Sisson 1995). Thisvalley carried the Osceola debris flow approxi-mately 5,600 years ago, which inundated thissite. The entrance is on a high terrace, whichplaces it in a case II debris flow inundationzone (Hoblitt et al. 1995). Park visitors andemployees use this area, which includes a parkentrance station, a ranger offices, employeehousing, and maintenance facilit ies. Employeehousing in this location is used seasonally, notduring winter.

White River Campground. This locationposes major safety hazards to overnightvisitors and daytime visitors because it islocated in a case III inundation zone for debrisflows (Hoblitt et al. 1995). The hazard is evenmore significant because the site is very closeto the volcano. Also, the campground rests ona terrace only 35 feet (11.5 m) above the WhiteRiver. The terrace itself is formed by a debrisflow deposit believed to be 500–2,000 yearsold (Crandell 1971). The most important factorfor the site is the continued presence of a largemass of fractured, hydrothermally altered rockthat is perched just above the campground onLittle Tahoma Peak (Sisson 1995; Zimbelman

1995). These rocks are known to be the sourceof a 1963 debris avalanche that stopped about3,000 feet (0.6 mile or 600 m) short of thecamp after it had already traveled 4.3 miles (7km; Crandell and Fahnestock 1965).

Sunrise. Because it is located on a ridgetop,this site is well above the debris flow hazardzones on the White River valley floor. Parkfacilit ies in this area include an entrancestation, a ranger station/concession facility,employee apartments, and related facilit ies.Evacuation by car could be difficult becauseroads in the White River valley might beinundated by debris flows and could beblocked temporarily; also, the lower part ofthis road crosses unstable glacial deposits onthe lower switchback. As mitigation, visitorswould be advised to stay at Sunrise in sometypes of volcanic emergencies rather than hikeout (Crandell 1967). Like Paradise, Sunrise isnear the summit and would be very hazardousin volcanic eruptions.

Mowich Lake. The ridgetop location of thissite places it well above the valley floor wheredebris flows could occur. Evacuation of thissite by car could be temporarily blocked bydebris flows affecting roads in the CarbonRiver valley (Crandell 1967).

Carbon River . The Carbon River headwatersrise in an area on Mount Rainier composed ofmore recent, less hydrothermally altered rocksthan other valleys, such as the White andPuyallup Valleys (Zimbelman 1995).Therefore, debris flow hazard would continueto be somewhat less. Park facilit ies in this areainclude an entrance station, a district rangerstation, and associated storage andmaintenance facilit ies.

Visitors and park employees are exposed tohazards because the Carbon entrance facilit ieswould remain on a low terrace adjacent to theCarbon River floodplain in a case II inundationzone (Hoblitt et al. 1995). The Ipsut Creekcampground is on a low terrace less than 6 feet

Geologic Hazards

163

(1.8 m) above the floodplain of the CarbonRiver in a case III debris flow inundation zone(recurrence interval of less than 100 years;Hoblitt et al. 1995). The risk may be less atthis site than other sites in a case II or IIIinundation zone because the watershed isheaded by rocks that are less hydrothermallyaltered than in other valleys.

A preliminary floodplain study conducted bythe park (NPS 1997b) determined that the IpsutCreek campground is located in a high floodhazard zone. Detailed studies concluded thatportions of the campground occupy very low

parts of the floodplain, and high flood hazardoccurs in this area at discharges of 1,000 cubicfeet per second. The detailed modeling alsodetermined that most of the campground isoutside the 100-year floodplain.

However, it is anticipated that continueddeposition in the modern channel and upstreamchannel alignment will cause the Carbon Riverto shift to the south, isolating and claiming allor parts of the campground and causingconsiderable damage to roads, trails, and otherfacilit ies.

164

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEO LO GICAL RESO URCES

Mount Rainier’s dense forests, extensiveglaciation, volcanic deposition, and catas-trophic debris flows have contributed to condi-tions that are not conducive to the preservationor ready identification of archeologicalresources. Until recently archeological surveysfocused either on areas possessing a goodprobability for sites (e.g., natural features suchas rock overhangs) or on specific areas thatwere scheduled to be altered by developmentactivities, thus meeting cultural resourceprotection requirements.

Mounting archeological evidence has reversedlong-held assumptions that prehistoric peopleseldom visited Mount Rainier or that theyrestricted their activities to lower elevationstream and river courses. Recent site discov-eries within subalpine and alpine settings(above 5,000 feet on all sides of the mountain)indicate more widely distributed patterns ofuse (Burtchard et al. 1998). Ethnographic andhistorical accounts of Native American sea-sonal visits to high elevation locations lendfurther support to the archeological evidence.

At least 3,400 years ago, and perhaps as earlyas 8,500 years ago, when Mount Rainierbecame ice-free, small groups of prehistorichunters and gatherers procured fruits such ashuckleberries; a variety of mammals, includingmountain goats, elk, deer, and marmots; andother resources at higher montane elevations.Subalpine and alpine habitats characterized bylimited forest cover and grass/brush vegeta-tion, supported an abundance of useful plantsand animals that were available during themountain’s brief summers.

A 1995 parkwide archeological reconnaissancesurvey is the most comprehensive investigationto date (Burtchard et al. 1998). Archeologistsreexamined five previously reported sites and

investigated a variety of accessible landforms,over approximately 3,550 acres in the park.Fourteen previously unrecorded archeologicalsites were documented, bringing the total to 22recorded sites: 20 prehistoric sites (four withhistorical components), two historic sites, and18 isolated finds. From 1995 to 1999, smallerscale research and compliance surveysincreased the total to 54 archeological sites and31 isolated finds.

For the most part, the park’s prehistoric sitesand isolated finds are low-density scatters oflithic material consisting of projectile points,tools, and flakes discarded from the manufac-ture of these objects. The artifactual remainsare associated with a range of activity areas,including hunting camps, butchering andprocessing sites, rock shelters, and lithic pro-curement or quarry sites. Rock shelters haveproven to be among the more complex andsignificant sites, as demonstrated by testexcavations of the Fryingpan and BerkeleyPark rock shelters and Sunrise Ridge. Evidencerecovered from these stratified sites supportsthe likelihood that they served as seasonalhunting camps on multiple occasions fromapproximately 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. It islikely that additional testing would providedata indicating earlier periods of occupation.

Archeological sites are important to con-temporary Native Americans. Such sites havehistoric and present-day values for tribestraditionally affiliated with the park.

Because less than 2% of the total land area inMount Rainier National Park has been sys-tematically surveyed, the number of document-ed archeological sites is expected to increase asa result of future investigations. Historicarcheological resources (currently underrepre-sented compared to documented prehistoricresources) are among the sites anticipated toadd to the park’s growing inventory. These

Cultural Resources

165

sites will be associated primarily with late 19thand early 20th century mining, lumbering,recreation, and park development activities.They will commonly consist of camps, trashdumps, collapsed structures, utility systems,and scattered debris.

ETHNO GRAPHIC RESO URCES

Ethnographic resources are defined as land-scapes, sites, structures, objects, or naturalresource features that have significance due toimportance attached to them by members of asociocultural group associated with the park(NPS 1997a). Although the park containsnumerous ethnographic resources, none havebeen evaluated for listing on the NationalRegister of Historic Places as traditional cul-tural properties. The national historic landmarkdistrict was established on the basis of theintegrity of the early park design — its roadcorridors and structures, not its archaeologicalor ethnographic sites.

For thousands of years, Mount Rainier hasbeen an important place and a symbolic land-mark for Pacific Northwest Indian cultures.Mount Rainier falls within lands ceded bythree treaties and contains ancestral huntinggrounds of the Nisqually, Muckleshoot,Cowlitz, Puyallup, Yakama, and perhaps othermodern tribes. Although no evidence ofpermanent habitation has been verified withinthe park boundary, it is clear from early parkrecords and studies that small groups historic-ally hunted deer, elk, mountain goats, mar-mots, and grouse up until 1916. Yakima Parkand Indian Henrys Hunting Ground were wellknown for this purpose. After 1916 the park’sestablishing act (1899) and the National ParkService Organic Act (1916) prohibited huntingin the park (Boxberger 1998).

In addition to hunting uses, archaeological andethnographic evidence suggest that historicpeople used high elevation subalpine andalpine landscapes on Mount Rainier to gather a

variety of economically important resourceslike huckleberries and wood products. Gather-ing beargrass and cedar splits for basketry andcollecting plants for medicinal, ceremonial,and religious uses continued until 1950(Boxberger 1998).

Trails and travel routes were established toaccess gathering sites and facilitate tradeacross the mountain. Although evidence of useis limited, meaningful historic use of theHuckleberry Creek Trail, the Sunrise area andthe Cowlitz Divide is likely. Traces of theseroutes are still distinguishable but requirefurther study. Through recent consultationswith the tribes, it has been established thatgathering still takes place; however, exactlocations and specific sites have not been welldocumented. Partial knowledge of historic andtraditional trails, including a sea-to-mountainroute up the Nisqually River, warrants furtherinvestigation to verify. The park staff is inactive consultation with the tribes to bettermanage traditional tribal uses in the park.

At least five contemporary descendant NativeAmerican tribes — Nisqually, Muckleshoot,Puyallup, Yakama, and Cowlitz — are stillassociated with traditional uses of MountRainier. These tribes evolved from a broaderregional ancestry that traded goods and inter-married, yet retained political and linguisticdistinctions. The Yakama Indians are a confed-erated nation occupying lands adjacent to theeastern side of the mountain. The Muckle-shoot, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Cowlitz inhab-it areas north, west, and south of the park alongrivers that drain to the Puget Sound or theColumbia River and support viable fisheries.

HISTO RIC RESO URCES

The park has approximately 158 historicresources (including buildings, structures, andobjects) on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. Many more sites, structures, andobjects are potentially eligible. In addition to


166

the comprehensive national historic landmarkdistrict (described below), which was desig-nated for the cultural landscape significance ofthe park’s early development period, thefollowing architecturally significant historicdistricts were established in 1991:

• Nisqually Entrance Historic District

• Longmire Historic District

• Paradise Historic District

• Camp Muir Historic District

• White River Entrance Historic District

• Sunrise Developed Area Historic District.

Each of these historic districts exhibits signifi-cant examples of NPS “rustic” architecture inthe style of the period of its development. Inaddition, several national historic landmarkbuildings in the park have been individuallydesignated: Longmire Community Building,Longmire Service Station, Longmire Adminis-tration Building, Paradise Inn, and the SunriseBlockhouses/Stockade Complex.

Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District

Most developed areas of Mount RainierNational Park are included in a comprehensivenational historic landmark district that wasdesignated in 1997 (see the National HistoricLandmark District map). The district wascreated in recognition of the nationalsignificance of Mount Rainier in the history ofAmerican park planning and design, and thedevelopment and implementation of thenational park idea in the early half of the 20thcentury. The period of significance for thedistrict is 1904 to 1957. The national historiclandmark district recognizes the importance ofMount Rainier National Park as an example ofnational park “master planning.” The historicmaster plan for Mount Rainier, finalized in1929, was the first and most complete nationalpark master plan to be developed by the

National Park Service. Master plans weresubsequently developed for almost everynational park and national monument in thelate 1920s and early 1930s.

The physical integrity of the developed areasand facilit ies of Mount Rainier also set it apartfrom other national parks. As a whole, no othercollection of park roads, bridges, developedareas, and trails is more completely preservedas an intact example of national park planningand design of the period. The boundaries of thenational historic landmark district form acontiguous corridor that overlies the park’sroad system. This historic corridor connectsand includes all major developed areas of thepark, as well as the Wonderland and NorthernLoop Trails and the two spur entrance roads inthe northwestern corner of the park. Most ofthe Longmire, Paradise, and Sunrise areas areincluded in the district, as are other roadsidefeatures, including entrance gates and stations,overlooks and parking areas, roads, bridges,and trails.

The national historic landmark district alsoincludes noncontiguous areas (in the wilder-ness) such as wilderness cabins, shelters, andfire lookouts. Of the 188 buildings, structures,and objects within the national historiclandmark district, 158 retain integrity and arecontributing elements to the district’s historicsignificance (see Mount Rainier NationalRegister registration forms, NPS 1997d).

The description of the Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District is divided into thefollowing six categories of contributingresources.

• Spatial organization — the compositionand sequence of outdoor spaces within thedistrict.

Cultural Resources

167

National Historic Landmark District

map


168

(blank back)

Cultural Resources

169

• Circulation — the means and patterns ofmovement through the district.

• Topography — the ways in which thelandscape planning responds to thetopographic features of the site and tomodifications of that topography.

• Vegetation — refers both to the response toexisting vegetation and to the managementof vegetation through the pruning,removal, or addition of trees and shrubs.

• Structures — all contributing structures inthe district, such as roads, trails, andretaining walls.

• Buildings — structures intended to sheltera human activity.

These contributing resources may be referredto collectively as the historic culturallandscape of the district. All of these resourcesare considered together as a single culturallandscape that incorporates the majority of thepark’s nonwilderness areas, as well as certainwilderness areas. The designation as a nationalhistoric landmark district recognizes thatMount Rainier National Park does not simplycontain certain individual historic resources(such as historic buildings), but is itself ahistorical park. The historic roads, trails,buildings, and designed landscapes of MountRainier together comprise a cultural landscapeof national significance in American history.

Roadside Character. The park roads thatcontribute to the national historic landmarkdistrict are Nisqually to Paradise road, ParadiseValley Road, Westside Road, Stevens CanyonRoad, Eastside Highway (State Route 123),Mather Memorial Parkway (State Route 410),White River to Sunrise Road (Yakima ParkHighway), Mowich Lake Road, and CarbonRiver Road. The park roads were designed tominimize the visual and environmental impactsof construction. This led to a special concernfor the preservation of roadside vegetation andthe minimal disturbance of the road corridorduring excavation and grading operations.

Trees were often preserved right up to thepaved surface of the roadway. “Rustic”construction details, including several distincttypes of crenellated masonry guardwalls, werehandcrafted of native stone, often salvagedfrom adjacent roadway cuts. This practiceachieved a unique match between the color andtexture of the masonry and the appearance ofthe exposed stone faces of road cuts. Concretebridges typically were veneered in masonry tomatch the masonry construction of guardwallsand retaining walls. Where culverts could beused to handle drainage, the same native stonewas used to build masonry headwalls, conceal-ing outfall culverts of steel or concrete.

Scenic pullouts, or overlooks, are especiallysignificant aspects of the park road system.They often include curbs, guardwalls, andother typical roadside structures. They areusually located to take advantage of particularviews or natural features, and in some casesthey also provide convenient parking for trail-heads. They sometimes are defined by acontinuation of the road guardwall, and inother cases they are no more than widenedareas of the road. More elaborate roadsideareas, such as those at Christine Falls, NaradaFalls, and T ipsoo Lake, qualify as minor devel-oped areas in the park and may include shorttrail networks or some visitor facilit ies.

Necessary roadside structures, including parkgates, signs, and interpretive displays, likemasonry guardwalls and other roadside con-struction, were carefully designed elements ofthe roadside landscape. Park managers wereaware that the roadside often formed theforeground for visitors’ views of park scenery.For most visitors, even in the 1920s, the viewfrom the road was a principal means of experi-encing the park landscape. Roadside vegeta-tion was managed to ensure that importantviews would not be obscured. Park signs andstructures were carefully sited and designed toavoid competing with, obscuring, or degradingviews of scenery and natural features.


170

Historic Vehicular Circulation. The historicvehicular circulation pattern in Mount RainierNational Park is of great importance to thenational historic landmark district. To a largedegree, the means and pattern of vehiculartraffic through the park help to determine thesequence and content of a visitor’s experienceof the park.

The road system of Mount Rainier suggests amodification of a typical park loop drive sys-tem that was popular in early park planningschemes. At the turn of the century, Armyengineer Hiram M. Chittenden favored a“round-the-mountain” loop road as a basis forthe overall development plan of the park, butthis essentially 19th century approach tonational park development never fullymaterialized at Mount Rainier.

In the late 1920s, NPS officials establishedimportant precedents at Mount Rainier forlimiting the total amount of highway con-struction deemed appropriate for nationalparks. The park’s abbreviated vehicularcirculation diagram, approved by HoraceAlbright in 1929, was an important step backfrom the round-the-mountain scheme. The newdiagram, which continues to define the visitorexperience today, describes a great loop fromthe Seattle/Tacoma area through the park andback. Visitors could travel the Mountain High-way to the park and go on to Longmire andParadise on the Nisqually to Paradise Road.From Paradise, the Stevens Canyon Highwaywould make it possible to reach the southeastcorner of the park and from there return homevia the Eastside Highway (State Route 123)and the Mather Memorial Parkway (StateRoute 410), completing a great loop. Ratherthan going round-the-mountain, only thesouthern and eastern sides of the mountainwere traversed by the main travel corridors ofthe planned road system.

Other roads, including Westside Road andYakima Park Highway, would remain cul-de-sacs and therefore side trips. The northern

slopes of the mountain would never beaccessible by road. This important change inthe overall park plan reflected an evolvingsense of how much road development wouldbe considered appropriate for national parks inthe future.

Henry M. “Scoop” JacksonMemorial Visitor Center

The Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson MemorialVisitor Center at Paradise, completed in 1966,was named for Washington Senator Henry M.“Scoop” Jackson, who was instrumental insecuring congressional funding for its con-struction. The building was built as part of theNational Park Service’s design and construc-tion initiative known as “Mission 66,” a 10-year nationwide program begun in 1956, toalleviate the pressures on park facilit ies andinfrastructure resulting from the dramaticupsurge in visitation after World War II.Mission 66 designers incorporated the use ofmodern building materials and design elementsin building construction (concrete and prefabri-cated components, large plate-glass windo ws,and open interior spaces) as well as function-ally integrating facility designs to efficientlyaddress the circulation needs of the motoringpublic.

The Honolulu-based architectural firm ofWimberly, Whisenand, Allison and Tongcollaborated with the Tacoma, Washington,firm of McGuire and Muri to design the visitorcenter. Distinctive design features included itsround configuration and conical roof, intendedto relate the building to its mountain setting(NPS 1996f). Because of its unique design, the“Scoop” Jackson Visitor Center received a fairamount of attention in its early days, havingbeen publicized in various design and othermagazines of the time. It is also believed tohave been the most costly visitor center con-structed as part of the Mission 66 program(Carr 2000). Considerable controversy wasstirred among historic preservationists andothers when an adjacent historic building, the

Cultural Resources

171

Paradise Lodge, was burned to clear an areafor the visitor center parking lot.

The visitor center is not included within theboundaries of the Mount Rainier National Park

National Historic Landmark District and is nota contributing element to its historicalsignificance.

172

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

VISITATIO N

Mount Rainier National Park is one of themost popular visitor attractions in the PacificNorthwest. In 2000, there were 1,970,406visits. As shown in table 12, the number ofvisitors to the park has varied litt le over thelast 11 years. The highest visitation in the pastdecade was 1992, with 2,358,296 visitors.

Attendance is highly dependent on regionalweather conditions. Visitors are drawn to thepark from the surrounding region when theweather is clear and the mountain is visible,particularly on weekends. Visitation figuresmay also be affected by other external factors,such as road construction or flood damage onmajor access routes, or may vary due tochanges in methods of counting visitors.

Although table 12 shows about a 20% drop invisitation from 1994 to 1999, a long-term (30+years) trend analysis shows park use levelsincreasing over time. Despite the variations invisitation figures from year to year, the under-lying trend has been one of a minor increase.Most of the sharp decreases in use levels in thetable from year to year have been primarilydue to weather conditions. For example, recordrains in western Washington in 1995–1996closed the Carbon River area to vehicles,delayed the opening of the Mowich Lake area,and closed State Route 123 for portions of theseason. Similarly, a huge snowpack in 1998–1999 resulted in delays in opening roads andtrails, which lowered visitation levels.

TABLE 12: MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK VISITATION, 1989 THROUGH 1999

Year Total VisitsNumber of Visits in

July and AugustJuly–August Visits as

Percentage of Annual Visits

1989 2,012,900 844,989 42%

1990 1,936,215 860,716 44%

1991 2,235,591 1,049,379 47%

1992 2,358,296 927,227 39%

1993 2,192,062 994,928 45%

1994 2,206,083 1,065,567 48%

1995 2,181,396 870,509 40%

1996 1,868,525 1,007,347 54%

1997 1,820,481 955,207 52%

1998 1,901,301 861,280 45%

1999 1,764,091 781,427 44%

Visitor Experience

173

Visitation begins to increase in spring, peaks inJuly and August, and decreases substantiallybeginning in October. Visitation during thepeak season (June through October) has regu-larly approached and sometimes exceeded 1million visitors. Typically, visitors during thepeak months (July and August) represent atleast 40% and, sometimes, over half of thetotal annual visits.

Table 13 illustrates the monthly visitationaveraged for 1998 and 1999. During August1998 and 1999, an average of 14,151 visitswere recorded each day. In contrast, during

TABLE 13: AVERAGE MONTHLY VISITATION1998 and 1999

Month Number of Visitors

January 27,883February 23,819March 27,531April 37,824May 96,125June 198,975July 382,664August 438,689September 303,959October 196,735November 69,308December 29,180

February 1998 and 1999, use averaged only850 visits per day. To some degree, the figuresfor the last several years at Carbon River arereduced due to continued flooding-related roadclosures. During winter, State Route 410,much of State Route 123, the road to MowichLake, and the Stevens Canyon Road areclosed. Along with more limited recreationalopportunities during winter, this account forthe lower visitation compared to summer.Visitor use, however, remains high in thewinter in proportion to the available winterrecreation facilit ies.

Day use is the predominant form of visitationat Mount Rainier. According to 1993 annualvisitation statistics, 38% of all overnightvisitors stay in campgrounds, 30% in con-cessioner lodging facilit ies, 29% in the wilder-ness, and 3% in miscellaneous public facilit ies.Based on visitor surveys, average overnightstays were 2.1 nights at wilderness campsites,2.5 nights at drive-in campgrounds, and 1.6nights at an inn or lodge. Visitor surveys showapproximately the same amount of overnightuse in nonwilderness campgrounds andwilderness campsites.

VISITO R PRO FILE

Visitors come to Mount Rainier from all partsof the nation. According to a 1990 surveyconducted in the park (Johnson et al. 1991),approximately 59% of park visitors wereresidents of the state of Washington. Of theseresidents, approximately 44% were from thesurrounding counties of King, Lewis, Pierce,and Yakima. Other visitors were from Cali-fornia (5%), Oregon (3%), foreign countries(3%), and other U.S. areas (30%). Approxi-mately two-thirds of all visitors indicated thatthe park was their primary destination. Morethan half of all visitors said they did not have aplanned primary destination within the park,but 71% stopped at Paradise during their visit.

Even though the park is near the large metro-politan areas of Tacoma/Seattle (1.5 hours),Yakima/Tri-Cities (2 hours) and Port-land/Vancouver (2.5 hours), the visitorpopulation does not reflect the ethnic diversityof these areas. Visitors to the park areapproximately 95% Caucasian, 3% Asian /Pacific Islanders, 1% African-American, and1% Native American / Alaskan, as documentedby a 1990 visitor use survey (Vande Kamp andJohnson 1990).

Most visitors tend to be educated, are em-ployed in professional positions, and theiraverage age is 43. A high proportion of visitors


174

are retirees over the age of 60. The majority ofvisitors (64%) come with family members andmany (30%) are accompanied by childrenunder the age of 16 (Johnson et al. 1991).

VISITO R ACCESS

Access to the Park

Each roadway leading into Mount RainierNational Park is a paved two-lane road, withthe exception of the Mowich Lake road, whichis a two-lane gravel road. Park roads are char-acterized by moderate speeds along rolling,steep, mountainous terrain. Reasonablystraight segments, moderate grades, and somewinding curves and narrower segments can befound along the entrance routes as visitorsapproach the park. Even though the routesprovide adequate capacity for traffic approach-ing the park, congestion occurs at park en-trance gates during high use days, when peoplestop to pay fees or ask for information.

Access to the south part of the park is availablevia State Route 123, which enters the park nearthe southeast corner and gives access to Ohan-apecosh and the Stevens Canyon entrance.State Route 123 connects to U.S. Highway 12,5 miles outside of the park’s southern bounda-ry. U.S. Highway 12 offers access to Yakimato the east and additional access to MountRainier from population centers to thesouthwest. Travel between Mount Rainier andthe eastern portion of Mount St. HelensNational Volcanic Monument is accommo-dated by the connection to U.S. Highway 12.

The main access to the south area of the parkfrom the west is via State Route 706. It travelsthrough the gateway community of Ashford,approximately 7 miles outside the Nisquallyentrance. State Route 706 connects to StateRoute 7, a principal north-south highway in thePuget Sound region, about 14 miles west of thepark at Elbe.

Forest Service Road 52, which parallels thesouthern boundary of the park and intersectsState Route 706 approximately 3 miles west ofthe Nisqually entrance, provides a connectionbetween the gateway communities of Pack-wood and Ashford during summer. The road,which has recently been upgraded with newbridges and pavement, is an alternative travelroute between the east and west sides of thepark. The improved roadway along this routemay reduce some through travel on park roadsbetween the Stevens Canyon and Nisquallyentrances.

Washington State Route 165 through the gate-way communities of Buckley, Wilkeson, andCarbonado leads to Mowich Lake in the north-west portion of the park. A branch from StateRoute 165 south of Carbonado gives access tothe Carbon River entrance. No connections areavailable between these roads in the park, andthere are no connections with other internalpark roadways to get to the south or northeastareas of the park.

Access to the northeast area of the park is viaState Route 410 (Mather Memorial Parkway),which passes through Enumclaw and later,Greenwater, approximately 14 miles from thenorth park boundary. Travelers can reach StateRoute 410 via Interstate Highway 5 or I-405 toState Route 169 (from Seattle), or by StateRoute 167/164 (from Auburn) or State Route167 (from Tacoma).

Travelers coming from the east can reachMount Rainier on State Route 410. From theeast park boundary at Chinook Pass, StateRoute 410 extends approximately 51 miles to aconnection with U.S. 12, which leads toYakima, approximately 70 miles from thepark.

Access within the Park

The park has five primary entrance locations.The Nisqually and Stevens Canyon entrances

Visitor Experience

175

serve the southern part of the park, the WhiteRiver entrance provides access to the northeastpart, and the Carbon River and Mowich Lakeentrances enter the northwest area. The high-ways leading into Mount Rainier National Parkconnect to the internal park road system atthese entrances.

Within the park the following primary facili-ties are all paved roadways and are the mainroutes used by most visitors:

• Nisqually to Paradise Road — west parkboundary (Nisqually entrance) to StevensCanyon Road (16 miles) and to Paradise(18 miles)

• Stevens Canyon Road — Nisqually toParadise Road to the Stevens Canyonentrance at State Route 123 (19 miles)

• State Route 123 — South park boundary(near Ohanapecosh) to State Route 410 (14miles)

• State Route 410 (Mather MemorialParkway) — east park boundary (ChinookPass) to north park boundary (12 miles)

Through a cooperative agreement between theNational Park Service and the WashingtonState Department of Transportation, the statemaintains State Route 410 and State Route 123within the park boundary. As part of the legis-lation that predated this agreement, state routenumbers are used on the east side of the park.The park maintains all other roads, includingthe Nisqually to Paradise road, Paradise ValleyRoad, Stevens Canyon Road, White RiverRoad, Sunrise Road, Carbon River Road, andMowich Lake Road. Additional transportationfacilit ies maintained by the park include aseries of spur roads, loop roads, access drives,administrative and utility access roads, andparking areas.

The parkwide road system does more thanfacilitate travel to specific locations. The

roadways in Mount Rainier provide scenicvistas for travelers and enhance visitor’senjoyment of the park. Turnouts and view-points are located along the roadway systemfor sightseeing. The road system providesvisitor access to developed areas and tonumerous trailheads, where visitors mayundertake short or extended walks into thepark’s extensive wilderness.

Access in the South Area. The Nisqually toParadise Road (State Route 706 outside parkboundary) begins at the park boundary, passesthrough Longmire, and connects to ParadiseValley Road and Stevens Canyon Road. TheNisqually to Paradise Road is open year-round(except for temporary closures due to heavysnowfall or other extreme winter weatherconditions). Paradise Valley Road is a singlelane, one-way (southbound) paved road that ispart of a loop route from the Nisqually toParadise Road, through Paradise to StevensCanyon Road. Paradise Valley Road is openonly in summer. Stevens Canyon Road leadsfrom the Nisqually to Paradise Road throughStevens Canyon to an intersection with StateRoute 123 just east of the Stevens Canyonentrance station. It provides access to NaradaFalls, Paradise, Reflection Lake, Box Canyon,and the Grove of the Patriarchs, as well as avariety of trailheads. This roadway is main-tained for summer use only and may be used asa through route with other major park roads —the Nisqually to Paradise Road, State Route123 and State Route 410.

State Route 123 extends into the park from thesouth, serving the Ohanapecosh activity area.It intersects with Stevens Canyon Road justinside the south boundary and extends north toan intersection with State Route 410 (MatherMemorial Parkway) at Cayuse Pass. It is opennorth of Ohanapecosh only in summer, when itcan be used as a through north-south route incombination with State Route 410.

Westside Road is an unpaved, two-lane roadthat intersects the Nisqually to Paradise Road


176

approximately 1 mile inside the west parkboundary and extends approximately 13 milesnorth along the west boundary to KlapatcheRidge. Due to recurring glacial outburst flooddamage, the road has been closed for manyyears at Dry Creek, approximately 3 milesfrom the intersection with the Nisqually toParadise Road.

Access in the Northeast Area. State Route410 is the principal route to the park from thenorth and the only access to the park from theeast. It extends from the east park boundary atthe summit of Chinook Pass west to CayusePass and then north to the north park boundary.From State Route 410, access to the WhiteRiver area is available by White River Road,which intersects State Route 410 about 5 milessouth of the north park boundary. The Sunriseroad, extending north and west from WhiteRiver Road, provides access to the Sunrisearea. All roads in the northeast part of the parkare closed in winter.

Access in the Northwest Area. The windingroad leading to Mowich Lake from the parkboundary (it is State Route 165 outside thepark) is unpaved and passes through forestedterrain. Roadway grading is required after thesnow melts each season to prepare the road foropening. Dusty conditions are typical alongmuch of the roadway throughout the summer.The road is not plowed in winter.

Carbon River Road, which extends from theCarbon River entrance at the northwest cornerof the park to the Ipsut Creek campground, hasa slight uphill grade and is paved for less than0.5 mile within the park. A limited number ofpullouts are available for passing vehicles.Portions of the road lie within the floodplain ofthe Carbon River. Floods have damaged theroad in the past, and intensive maintenance isrequired to keep the road open. The road is notplowed, although it is open to vehicles inwinter (except for temporary closures duringextreme weather conditions).

The Carbon River and Mowich Lake roads donot connect to other park roads or to otheractivity areas in the park.

Travel Distribution Patterns

Of the five entry points to the park, theNisqually entrance provides the most con-venient access to Paradise from much of thePuget Sound urban area and consequentlyreceives the highest number of visitors. Openyear-round, the Nisqually entrance serves alarge majority of winter park visitors. StateRoute 123 also provides year-round access tothe Ohanapecosh area and, in summer, to theStevens Canyon entrance . However, annually,fewer visitors use the Stevens Canyon entrancethan the Nisqually entrance. The White Riverentrance is open only from spring to fall,mainly serving visitors on their way to Sunrise.The Carbon River and Mowich Lake Roadsserve fewer visitors than the three mainentrances described above.

Traffic counter data are collected at theNisqually, Stevens Canyon, White River, andCarbon River/Mowich Lake entrances, as wellas at Paradise. A comparison of peak seasontraffic counts at the four main park entranceson weekends is shown below:

Nisqually--------------------46%Stevens Canyon ------------20%White River ----------------23%Carbon River/Mowich -----11%

Traffic samples and visitor surveys indicatethat many park visitors use more than one parkroad during their stay and may enter and exitthe park at different locations. During a visitorsurvey (BRW, Inc. 1995), 43% of the sampledvehicles entering at Nisqually exited the parkat Stevens Canyon, while only 35% of thevehicles that entered at Stevens Canyon madea through-trip out the Nisqually entrance.Overall, about 60% of all vehicles exited the

Visitor Experience

177

southern part of the park at the same locationthat they entered.

In a 1993 study, the highest weekend dailytraffic volumes (5,155) were found nearParadise (BRW, Inc. 1995); however, thesevolumes may have included vehicles that weredouble counted while circulating around theParadise area when the parking lots were full.The next highest weekend daily volumes wereat the Nisqually entrance. The weekend dailytwo-way average was nearly 5,000 vehicles,which is approximately double the weekdayaverage. August weekend daily traffic volumeson the other major park roads ranged from ahigh of 4,900 along State Route 410 north ofWhite River Road to a low of 635 on MowichLake Road.

Transportation Services

Limited transportation alternatives to privatevehicles are available for access to MountRainier. An employee shuttle runs betweenEatonville and Tahoma Woods or Longmire,occasionally with two schedules. RainierMountaineering, Inc., also provides shuttleservice to Paradise for climbers.

Gray Line of Seattle offers commercial tourbus service between Mount Rainier and theSeattle/Tacoma urban areas. Most patrons ofGray Line take a round-trip tour of the parkand the surrounding area, remaining with thetour bus. Limited use of the service is made forone-way trips. Two to three round trips aremade per day during the peak season, and anovernight excursion is available featuring astay at the Paradise Inn. All trips travel throughSunrise, Cayuse Pass, Box Canyon, StevensCanyon, and Paradise. During the peak season,travel by tour bus accounts for approximately2%−3% of all vehicle trips into Mount Rainier.

Parking

Parking facilit ies serve developed areas,trailheads, and viewpoints. Visitor demand for

parking is greatest on sunny weekends duringthe summer, when parking at all of the majorvisitor areas throughout the park is congestedfor at least part of the time. During these timeseach major activity area experiences parkingcapacity and vehicular circulation conflicts.Some parking areas at trailheads are filled tocapacity on busy days.

Longmire. Typically, the Longmire parkingarea is congested between noon and 6 p.m. onsunny summer weekends. Visitor vehicle park-ing tends to spill over into designated bus andRV spaces, and unauthorized visitor parkingoccurs along travel lanes and in administrativeparking areas. A parking survey conducted ona peak summer weekend day in 1993 found theLongmire parking lot to be over capacity forabout five hours (BRW, Inc. 1995).

Paradise . The Paradise area receives thegreatest visitor use of any area in the park. Thetrails beginning at Paradise are the mostheavily traveled at Mount Rainier, and mostsummit climbs begin at trailheads in the area.The area also is a popular site for viewingwildflowers and scenic vistas. Some of the bestand most easily attained views of MountRainier are from Paradise. Because of its popu-larity, and because of the limited size of theparking area, Paradise experiences parkingshortages during busy days in the summer.

The main visitor parking lot is within the his-toric district area that includes the Paradise Innand its associated buildings, the Guide House,the ranger station, the Plaza Comfort Station,and other related buildings. The parking lot isat the base of the famous subalpine meadowsand is nestled into the hillside, which givesvisitors a unique feeling of being almost partof the mountain. A smaller parking lot islocated near the Henry M. Jackson VisitorCenter. The parking capacity at Paradise isapproximately 756 spaces, but based on a 1993survey, parking use reached 1,270 vehicles andexceeded capacity for a period of six hours on


178

one of two peak weekend days measured(BRW, Inc. 1995).

A shortage of bus and RV spaces results ininefficient use of available parking spaces. Inaddition,, employees and visitors must use thesame parking spaces. Spaces at the ParadisePicnic Area, 0.5 mile away, are extensivelyused as overflow parking on busy days, andoverflow parking occurs along the accessroads, causing congestion and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Visitors park as far as 1 miledown Paradise Valley Road from the Paradisearea, resulting in inconvenience to visitors andcreating an auto-dominated experience forsome.

Ohanapecosh. Only 12 parking spaces areavailable adjacent to the Ohanapecosh visitorcenter. Visitors often have to park in lessconvenient spaces a short distance away at theranger station. An additional day-use parkinglot with 11 spaces is often full.

Sunrise. Visitor use at Sunrise requires the useof overflow gravel areas for parking on busysummer weekend days. Park staff must directtraffic and guide visitors to available parkingspaces. A lack of defined pedestrian pathswithin the parking areas creates pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. There are about 260 desig-nated parking spaces at Sunrise and 340overflow spaces in the gravel area. Over-crowding on peak season weekends is commonthroughout the day. During the 1993 surveythe overflow parking, measured on a peakweekend day, was in use from noon until after6 p.m. (BRW, Inc. 1995).

Mowich Lake. Visitation on busy summerweekends creates parking demand well beyondthe 50 spaces available at the gravel parkingarea that serves the Spray Park trailhead andMowich Lake campground. Overflow parkingoccurs along the roadway up to 0.5 mile fromthe lake. Dust and congestion frequently occuras vehicles circulate along the dead-end roadwhen the parking area is full. The long walk

from the overflow parking areas to the lakecreates inconvenience for visitors.

Ipsut Creek Campground and Trailhead.Carbon River Road provides access to theIpsut Creek trailhead and campground area.The 80-space parking area serving the camp-ground and trailhead is typically full on busysummer weekends. Visitors park along thenarrow roadway, creating conflicts with trafficflow and threatening sensitive roadsideresources.

Most winter visitor use takes place at theParadise area, reached via the Nisqually toParadise Road. Traffic congestion andoverflow parking occurs on weekends at thesnow gate at Longmire. Vehicles waiting forplowing operations to clear the roadway maycreate overcrowding in the Longmire parkingarea, and traffic may back up along the roadthrough the Longmire area. At the Paradisearea, haphazard visitor parking can become aproblem in the existing lots. Snow playactivities near the roadway and parking areaalso create pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

PRINCIPAL VISITO R OPPO RTUNITIES

The setting of Mount Rainier is one of themost scenic and historically significant areas inthe West. At lower elevations, the mountain isclothed in old-growth forests of Douglas-fir,western red cedar, and hemlock. The glaciersthat crown the mountain make up the largestsuch system in the lower 48 states, and thepeak itself is both the tallest volcano and thefifth highest peak in the continental UnitedStates.

Just above timberline, Mount Rainier’s sub-alpine meadows are famous for seasonaldisplays of flora that are appreciated by manypark visitors. The spatial organization of thepark is based on a sequence of major andminor developed areas interspersed along thepark’s main road system. Most visitor services,

Visitor Experience

179

accommodations, and administrative areas areconcentrated within these developed activityareas. The vast majority of the park (97%) isdesignated wilderness, and aside from historicwilderness structures, it remains free from theencroachment of facilit ies.

Primary Visitor Destinations

The areas with the highest summer day-usevisitation levels are Paradise, Sunrise, Long-mire, Ohanapecosh, Carbon River, andMowich Lake. Overnight stays are concen-trated at the historic inns at Longmire andParadise; at nonwilderness campgrounds (atSunshine Point, Cougar Rock, Ohanapecosh,White River, Ipsut Creek and Mowich Lake);and at trailside camps in the wilderness.

During peak-use periods between July andSeptember, visitors may experience crowdedfacilit ies, congested parking lots, and denselypopulated activity and recreational areas atthese popular destinations, especially on sunnyweekends and holidays. A survey of visitors atthe park’s major visitor facilit ies found thatwait t imes at major facilit ies were not signifi-cant to visitors’ enjoyment of the overallexperience. Wait t imes at the Jackson visitorcenter’s lobby, restaurant, gift shop, and book-store also did not significantly affect visitors’overall satisfaction with the trip (Vande Kampand Johnson 1998).

A social indicators survey conducted in 1996found that visitor enjoyment at various destina-tions in the park was impacted by two majorfactors, traffic congestion and parking availa-bility (Vande Kamp 1996). These factors had asignificant effect on the overall visitor experi-ence. The same survey also found several otherfactors to be significant in determining thequality of the visitor experience as it related todestinations in the park. In order of impor-tance, these factors were as follows:

• the availability of park information

• the availability of self-guiding trails

• the number of vehicles visible in parkinglots

• the number of vehicles visible on roads

Longmire. Longmire, a nonwilderness visitoractivity area, is often the first major developedarea that Nisqually entrance visitors encounter.The Longmire administration building, theNational Park Inn, the former Longmireservice station, and the historic LongmireMuseum define the area. These structuresidentify the Longmire area as a focal point forthe public. In addition to these structures,Longmire offers a historic walking tour, ahistoric interpretive trail, and the Trail of theShadows, which takes visitors to mineralsprings located in the nearby meadows andforest. The Eagle Peak and Wonderland trailsare also accessed from Longmire.

Longmire provides year-round services andfacilit ies, and because of its historic anddeveloped nature, it tends to offer visitors asocially active experience. Many visitors makerelatively short stops here to obtain informa-tion and to take care of personal needs. Theaverage visitor stay is less than 1.4 hours; morethan half of the visitors spend only 30 minutesor less (BRW, Inc. 1995).

In winter the Longmire area is used for shortvisits en route to Paradise. It also serves as awaiting area for visitors who arrive before theroad is opened at the Longmire snow gate. Onmornings following heavy snows (typicallyfrom 4 to 36 inches), the opening of the roadcan be delayed by plowing operations alongthe roadway at the Paradise parking area andby avalanche conditions. The road may beopened any time between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m.,and occasionally it is not opened at all. Onsnowy winter days, visitors endure long waitswith few opportunities, and Longmire canbecome overcrowded.


180

Paradise . Paradise is a nonwilderness areacharacterized by subalpine terrain and anetwork of hiking trails that attract high levelsof visitation. The main road to Paradise takesthe visitor to the Henry M. Jackson VisitorCenter, which features interpretive exhibitsalong with films and slide programs onanimals, glaciers, geology, wildflowers, andnatural features of the park, as well as foodservices. The Paradise guide house and rangerstation serve as the starting point for climberson the south summit routes, includingindependent climbers and those using guideservices.

The trail network of the Skyline Trail(including the Golden Gate, Alta Vista andGlacier Vista Trails) and the Nisqually Vistaself-guiding interpretive trail offer treksthrough old-growth forests and views ofglaciers and subalpine and alpine habitats.Visitors to Paradise experience a high degreeof social interaction while seeking informationon the trails, going to visitor centers, picnick-ing, and camping. During peak summer week-ends, the visitor experience on the wildernesstrails near Paradise is influenced by the largenumber of people using the area. Observationsin 1993 (BRW, Inc. 1995) showed that visitorsspend an average of two to three and a halfhours visiting Paradise in the summer. Basedon the park Visitor Distribution Survey (VandeKamp et al. 1997) the peak hourly number ofvisitors on the Deadhorse Creek Trail and theSkyline Trail were 256 and 198 people,respectively.

Paradise is the primary winter destination forvisitors to Mount Rainier. The Nisqually toParadise Road is plowed to provide access toParadise, where day visitors can participate insnow play activities (supervised on weekends)and skiing when the snow is deep enough.Winter campers also use the Paradise area as astarting point for trips into the wilderness. TheJackson Visitor Center is open in the winter on

weekends and holidays, but the Paradise Inn,guide house and ranger station are closed.

Ohanapecosh. At 1,900 feet, Ohanapecosh isthe lowest elevation developed visitor activityarea in the park. Public facilit ies include acampground, a ranger station, and a visitorcenter. The dominant natural features of thearea are the clear waters of the OhanapecoshRiver and the associated old-growth forest.Short trails take the visitor to Silver Falls, apowerful 75-foot cascade; the OhanapecoshHot Springs (a former health spa); and theGrove of the Patriarchs, located on an island inthe middle of the Ohanapecosh River where1,000 year-old Douglas-fir and western redcedar trees thrive.

The campground and visitor center, usuallyopen from May through October, draw manyvisitors. Evening campfire programs andnaturalist-led walks are among the activitiesoffered in summer. Winter use is limited, withopportunities for snow camping, skiing, andsnowshoeing.

Sunrise. The Sunrise area contains a visitorcenter, a gift shop/restaurant, and a picnic area.The typical visitor experience at Sunrise is asocial experience in a natural setting. Thesubalpine environment is characterized bylarge meadows with scattered groups ofsubalpine fir and whitebark pine. Park supportservices, information and interpretive facilit ies,and a high degree of social interaction enhancethe visitor experience.

The Sunrise area offers views of the MountRainier summit and an extensive network ofhiking trails. The long mountain road to Sun-rise ends in the parking lot, which dominatesforeground views of the area. Overflow park-ing in the gravel area surrounding the parkinglot increases the influence of vehicles on thecharacter of the experience at Sunrise. Theaverage visitor stays about two and a halfhours (BRW, Inc. 1995). The area is usually

Visitor Experience

181

closed from mid-October until the Fourth ofJuly weekend.

White River. The White River area includes acampground, a picnic area, a ranger station,day-use parking for climbers and hikers, andthe historic White River Patrol Cabin (now aWonderland Trail museum). White Riverserves as the principal staging area forclimbers going up the popular EmmonsClimbing Route. Climbers and other wilder-ness users obtain permits at the White RiverRanger Station 4 miles east of the camp-ground. Parking in the area is at a premium onpeak summer days when campers, day-usersand climbers all compete for limited parking.

Mowich Lake. Mowich Lake, the park’slargest and deepest lake, is a destination forweekend campers and hikers. Located in thenorthwest corner of the park, this activity areais isolated from most other activity areas.Because of its remote location, visitation islower than in the other parts of the park. Thelake is within designated wilderness and issurrounded by old-growth forest and scatteredsubalpine meadows. From Mowich Lake,visitors have access to the Wonderland Trailand Spray Park.

The Mowich Lake area has fewer visitor ser-vices than other major activity areas. There isno visitor center or restaurant, and minimalinformational and interpretive services areavailable. Visitors have access to trails thatoffer a quieter and more natural park experi-ence. The intensity of public use, althoughhigher at the lake’s camping and picnickingareas, decreases as visitors explore the sur-rounding trail network. However, informationin the Visitor Distribution Survey (VandeKamp et al. 1997) from Spray Park document-ed a peak hourly visitor use as high as 302visitors.

The road to Mowich Lake is dusty and oftenwash-boarded. There is no longer an entrancestation, and contact with park personnel is

minimal. At the lake the original road-end loophas been converted to a walk-in campgroundthat is exposed and adjacent to the busytrailhead area. Congestion and dust affect thevisitor experience at the end of the road, wherevehicles turn around. Some visitors park alongthe roadside, up to 1 mile from the lake.Because many visitors to Mowich Lake takeadvantage of the trails leading from the area,the average visitor stay is over four hours(BRW, Inc. 1995). The Mowich Lake road isusually closed to vehicular access fromNovember to July (or until the snow melts).

Carbon River. Like the Mowich Lake area,the Carbon River area is isolated from otherpark areas because of its dead-end access road.The Carbon River area is the only location inthe park with a remnant inland rainforest.Well-developed old growth forest surroundsthe Carbon River activity area, which includesan entrance station, Carbon River Road, theIpsut Creek campground, and the Ipsut Creektrailhead at the east end of the road.

Visitor use in the Carbon River area includeshiking into the wilderness from the Ipsut Creektrailhead, camping at the Ipsut Creek camp-ground, and viewing the old-growth forest andrainforest habitats along the road. As atMowich Lake, visitors spend a longer time atthe Ipsut Creek area (4.4 hours) than at someof the more heavily visited locations in thepark (BRW, Inc. 1995). Carbon River Road isopen to year-round use, but snow or floodingcan restrict vehicle access from time to time.

Primary Visitor Activities

According to a 1990 survey of park visitors(Johnson et al. 1991), the most frequentlyidentified visitor activities were driving toview scenery (80%); taking photographs(59%); visiting visitor centers or museums(58%); going for a day hike (51%); observingwildlife (47%); viewing wildflowers (46%);picnicking (30%); and souvenir shopping


182

(35%). Other activities are camping, climbing,bicycling, fishing, and pack use. In winter,activities such as cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, and snowboarding are popular, alongwith snow play (sledding, tobogganing, andtubing).

Sightseeing. For sightseeing in the park,visitors often drive along the Nisqually toParadise Road, the Paradise Valley Road, theStevens Canyon Road, State Routes 123 and410, or the White River and Sunrise roads tolook at the scenery, stop at overlooks, takeshort walks, read wayside exhibits, admiretrees, watch wildlife, spend time at visitorcenters, and tour historic buildings. Automo-bile touring is a traditional way to enjoy thepark for visitors who cannot or choose not toengage in nonmotorized activities such ashiking.

Hiking. Visitors hike throughout the park inboth the nonwilderness and wilderness areas.More than 260 miles of maintained trails,including the 93-mile Wonderland Trail, offera chance to trek though old-growth forests andview glaciers and subalpine and alpine habi-tats. The nonwilderness meadows aroundParadise, Sunrise, and T ipsoo Lake offer manyopportunities for walks and short hikes. Self-guiding trails are available at Twin Firs (theNisqually to Paradise road), Trail of theShadows (Longmire), Longmire HistoricWalking Tour, Nisqually Vista Loop (Para-dise), Grove of the Patriarchs (Ohanapecosh),Ohanapecosh Hot Springs, Carbon RiverRainforest Loop, Emmons Vista Overlook(Sunrise), Sunrise (Sourdough Ridge) NatureTrail, and Box Canyon Loop.

The most popular subalpine meadow hikes areat Paradise, Sunrise, T ipsoo Lake, and SprayPark. The popularity of these trails andlocations can lead to overcrowding on peakweekends. Overnight use of the wilderness isregulated by a permit system; however, dayuse of wilderness areas is not regulated.

O bserving Wildlife. Opportunities forobserving wildlife in the park vary with theseason and elevation. In summer, chipmunks,chickadees, ground squirrels, marmots, andpika are commonly seen, along with Steller’sjay, gray jays, Clark’s nutcrackers, and ravens.Deer are commonly seen, and black bears andmountain goats, although more elusive, mayalso be observed. Elk can also be seen on theeast side of the park in September.

Wildflower Viewing. Mount Rainier’ssubalpine meadows offer superb opportunitiesfor viewing and photographing wildflowers.Meadows at Paradise, Sunrise, and Spray Park,as well as roadsides, are some of the park’smost popular destinations for this activity.

Picnicking. Designated picnic areas arelocated at Sunshine Point, Cougar Rock,Narada Falls, Paradise, Ohanapecosh, WhiteRiver, T ipsoo Lake, Box Canyon, Sunrise,Paul Peak, Falls Creek, and Ipsut Creek.

Camping. Visitors camp in designated sites incampgrounds in the nonwilderness areas, atdesignated trailside campgrounds in wildernessareas, and in wilderness areas away from trails.There are more than 550 vehicle campgroundspaces at five nonwilderness locations withinthe park: Sunshine Point (open year-round),Ipsut Creek (open most of the year), CougarRock, Ohanapecosh, and White River.Campsites are available on a first-come, first-served basis during most of the year, althoughreserved sites are available in Cougar Rockand Ohanapecosh campgrounds during thepeak visitor use season.

Developed sites at Ohanapecosh, CougarRock, and White River offer parking spaces,piped drinking water, toilets, refuse cans, tentpads, tables, and benches. Less developed sitesat Sunshine Point and Ipsut Creek haveparking spaces, drinking water, vault or pittoilets, refuse cans, tent areas, a firepit , andtable and bench combinations. Group camp-grounds are available by reservation at Cougar

Visitor Experience

183

Rock and Ipsut Creek (and planned for WhiteRiver and Ohanapecosh). These facilit iesinclude multiple tent site areas with centralfirepits and parking. A designated walk-incamping area with an unspecified capacity islocated at Mowich Lake. During the peakvisitor season, many campgrounds fill tocapacity, especially on weekends and holidays.Campfires and campfire (evening) programsare a popular element of the camping andvisitor experience.

Wilderness camping is available at more than30 designated trailside camps along the park’sextensive network of trails. Camp Muir andCamp Schurman serve climbers to the summitof Mount Rainier. The capacity of thesecampsites ranges from 6 people to 110 atCamp Muir. Camping is also permittedthroughout the wilderness in the cross-countryand alpine zones.

Climbing. Every year more than 10,000people attempt to climb Mount Rainier’s sum-mit. All people attempting to climb beyonddesignated areas must have a climbing permit,which requires orientation to hazardousconditions and resource protection measures.A concessioner guide service offers trainingseminars, special hikes and programs, and athree-day climbing school and summit climb.Three primary and numerous secondary routesare available. Most summit climbs begin atParadise up the Muir corridor. The EmmonsGlacier route beginning at the White Rivertrailhead is the next most popular startingpoint. A climb to Mount Rainier’s summittypically involves an overnight stay on themountain. Many other areas in the park arepopular with visitors for day hikes and climbs.

Bicycling. Although bicycles are allowed onpark roads, there are no specifically designatedbicycle trails in the park. Park roads are oftensteep, narrow, and winding, with unpavedshoulders that make cycling a challenge. Nobicycling is allowed on pedestrian walkwaysor hiking trails.

Limited bicycling takes place on Carbon RiverRoad and Westside Road, and it has increasedslightly because of closures on these roads.The route from the Nisqually Entrance toParadise is a challenging 19-mile one-way ridewith an elevation gain of 3,400 feet. CarbonRiver Road offers an opportunity to ridethrough a temperate rainforest. Cyclistsoccasionally may ride from the LongmireCommunity Building through the OldLongmire campground and out to ForestService Road 52 (Skate Creek Road), whichoffers an opportunity for a return loop toAshford and then back to Longmire.

Fishing. Recreational fishing was formerlytracked in the park, but now it appears to beminimal and is not monitored. Some socialscience research (Kernan and Drogin 1994;Samora 1993) documented visitors’ primaryand secondary trip objectives. Where fishingwas listed as a visitor activity, it was onlyincidental to other activities such as hiking orviewing wildlife and wildflo wers. Informationabout anglers derived from the wilderness(overnight use) permit system suggests thatfishing is not a major wilderness activity formost visitors (Samora 1993).

Pack Stock Use . Pack stock such as horses,mules, burros, and llamas are used primarilyby wilderness visitors. Although the parkcurrently has more than 100 miles of stock usetrails, there is minimal pack stock activity,with fewer than six groups per year taking partin this activity, with fewer than 10 people pergroup. However, along the Pacific Crest Trail,which follows the eastern border of the park,pack stock use is more frequent.

A few campsites along the park trails aredesignated for stock use (Deer Creek, NorthPuyallup River, Three Lakes, and NorthMowich River). Stock use is permitted indesignated areas but prohibited in cross-country areas. The following trails or roads areopen to stock use: Wonderland Trail fromIpsut Creek to North Puyallup River; North


184

Puyallup River Trail; Westside Road; PaulPeak Trail to North Mowich Stock Camp;Wonderland Trail from Longmire to BoxCanyon; Rampart Ridge Loop Trail (includingWonderland Trail portion); Pacific Crest Trail;Naches Peak Trail to Pacific Crest Trail; East-side Trail to Silver Falls Loop; and the Laugh-ingwater Creek Trail to Pacific Crest Trail.Park regulations related to stock use requirestock to be tied or stabled only at providedhitching rails or corrals. Stock party sizes arelimited to a maximum of 12 on the PacificCrest Trail, and stock are prohibited in autocampgrounds, picnic areas, and wildernesscampsites unless at a designated stock camp.

Winter Activities. Popular winter activities inMount Rainier are snow play (sledding,tobogganing, tubing), snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snowboarding. Winter useis concentrated at Longmire, Paradise, andOhanapecosh. A groomed snow play area isavailable at Paradise, and snow play isprohibited elsewhere in the park. Snow-shoeing, snowboarding, and cross-countryskiing are allowed throughout the park.

WILDERNESS VALUESAND EXPERIENC ES

Wilderness has many natural, ecological,geological, cultural, scenic, scientific, andrecreational values. In 1988 Congress desig-nated some 97% of Mount Rainier NationalPark (228,480 acres) as wilderness. Some of itsnatural and scenic values include the mountainitself (an “arctic island in a temperate zone”),the glaciers that mantle the mountain and thelakes and rivers they feed, brilliant displays ofwildflowers in subalpine meadows, and denseancient rainforest. Other outstanding scenicvalues are found throughout the wilderness inareas like Comet Falls, the Tatoosh Range,Burroughs Mountain, Spray Park, and Sum-merland. Cultural values in the wildernessinclude the historic Wonderland and NorthernLoop trails, patrol cabins, trail shelters, fire

lookouts, and archeological and ethnographicresources.

Mount Rainier’s wilderness also has manyvaluable natural features for scientific study,including vegetation and wildlife, ecology,geology, volcanism, glaciers, snow andstreamflows, archeological resources, andethnographic resources. These resources affordexcellent opportunities to study ecosystemstructure, functions, processes, and com-ponents. The National Park Service, the U.S.Geological Service, the University of Wash-ington, and other academic and governmentalorganizations have conducted research in thewilderness area. For example, NisquallyGlacier has been studied longer than any otherglacier in the Western Hemisphere (Driedgerand Samora 1999).

The Mount Rainier Wilderness offers a rangeof primitive recreational experiences. Theprimary summer activities that visitors pursueare hiking, backpacking, and climbing. Relatedactivities are viewing wildlife and wildflowers,photography, and picnicking. Several wilder-ness trails are open to stock use, including thePacific Crest Trail, the Rampart Ridge loop,and the North Puyallup River trail. Popularwinter activities include cross-country skiing,snowshoeing, and snow camping.

Day hiking is the most common activity inwilderness. The 1995 survey of wilderness trailusers found only 8% of the respondents report-ed backpacking and camping overnight, and2% reported the use of mountain climbingequipment (Vande Kamp, Swanson, andJohnson 1999).

Wilderness values, primarily solitude andopportunities for primitive, unconfinedrecreation, are an important part of the visitorexperience. There are many outstandingopportunities for solitude.

Most wilderness use occurs from June throughSeptember. During other months (including the

Visitor Experience

185

winter) and summer weekdays (except duringAugust) few people, if any, are encountered inthe vast majority of the wilderness area.

The 23% of wilderness users who are cross-country hikers usually do not see other people,even in summer. On summer weekends andholidays, however, high numbers of peoplemay be encountered in areas close to roads andactivity centers, on popular trails like theWonderland Trail, at wilderness trailsidecamps, and along the Muir and Emmonsclimbing routes. This results in fewer oppor-tunities for solitude during that t ime. Whereday use has been documented, the mostheavily used day trails have been Spray Park,Carbon Glacier, Summerland, Comet Falls/Van Trump Park, and Snow Lake (Samora1993), as well as the Naches Loop Trail.

In a study conducted by the National ParkService (1992c), the following were the mostheavily used wilderness trails, as documentedby total trail encounters or average dailyencounters with day hikers, backpackers, andclimbers combined:

NumberWilderness Trail of UsersNaches Loop Trail 95Comet Falls 49Ipsut Creek to Carbon Glacier 49Snow/Bench Lake 40Pinnacle Peak 42Fryingpan Creek to Summerland 35Narada Falls 34Summerland to Indian Bar 33Glacier Basin 21Spray Park 28Carbon Glacier to Mystic Lake 27

However, on a weekend day, as many as 300day hikers have been documented along onepopular subalpine trail (Spray Park Trail). Inwinter the majority of wilderness users visitMazama Ridge, Reflection Lakes, Ice Caves(although the Ice Caves no longer exist due tothe receding Paradise Glacier), and Van TrumpPark.

The relatively high use level of some trails isaffecting the quality of some visitors’ wilder-ness experience. For example, a 1993 visitorsurvey in the Spray Park area found that 15%of the weekday visitors and 44% of the week-end visitors reported they felt crowded by thenumber of people at some time during theirvisit (Vande Kamp, Johnson, and Swanson1998). In a 1995 survey of wilderness trailusers, 37% of respondents reported seeingmore visitors than they preferred on weekdays,while 44% saw more visitors than they pre-ferred on weekends. About 41% of MountFremont respondents, 34% of Glacier Basinrespondents, 26% of Summerland respondents,and 24% of Comet Fall respondents said theyfelt moderately to extremely crowded (VandeKamp, Johnson, and Swanson 1999). A 1995survey of overnight backpackers found that34% of the respondents felt crowded by thenumber of people they encountered in the trailzones (Van de Kamp and Johnson in prep.).

Limits of acceptable change (LAC) rules andregulations are in place for overnight uses inthe Mount Rainier Wilderness. These rules andregulations help minimize resource impactsand ensure opportunities for high qualityexperiences, but they restrict the freedom ofpeople to go when and where they wish, whichsome may view as confining their experience.Some of these regulations are as follows:

• Permits are required for overnightcamping, groups, and climbing.

• Camping along trails is permitted only atestablished trailside camps.

• In cross-country areas, camping must be atleast 0.25 mile from any established trailand at least 100 feet from lakes, streams,and other wetlands.

• Use limits are required in cross-countyareas between June 1 and September 30,and whenever there is less than 2 feet ofsnow. For example, cross-country parties


186

cannot exceed five people, unless the partyis a single immediate family.

• In alpine areas, party size may not exceed12 people when camping on snow and iceand five people when camping on bareground.

• Camping is not allowed in the “fell fields”on either side of the Muir Snowfield,which leads to Camp Muir.

Other rules and restrictions apply to groupcamping, the use of pack stock, the use ofcertain items and activities (e.g., building fires,disposing of human waste, and bringing pets).No regulations govern day use in the wilder-ness area, although the park’s WildernessCommittee has recommended a maximum day-use group size of 12 people (with the exceptionof authorized educational groups).

The vast majority of wilderness appearsnatural. Structures located in the wilderness arefour public shelters; nine patrol cabins; fourfire lookouts; four radio repeaters; and 39wilderness trailside camps. One maintainedpowerline right-of-way extends from Long-mire to Paradise, and a telephone line toSunrise also is maintained. Other structuresinclude 260 miles of maintained trails andassociated structures (including bridges, footlogs, culverts, and rock walls), wildernesstoilets, and trail signs (NPS 1992c). Thesestructures are located infrequently throughoutthe wilderness.

Other signs of human activity and structuresare evident where the wilderness boundary isclose to the existing road system and to high

use areas (such as near the White Rivercampground and at Mowich Lake). Develop-ments in the Crystal Mountain Ski Area,outside the eastern boundary of the park, andclearcuts outside the park’s north and westernboundary can be seen from many vantagepoints in the wilderness.

There are signs of disturbance or alteration ofresources due to visitor impacts, particularly inhigher use areas. Signs of human waste may befound along the more popular climbing routes,and ground vegetation may have been removedby camping or trampling. Other signs ofhuman use include informal campsites, camp-fire scars, mutilated trees, litter, and rock wallsbuilt for windbreaks.

This diminishment of the naturalness of theseareas may be affecting visitors’ enjoyment ofthe wilderness experience. For example, a1993 visitor survey found that about half of therespondents (49%) reported the Spray Parkarea was suffering unacceptable damage, 91%heard human voices, 86% saw unmarked trails,and 85% saw trampled vegetation (VandeKamp, Johnson, and Swanson 1998). In a 1995survey of wilderness trail users, 28% of therespondents reported observing unacceptabledamage at Mount Fremont, while 22% report-ed this at Glacier Basin (Van de Kamp, John-son, and Swanson 1999). Damage associatedwith off-trail hiking and social trails was themost commonly reported impact (58% ofrespondents reported seeing unacceptablydamaged resources, but this group comprisedonly 11% of all respondents), followed bythose concerned with garbage or litter.

187

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

REGIO NAL CONTEXT

The area affected by park operations andvisitor activities includes parts of four counties(King, Pierce, Lewis, and Yakima). There hasbeen a moderate but steady increase in theregional population of the four-county areaduring the past decade or more. Growth in thePuget Sound area, which has a large popula-tion base, has begun to infringe on the privatelands near the park’s western boundary. Cur-rent proposals for development projects (bothresidential and commercial) on private landmay bring new transportation services to theboundaries of Mount Rainier and attractadditional commercial uses to the gatewaycommunities.

Population

The population in the counties most affectedby Mount Rainier National Park over the pasttwo decades is shown in table 14.

Growth in King County was slightly higherthan the statewide average during the 1980s,but between 1990 and 1999 county growthslowed somewhat. Pierce County experiencedrapid population growth throughout the entire20-year period, and population growth inLewis and Yakima Counties was modestduring the 1980s but substantial between 1990and 1999.

Over the next 20 years, population in King,Pierce, Lewis, and Yakima Counties isexpected to show continued steady growth(table 15).

Tourism Trends

Travel expenditures in King County increasedfrom $3.4 billion in 1991 to $4.1 billion in1995. This increase in nominal dollars (that is,not adjusted for inflation) resulted in a totalincrease of 19.6%. Expenditures in King

TABLE 14: POPULATION FOR MOUNT RAINIER COUNTIES, 1980–1999 (to nearest thousand)

Affected Region 1980 1990 1999King County 1,270,000 1,510,000 1,667,000Pierce County 485,700 586,200 700,000

Lewis County 56,000 59,400 69,000

Yakima County 172,500 188,800 212,300SOURCES: Census Bureau and State of Washington 1999; State of Washington 1995.

TABLE 15: POPULATION PR OJECTIONS FOR MOUNT RAINIER COUNTIES, 1999–2020

Affected Region 1999 2005 2115 2020King County 1,667,000 1,763,600 1,929,900 2,030,700Pierce County 700,000 763,800 863,500 916,099

Lewis County 69,000 76,000 86,300 92,400

Yakima County 212,300 227,600 255,300 271,700SOURCES: Census Bureau and State of Washington 1999; State of Washington 1995.


188

County represented about one-half of totalstate travel expenditures. The data suggest thatvisitor travel has increased at a modest annualrate of 1.8% from 1991 to 1995. It is likely thatfuture growth would follow this trend.

Pierce County travel expenditures amounted to$459.7 million in 1995, increasing from $372.4million in 1991, for an overall increase of23.4%. The travel expenditure data suggestthat visitor travel has grown at a slightlygreater rate (2.6% per year) than the statewideaverage. Visitor growth during the foreseeablefuture is likely to follow the recent trend.

Of the four counties, Lewis County experi-enced the highest rate of growth in travelexpenditures, with expenditures rising from$61.7 million in 1991 to $101.5 million in1995, for an overall increase of 64.6%. At10.5% per year, the growth rate is far abovethe statewide average (2.8% per year). Al-though future travel growth is likely to remainhigh, it is unlikely that the recent trend can besustained, as generally very high consumptiondemand typically falls off due to infrastructurecapacity limitations as well as changes inconsumption preferences.

Yakima County showed the lowest gains intravel expenditures during the four-year peri-od, with total spending by visitors increasingfrom $191.3 million in 1991 to $221.7 millionin 1995 for an overall increase of 15.9%. Theexpenditure data indicate only modest in-creases in visitor travel (1.0% per annum) toYakima County. The trend suggests modestvisitor travel growth during the foreseeablefuture.

Landownership and LandUses adjacent to the Park

National Forests. Mount Baker-SnoqualmieNational Forest is adjacent to the park’snorthern boundary and part of its southwest,northwest, and northeast boundaries (see

Adjacent Lands map). The Clearwater Wilder-ness (14,598 acres) is within this nationalforest and borders the park on the north. TheGlacier View Wilderness (3,080 acres), on thepark’s west boundary, is also within the MountBaker-Snoqualmie National Forest, but GiffordPinchot National Forest administers this wil-derness. Wenatchee National Forest, east ofthe park, contains the William O. DouglasWilderness (166,603 acres), which shares alarge part of the park’s eastern boundary. Gif-ford Pinchot National Forest shares a borderwith the park on the south. The Tatoosh Wil-derness (15,700 acres) is within this nationalforest and borders the park on the south.

State and Private Lands. No state landsborder Mount Rainier National Park. However,major parcels of land owned by the Washing-ton Department of Natural Resources are southand west of the park’s Nisqually entrance.These lands are managed for timber harvestingto provide funds for schools and other stateexpenditures.

Rainier T imber Company, LLC, owns approxi-mately 120,000 acres near the park and sharesapproximately 6 miles of the park’s westernboundary. Plum Creek T imber Companyshares 2.5 miles of the park boundary, withapproximately 1,920 acres in four sectionsadjacent to and near the Carbon River area andone on the western boundary. Timber sales fortwo of these sections, within the Carbon Rivervalley, are planned between 1999 and 2005.Some logging roads end at the park boundary,but many are closed or offer litt le access.T imber sales are also planned in near theNisqually entrance in the near future.

Rainier T imber Company’s lands are open forpublic recreation for a fee. Access is by foot,bicycle, or automobile. Camping, hiking,hunting, and mountain biking are some of theactivities available. All-terrain vehicles,horses, motorcycles, and snowmobiles are notallowed.


190

(blank back)


191

The park is within Pierce and Lewis Counties.Yakima County borders the park on the east.These counties hold jurisdiction over land useon private lands. Each has, or is working on, acurrent land use plan to manage land use anddevelopment within their jurisdictions.

GATEWAY CO MMUNITIES

Local gateway communities are Elbe andAshford to the southwest, Packwood to thesouth, Wilkeson and nearby Carbonado to thenorthwest, Greenwater to the north, andNaches to the east. These local gatewaycommunities are quite small. In most casesthey provide food, lodging, recreation supplies,and services to park travelers. In some casesthe local communities have other economicfunctions and pursuits.

Enumclaw and Eatonville also are consideredgateway communities to Mount RainierNational Park. Both are currently involved invision planning. Eatonville recognizes that asignificant portion of tourism economic poten-tial is not being captured, and the town is con-sidering alternatives to capture a larger portionof regional tourism travel.

Both Eatonville and Enumclaw are exploringgreater tourism partnerships. Enumclaw isspecifically interested in and coordinating withthe park and others in the study of a multi-agency visitor/welcome center to the relativelynew Mather Memorial Parkway (State Route410) All American Road corridor. Eatonville isexploring traffic calming, downtown historicpreservation, pedestrian and streetscape im-provements, and potential collaboration withthe Train to the Mountain, as well as its mill-town heritage and other assets that wouldpromote increased visitor stays and the addi-tional capture of tourism economic benefits.

Although not gateway communities, theSeattle-Olympia-Tacoma region is the mostheavily populated area of the state of

Washington. The population for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton combined metropolitanstatistical area in 1999 was about 3.2 million(State of Washington 2000). The 40–90 ormore minute drive from these areas enablespeople to make a day trip to the park with litt leprior planning. (Park visitation statistics showa correlation between being able to see themountain from these areas and increasedvisitation.)

Elbe and Ashford

Elbe and Ashford are located on the mostpopular route to Mount Rainier National Park.Elbe, which is unincorporated, lies between thesteep Cascade foothills to the north and eastand Alder Lake and the Nisqually River to thesouth and west. It has limited commerce andlodging facilit ies. The Mount Rainier ScenicRailroad, based at Elbe, currently runs about 6miles south to Mineral (Lewis County) and hasthe potential to run to Eatonville, Morton, and“National” and possibly Ashford.

Between Elbe and Ashford is the park’sTahoma Woods administrative headquarters,comprising a small employee housing area, thepark greenhouse operations, and storage areas,in addition to the administrative building.Adjacent to Tahoma Woods is Columbia CrestSchool, now teaching kindergarten through 6thgrades for the communities of Ashford, Elbe,and Alder. (A middle school and high schoolare in Eatonville.) Also located between thesesmall towns is the remnant community of“National,” a historic logging town, nowrecognized by the presence of the AshfordLion’s Hall at the end of the train tracks. Thisarea also contains homes, churches, and minorcommercial development. The next nearestrural town is Ashford. Ashford is at the inter-section of Mount Tahoma Canyon Road andState Route 706. It is approximately 6 mileswest of the park’s Nisqually entrance. Theunincorporated Ashford community has abroad array of tourist facilit ies. Ashford is the


192

last town before park visitors reach theNisqually entrance to the park, although farthereast along State Route 706, closer to the Nis-qually entrance, there are additional lodgingfacilit ies and considerable tourist commercialdevelopment.

Packwood

The town of Packwood is located on U.S.Highway 12 in Lewis County, approximately14 miles south of the Stevens Canyon parkentrance and 12 miles from Ohanapecosh.Because of its nearness to White Pass ski area,Packwood generates considerable economicactivity from skiers and other winter recreationvisitors. Similarly, its being near to Mount Rai-nier National Park and the Tatoosh Wildernessin Gifford Pinchot National Forest is advanta-geous for tourism-oriented businesses pro-viding goods and services for summer visitorsand for hunters in autumn. The town hosts ajoint U.S. Forest Service and Chamber ofCommerce visitor contact facility, which offerslocal services and park information.

Packwood derives substantial economicbenefits from both summer and winter tourismactivity, with local businesses that offer goodsand services to tourists being the primarybeneficiaries. In addition, major recreation andretirement-oriented residential developmentshave been established in the Packwood area.

Wilkeson and Carbonado

Wilkeson and Carbonado are a few miles aparton State Route 165, which leads to the Mowichand Carbon River entrances to the park. Wilke-son has modest tourism-oriented facilit ies andservices. The National Park Service operates avisitor contact/ranger station in Wilkeson,where visitors can receive information aboutthe park and obtain wilderness permits.Carbonado has limited tourist-orientedestablishments.

Greenwater

Greenwater is an unincorporated community inKing and Pierce Counties on State Route 410between Enumclaw and Mount RainierNational Park. With its basic recreation-oriented services, Greenwater is a favoritestopover point for skiers traveling to and fromthe Crystal Mountain ski resort in winter, aswell as for campers and tourists driving thenorth side of Mount Rainier National Park onState Route 410.

Enumclaw

Enumclaw, in south central King County, is arural city that serves both as a crossroadscommunity and a local trade and communitycenter. There is considerable tourism infra-structure and locally oriented commercialdevelopment. Enumclaw receives manytravelers, primarily from metropolitan areas inKing County. The city is a popular stopoverfor travelers en route to Mount RainierNational Park, primarily in spring, summer,and fall, as well as people going to the CrystalMountain Ski Area and other winter recreationareas served by State Route 410. Enumclawhas a broad array of tourist facilit ies, as well asgeneral merchandise and recreation equipmentbusinesses.

As with other communities that have tradi-tionally depended on resource-based econo-mies (namely, forest harvesting andprocessing), Enumclaw is increasingly be-coming a bedroom community for workersemployed in urbanized areas in Pierce andKing Counties. In addition, tourism is devel-oping as a major component of the localeconomy. Visitor travel to the park, particu-larly from King County locations, contributesto the economic vitality of the community.There is a relatively new visitor contact/rangerstation shared by the Chamber of Commerce,the U.S. Forest Service (Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (Snoqualmie


193

District) and Mount Rainier National Park.Discussions are ongoing regarding the poten-tial development of a joint city of Enumclaw,chamber of commerce, national forest, andnational park “welcome center.”

Eatonville

Eatonville is on State Route 161, approxi-mately 26 miles west of the park’s Nisquallyentrance. Eatonville is quite close to theTacoma-Olympia corridor: a 30-mile commuteradius from Eatonville would encompass asubstantial area containing urban jobs withinthe corridor. The character of Eatonville is acombination of forest resource activities and abedroom community for urban commuters. Itis a popular stop for tourists and appears to beestablishing itself as a gateway to MountRainier National Park. In addition, Eatonvilleis becoming a visitor destination offering avariety of opportunities to tourists andrecreational visitors.

REGIO NAL RECREATIO NALOPPORTUNITIES

There are a variety of parks and recreationalareas in the vicinity of Mount Rainier NationalPark. Some of the well-known facilit ies arelisted below.

• Northwest Trek, owned and operated byMetro Parks Tacoma, is a 435-acre nativenorthwest wildlife park located nearEatonville.

• Alder Lake Park, owned and operated byTacoma City and Light, is a 148-acre day-use and overnight-use park located offState Route 7 near Alder Dam; it alsoincludes Sunny Beach Point and RockyPoint.

• Sunny Beach Point, also owned andoperated by Tacoma City and Light, is a 9-

acre day-use park located off of StateRoute 7 at the Eatonville cutoff road.

• Rocky Point, also owned and operated byTacoma City and Light, is a small day-useand overnight-use park on the north shoreof Alder Lake off of State Route 7.

• Elbe Hills State Forest, just north of StateRoute 706, is owned and managed as atimber and recreation resource area by theWashington Department of NaturalResources.

• Tahoma State Forest, south of Ashford andaccessible from State Route 706, is alsoowned and managed by the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources.

• Mount Tahoma Trails, 100 miles of cross-country skiing on snow-covered loggingroads, is a partly connected system ofhiking/bicycling/ski trails in Elbe HillsForest, Tahoma State Forest, and onprivately owned timberland.

• The Snoqualmie Ranger District of MountBaker-Snoqualmie National Forestencompasses numerous recreation facili-ties. Crystal Mountain, about 25 miles eastof Greenwater, is a year-round destinationresort with hiking, mountain biking, andother alpine activities in summer andalpine skiing in winter. Other recreationfacilit ies in the Snoqualmie Ranger Dis-trict include the Silver Spring campground,where a visitor information center beganoperations in the summer of 1997.

• On the southeast side of the park, thePackwood work center/visitor informationfacility operates and manages numerousnational forest campgrounds in the CowlitzDistrict of Gifford Pinchot National Forest.This facility offers visitor informationregarding the greater region, includingForest Service areas, the park, White Passski area, and Packwood. Recreational sites


194

in this area are four fee campgrounds, twofree campgrounds, and picnic areas.

CONCESSIO NS ANDBUSINESS PERMITS

The National Park Service uses concessioncontracts and commercial use licenses(formerly incidental business permits) tomanage commercial activities. As of October1998, Mount Rainier National Park had twoongoing concession contracts, one limitedconcession permit to provide firewood atOhanapecosh and White River campgrounds,and 21 incidental business permits. Theconcession contracts are discussed below.

Rainier Mountaineering, Inc.(contract expires October 31, 2001)

Rainier Mountaineering provides the followingservices:

• snow and ice climbing schools

• guided summit climbs, primarily using theMuir corridor (excluding Emmons Glaciervia the Camp Schurman route)

• sales of climbing gear and merchandise

• rental of climbing gear

• guest/employee shuttle service

Other services authorized, but not required, areguided hiking through the park (without stock)in summer and various seminars. Government-assigned buildings are the Paradise GuideHouse and the Camp Muir cook shelter. Theconcessioner owns the Gombu sleeping andstorage shelter.

Guest Services, Inc. (contractexpires December 31, 2012)

Guest Services offers the following services:

• food and beverage sales

• hotel and lodging

• merchandise (except climbing gear)

• camper supplies

• cross-country ski tours and relatedactivities and services

Government-assigned facilit ies are those atParadise, Longmire, and Sunrise. The con-cessioner owns a modular dormitory at Long-mire and the Glacier dormitory at Paradise.

196

(blank back)

197

INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) mandates that environmental impactstatements disclose the environmental effectsof proposed federal actions. In this case, theproposed federal action would be the adoptionof a general management plan for MountRainier National Park. This “EnvironmentalConsequences” chapter analyzes the potentialeffects of three management alternatives onnatural resources, geologic hazards, culturalresources, the visitor experience, and thesocioeconomic environment of Mount RainierNational Park. By examining the environ-mental consequences of all alternatives on anequivalent basis, decision-makers can decidewhich approach creates the most desirablecombination of the greatest beneficial resultswith the fewest adverse effects on the park.

The alternatives in this general managementplan provide broad management directions.Because of the general nature of the alterna-tives, the potential consequences of thealternatives are analyzed in similarly generalterms using qualitative analyses. Thus, thisenvironmental impact statement should beconsidered a programmatic analysis. Con-sistent with the National Environmental PolicyAct, the National Park Service would conductadditional environmental analyses with appro-priate documentation before implementingsite-specific actions.

The existing conditions for all of the impacttopics that are analyzed here were identified inthe “Affected Environment” chapter. All of theimpact topics are assessed for each alternative.For each impact topic, there is a description ofthe positive (beneficial) and negative (adverse)

effects of the alternative, a discussion of thecumulative effects when this project is consid-ered in conjunction with other actionsoccurring in the region, and a brief conclusion.

The no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement) analysis identifies what futureconditions would be if no changes to facilit iesor park management occurred. This alternativereflects changes associated with the growth inregional population and increased visitor usethat is anticipated during the next 20 years.The two action alternatives were then com-pared to the no-action alternative to identifythe incremental changes that would occur as aresult of changes in park facilit ies andmanagement.

Impacts of recent decisions and approvedplans, such as developing an environmentaleducation center at Tahoma Woods, are notevaluated as part of this environmental analy-sis. Although these actions would occur duringthe life of the general management plan, theyhave been (or will be) evaluated in otherenvironmental documents.

At the end of each alternative there is a briefdiscussion of energy requirements and conser-vation potential; unavoidable adverse impacts;irreversible and irretrievable commitments ofresources; and the relationship of short-termuses of the environment and the maintenanceand enhancement of long-term productivity.The impacts of each alternative are brieflysummarized in table 8, at the end of the“Alternatives, including the PreferredAlternative” chapter.

198

METHODOLOGIES

The environmental consequences to eachimpact topic were defined based on impacttype, intensity, and duration, and whether theimpact would be direct or indirect. Cumulativeeffects also were identified. Clarification ofeach of these concepts for Mount RainierNational Park is provided below.

DEFINITIO NS

Impact Type

The effects that an alternative would have onan impact topic could be either adverse orbeneficial. In some cases, the action couldresult in both adverse and beneficial effects forthe same impact topic. For example, under thevisitor access impact topic, both of the actionalternatives would have a beneficial effect byreducing congestion and providing access viashuttles and an adverse effect by incon-veniencing some visitors through restrictionson overflow parking.

Intensity

This evaluation used the approach for definingthe intensity (or magnitude) of an impactpresented in Director’s Order 12: Conserva-tion Planning, Environmental Impact Analysisand Decision-making (NPS 2001c). Eachimpact was identified as negligible, minor,moderate, or major in conformance with thecriteria for these classifications provided belowby impact topic. Because this is a program-matic document, most intensities wereexpressed qualitatively.

Duration

The planning horizon for this General Man-agement Plan is approximately 20 years.Within this t imeframe, impacts that wouldoccur within five years or less were classified

as short-term effects. Long-term effects wouldlast for more than five years. For example,increased air emissions from alternative 2’sconstruction of a replacement visitor center atParadise would produce a short-term adverseimpact on air quality. Reduced air emissionsfrom the replacement of many automobileswith a shuttle service would result in a long-term beneficial effect on air quality.

Direct Versus Indirect Impacts

Direct effects would be caused by an actionand would occur at the same time and place asthe action. Indirect effects would be caused bythe action and would be reasonably foreseeablebut would occur later in time, at another place,or to another resource. For example, efforts tokeep visitors on trails in both actionalternatives would reduce damage to plants, adirect beneficial effect on vegetation. Morevegetation would help reduce soil erosion andsedimentation of waterways, so that efforts tokeep visitors on trails would have indirectbeneficial effects on both soils and waterquality.

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts on the environment can result from theincremental impact of the action when addedto other past, present, and reasonably foresee-able future actions, regardless of what agencyor person undertakes such other action. Cumu-lative impacts can result from individuallyminor, but collectively significant, actionstaking place over a period of time. Forexample, increased development of privatelands throughout the region reduces the avail-ability of habitat for threatened and endan-gered species, regardless of in-park actions. Inevaluating the proposed relocation of adminis-trative facilit ies from the Carbon Riverentrance to lands that would be included in the

Methodologies

199

boundary adjustment, the National ParkService considered this project’s potential todisturb threatened and endangered specieshabitat as additive with the habitat loss result-ing from other development in the region.

The impact analysis and conclusions werebased on information available in the literature,data from park studies and records, andinformation provided by experts within theNational Park Service and other agencies.Unless otherwise stated, all impacts wereassumed to be direct and long term and wouldoccur in the summer.

All the impact analyses assumed that miti-gating measures would be applied at the timethe alternative was implemented in order tominimize or avoid impacts. Mitigating mea-sures were described in the “Alternatives,including the Preferred Alternative” chapter ofthis document.

NATURAL RESO URCES

Analysis of natural resources was based onresearch, knowledge of park resources, and thebest professional judgment of planners, biolo-gists, hydrologists, and botanists who haveexperience with similar types of projects.Information on the park’s natural resourceswas gathered from several sources, includingthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1984)National Wetlands Inventory maps, a 1988study of Mount Rainier’s forest communities(Franklin et al. 1988), satellite imagery ofvegetation, and site-specific resource inven-tories for wetlands, wildlife, water quality,fisheries, and amphibians. As appropriate,additional sources of data are identified undereach topic heading.

Air Quality

The relationship of existing pollution sourcesto the ambient air quality in Mount RainierNational Park has not been sufficiently studied

and modeled to quantitatively assess impacts.Consequently, air quality impacts wereassessed qualitatively.

• Negligible — An action would have nomeasurable or detectable effect.

• Minor — An action would have a slighteffect, causing a change in air emissions orvisibility.

• Moderate — An impact would be clearlydetectable and would cause an appreciablechange in air emissions or visibility.

• Major — An action would cause a substan-tial, highly noticeable change in airemissions or visibility.

Water Resources and Water Quality

The relationship of pollution sources to exist-ing water quality in Mount Rainier NationalPark has not been sufficiently studied andmodeled to quantitatively assess impacts. Theabsence of baseline information on the physical,chemical, and biological characteristics of parksurface waters and groundwaters makes itdifficult to detect changes in water quality.Consequently, water quality impacts of thealternatives were assessed qualitatively.

• Negligible — An action would have nomeasurable or detectable effect on waterquality or the timing or intensity of flows.

• Minor — An action would have measur-able effects on water quality or the timingor intensity of flows. Water quality effectscould include increased or decreased loadsof sediment, debris, chemical or toxicsubstances, or pathogenic organisms.

• Moderate — An action would have clearlydetectable effects on water quality or thetiming or intensity of flows and potentiallywould affect organisms or natural ecologi-

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200

cal processes. Alternatively, an impactwould be visible to visitors.

• Major — An action would have substantialeffects on water quality or the timing orintensity of flows and potentially wouldaffect organisms or natural ecologicalprocesses. Alternatively, an impact wouldbe easily visible to visitors.

Floodplains

The impact assessment for floodplains isfocused on natural river processes and aquatichabitat. Public safety conditions related toflooding are addressed in the analysis ofgeologic hazards.

Three types of flooding occur in the park:precipitation-induced flooding, glacialmeltwater flooding, and glacial outburstflooding. Extreme floods are known to triggerdebris flows (or lahars) that are composed ofwater, ice, sediment, and other debris in riversand streams that flank the volcano. Impacts ofdebris flows are addressed in the analysis ofgeologic hazards.

Data derived from geographic informationsystem (GIS) mapping, hydraulic models ofthe Carbon and Nisqually Rivers near majorpark developments, and detailed floodplainmaps of major development areas were used inthe analysis. In addition, detailed floodplainstudies were undertaken that included sitesurveys and hydraulic models constructed toassess flood hazards and conditions and to mapfloodplain boundaries in certain locations.

The Floodplain Management Guideline (NPS1993b) and the extent of alteration to naturalriver processes were used to define theintensity of impacts.

• Negligible — Impacts would occur outsidethe regulatory floodplain as defined by theFloodplain Management Guideline (100-

year or 500-year floodplain, depending onthe type of action), or no measurable orperceptible change in natural river pro-cesses or aquatic habitat would occur.

• Minor — Actions within the regulatoryfloodplain would potentially interfere withor improve river processes or aquatichabitat in a limited way or in a localizedarea. Levee maintenance and streambankmanipulations that would protect develop-ment areas from flooding are examples ofactions that would result in minor adverseimpacts. Removing flood protection de-vices or small facilit ies would result inbeneficial impacts.

• Moderate — Actions within the regulatoryfloodplain would interfere with or enhanceriver processes or aquatic habitat in asubstantial way or in a large area. Exam-ples of adverse moderate impacts wouldinclude substantial modification ofstreambanks to protect roads in multiplelocations or to protect large compoundssuch as Longmire.

• Major — An action would permanentlyalter or improve a floodplain or signifi-cantly alter or improve natural riverprocesses or aquatic habitat. An examplemight include permanent hardening and/orrelocation of a braided river channel thatprevents the river from meandering overtime.

Wetlands

Wetland impacts were assessed by evaluatingthe alternatives in relationship to wetlandinventory maps and vegetation mapping. Themagnitude of the resulting impacts on wetlandswas determined based on the potential forwetland acreage loss and the size, integrity,and continuity with other wetlands.

Methodologies

201

• Negligible — No measurable orperceptible changes in wetland size,integrity, or continuity would occur.

• Minor — The impact would be measurableor perceptible, but slight. A small changein size, integrity, or continuity could occurdue to short-term indirect effects such asconstruction-related runoff. However, theoverall viability of the resource would notbe affected.

• Moderate — The impact would besufficient to cause a measurable change inthe size, integrity or continuity of thewetland or would result in a small, butpermanent, loss or gain in wetland acreage.

• Major — The action would result in ameasurable change in all three parameters(size, integrity, and continuity) or apermanent loss of large wetland areas. Theimpact would be substantial and highlynoticeable.


Impacts were assessed qualitatively. Infor-mation on site-specific areas such as ParadiseMeadows or on specific resources such assubalpine meadows, general documents suchas the park’s resource management plan, andsite-specific surveys were used.

• Negligible — The impact on soils or vege-tation (individuals and/or communities)would not be measurable. Ecologicalprocesses would not be affected.

• Minor — An action would change a soil’sprofile in a relatively small area, but itwould not necessarily decrease or increasethe area’s overall biological productivityand would not increase the potential forerosion of additional soil. For vegetation,the action would affect the abundance ordistribution of individuals in a localized

area but would not affect the viability oflocal or regional populations.

• Moderate — An action would result in achange in quantity or alteration of thetopsoil, overall biological productivity in asmall area, or the potential for erosion toremove small quantities of additional soil.For vegetation, the action would affect alocal population sufficiently to cause achange in abundance or distribution, but itwould not affect the viability of the region-al population. Changes to localized ecolog-ical processes would be of limited extent.

• Major — An action would result in achange in the potential for erosion toremove large quantities of additional soilor in alterations to topsoil and overallbiological productivity in a relatively largearea. For vegetation, the action wouldaffect a regional or local population of aspecies sufficiently to cause a change inabundance or in distribution to the extentthat the population would not be likely toreturn to its former level (adverse), orwould return to a sustainable level (bene-ficial). Significant ecological processeswould be altered, and landscape-levelchanges would be expected.

Wildlife

Impacts on wildlife are closely related to theimpacts on habitat. The evaluation consideredwhether actions would be likely to displacesome or all individuals of a species in the parkor would result in loss or creation of habitatconditions needed for the viability of local orregional populations. Impacts associated withwildlife might include any change in roostingor foraging areas, food supply, protectivecover, or distribution or abundance of species.

• Negligible — The impact would not bemeasurable on individuals, and the localpopulations would not be affected.


202

• Minor — An action would affect theabundance or distribution of individuals ina localized area but would not affect theviability of local or regional populations.

• Moderate — An action would affect alocal population sufficiently to cause aminor change in abundance or distributionbut would not affect the viability of theregional population.

• Major — An action would affect aregional or local population of a speciessufficiently to cause a change in abun-dance or in distribution to the extent thatthe population would not be likely toreturn to its former level (adverse), orwould return to a sustainable level(beneficial).


Through coordination with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, the National Marine Fish-eries Service, and the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, species of special con-cern were identified that were generallylocated in or near the park. This included infor-mation on each species, including their pre-ferred habitat, prey, and foraging areas. Parkstaff then collected more specific informationsuch as the absence or presence of each specieswithin the park boundaries. For special statusspecies, including federally listed species, thefollowing impact intensities were used. Theseterms are used to comply with section 7 of theEndangered Species Act.

• No effect — The alternative would have noeffect on the special status species,including listed species.

• Not likely to adversely affect — Thealternative would be expected to have aninsignificant, discountable, or beneficialeffect on the special status species,including listed species.

• Likely to adversely affect — The alter-native would be expected to directly orindirectly have an adverse effect on thespecial status species, including listedspecies. Actions that could be likely toadversely affect species would includedirect or indirect mortality of individuals;the removal or damage of nesting, breed-ing, foraging, or roosting habitats; impactson food sources; and disturbance of nestsduring the breeding season. For wildlife,removal of vegetation could adverselyaffect species if it increased theirsusceptibility to predation.

GEO LO GIC HAZARDS

Two methods were used to assess the impactson public safety that could result from geologichazards potentially associated with the alterna-tives. First , existing hazard assessments pub-lished by the U.S. Geological Survey and otherprofessionals were used to identify and charac-terize the hazards at developed sites. Second,field surveys were used to identify features ofindividual sites, such as height abovefloodplains and landform type.

Two types of geologic hazards were evaluated,volcanic and nonvolcanic. As noted in the“Affected Environment” chapter, volcanicgeologic hazards include debris flows andpyroclastic flows, while nonvolcanic geologichazards include snow avalanches, rockfalls,and landslides. The impact intensities associ-ated with volcanic and nonvolcanic hazards aredefined separately because of the types ofevents that might occur within the park. Forexample, at a selected park location, potentialpublic exposure to hazards from a debrisinundation flow (volcanic hazard) could bemajor, while exposure to a nonvolcanic hazardsuch as an avalanche or rockfall might benegligible.

Methodologies

203

Volcanic Hazards

The potential frequency of a debris flow wasused to determine the intensity or degree ofpublic exposure to volcanic hazards becausedebris flows are the primary hazard at MountRainier (NPS 1997b). The more frequently adebris flow may occur, or the lower therecurrence interval, the greater the publicexposure to geologic hazards. The types ofdebris flows at Mount Rainier and theirrecurrence intervals were defined in the“Affected Environment” chapter.

Potential safety hazards may include injuryand loss of life. The impact intensities areapplied on a site-by-site basis.

• Negligible — Visitors and employeeswould not be directly exposed to the safetyhazards of a debris flow.

• Minor — Visitors and employees would beexposed to (an adverse impact) or removedfrom (a beneficial effect) the safetyhazards associated with case I or case Mdebris flows.

• Moderate — Visitors and employeeswould be exposed to or removed from thesafety hazards associated with case IIdebris flows.

• Major — Visitors and employees would beexposed to or removed from the safetyhazards associated with case III debrisflows.

Nonvolcanic Hazards

The intensity of impacts associated with non-volcanic geologic hazards (snow avalanches,rock falls, and landslides) has been defined asfollows:

• Negligible — Visitor and employeeexposure to avalanches, rockfalls, or

landslides would not occur or would not bemeasurable.

• Minor — A minor impact would involvevisitor and employee exposure in orremoval from areas where the risk ofavalanches, rockfalls, or landslides wouldbe slight but could occur.

• Moderate — A moderate impact wouldinvolve visitor and employee exposure inor removal from areas where the risk ofavalanches, rockfalls, or landslides isreadily apparent and well documentedthrough research or historic events.

• Major — A major impact would involvevisitor and employee exposure in orremoval from areas where the risk ofavalanches, rock falls, or landslides wouldbe substantial and potentially severe.

CULTURAL RESO URCES

The assessment of effects on cultural resourceswas made in accordance with the regulationsof the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva-tion for implementing section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR800). Native American populations have usedvarious landscapes on Mount Rainier for thou-sands of years. In addition, the mountain wasthe site of various exploration, mining, andother commercial ventures during the mid tolate 1800s. Evidence of these past land-usepractices is preserved in the park's archeo-logical record.

Furthermore, because tribal communitiesmaintain a direct sociocultural relationship tothe park, an as yet unknown number of ethno-graphic resources also are located within parkboundaries. Cultural resources and historicproperties (whether listed on or eligible forlisting on the National Register of HistoricPlaces) can be affected by undertakings thatalter in any way the attributes that qualify the


204

resources for listing on the national register. Inaccordance with section 106, three possibledeterminations of effect are used in this impactassessment:

• No effect — The undertaking would haveno effect, either negative or beneficial, onthe historic resource.

• No adverse effect — The historic resourcecould be affected, but the qualities thatcontribute to its national register signifi-cance would not be impaired.

• Adverse effect — The integrity of ahistoric property’s significant attributeswould be diminished as a result of suchconditions as physical disturbance oralteration, neglect, visual or audibleintrusions, or isolation of the propertyfrom its historic setting. The effect wouldbe considered adverse when it diminishedthe integrity of a property’s significantcharacteristics.

The park’s National Historic LandmarkDistrict is fundamentally a comprehensivecultural landscape comprised of diversehistoric resources. These resources can begrouped under the broad categories of spatialorganization, circulation, topography,vegetation, structures, and buildings.

VISITO R EXPERIENCE

The visitor experience would be affected bychanges in the access to or within the park forvisitors; the range of activities available andhow enjoyable these activities were; the avail-ability of information; or the character of thewilderness experience:

Visitor Access

This measure describes how actions such aschanges in the supply of parking, the avail-ability of shuttle bus access, and the closure or

opening of roads might affect access to theprimary activity areas at the park, or mightaffect levels of congestion for visitors. Parkingor traffic restrictions during construction couldcause short-term impacts on visitor access orcongestion. Long-term impacts could occurfrom permanent changes in the parking supplyor permanent shuttle bus routes. Beneficialimpacts would be associated with an increasein accessibility of a specific area or a reductionin congestion, while adverse impacts would beassociated with actions that would reduce theaccessibility of an area or increase congestion.

Range and Enjoyment of Visitor Activities

This measure describes the degree to whichactions would change the types or quality ofvisitor activities or opportunities available inthe park. Adverse impacts would be associatedwith reductions in opportunities for activitiesor diminishment in visitors’ enjoyment of anactivity. Beneficial impacts would be associ-ated with opportunities for additional activitiesor improvement in visitors’ enjoyment of theavailable activities. Short-term impacts wouldbe associated with temporary changes associ-ated with construction activities or short-termeffects on visitors’ enjoyment of recreationopportunities. Long-term impacts would beassociated with permanent changes in facilit iesor policies that would change recreationalopportunities or visitors’ enjoyment of therecreation activities.

Convenience and Accessibilityof Information

This measure evaluates the ease with whichvisitors could obtain information to plan theirvisits and interpretive materials to enhancetheir enjoyment and appreciation of the park’svalues. Beneficial impacts would be associatedwith improved access to information for visi-tors; adverse impacts would be associated withreduced access to information.

Methodologies

205

Wilderness Values and Experience

This analysis addresses the impacts of thealternatives on three wilderness values:

• opportunities for solitude (i.e., thelikelihood of not encountering otherpeople while in the wilderness)

• opportunities for primitive and unconfinedrecreation (i.e., the freedom of visitors topursue nonmotorized recreational uses inthe wilderness)

• naturalness (i.e., absence of evidence ofpeople or their activities)

The following levels were used to assess theimpacts of the alternatives on the visitorexperience in relation to the above fourmeasures.

• Negligible — A negligible effect would bea change that would not be perceptible orwould be barely perceptible by mostvisitors.

• Minor — A slight change in a few visitors’experiences, which would be noticeablebut which would result in litt le detractionor improvement in the quality of theexperience.

• Moderate — A moderate effect would be achange in a large number of visitors’ ex-periences that would result in a noticeabledecrease or improvement in the quality ofthe experience. This would be indicated bya change in frustration level or incon-venience for a period of time.

• Major — A substantial improvement inmany visitors’ experience or a severe dropin the quality of many peoples’ experience,such as the addition or elimination of arecreational opportunity or a permanentchange in access to a popular area.

SOCIO ECONO MIC ENVIRO NMENT

The methods used to determine the potentialimpacts on the socioeconomic environmentvaried according to the subjects analyzed. Thefour major subjects and methods of analysisare as follows:

Regional Context

Qualitative evaluation of regional economicactivity attributable to park visitation changesand associated capital spending on visitor-related facilit ies and infrastructure.

Regional Recreation O pportunities

Qualitative evaluation of recreational usepatterns of the people in the region and asso-ciated impacts on recreation resources.

Gateway Communities

Qualitative evaluation of economic activityattributable to park visitation changes, andcooperative management practices between theNational Park Service and gatewaycommunities.

Concessioners

Evaluation of changes in providing service,including the potential expansion of servicesby concessioners and other businesses thatprovide services in the park. This was aqualitative evaluation of changes to conces-sioner and other business operations andfinancial performance.

The analyses of socioeconomic impacts weredeveloped from a review of the local andregional conditions as they relate to the park.The potential for future visitor use, includingchanges in use patterns, and development wereconsidered.


206

Socioeconomic effects were recognized asbeneficial if, for example, they would increasethe employment base or enhance the experi-ence of park visitors (such as from improvedservices). Impacts were considered adverse if,for example, they would negatively alteremployment or park visitors’ experience.Impact intensities were as follows.

• Negligible — The effect either would beundetectable or would have no discernableeffect.

• Minor — The change would be slightlydetectable but would not have an overalleffect.

• Moderate — The change would be clearlydetectable and could have an appreciableeffect.

• Major — The impact would be substantialand have a highly positive (beneficial) orseverely negative (adverse) effect. Suchimpacts could permanently alter thesocioeconomic environment.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

Cumulative impacts are the effects on theenvironment that would result from theincremental impact of the action (in this casethe adoption of a general management plan forMount Rainier National Park) when added toother past, present, and reasonably foreseeablefuture actions. Impacts are considered cumula-tive regardless of what agency (federal ornonfederal) or person undertook the action.

Cumulative impacts can result from individual-ly minor, but collectively significant, actionstaking place over a period of time. Each cumu-lative impact analysis is additive, consideringthe overall impact of the alternative whencombined with effects of other actions (insideand outside the park) that have occurred orwould occur in the foreseeable future.

The following aspects of the cumulativeimpact analysis were similar to all other impactanalyses:

• Cumulative impacts were evaluated fortype (beneficial or adverse), intensity,duration, and whether they were direct orindirect.

• The measures of intensity (negligible,minor, moderate, and major) that aredefined above for each impact topic wereused for the evaluation of cumulativeimpacts.

• The cumulative impact analysis comparedthe action alternatives to the no-actionalternative (continue current management)to identify incremental impacts, rather thancomparing them to present-day conditions.

This analysis first involved defining a geo-graphic area to be analyzed. Actions by othersthat have occurred within this analysis area orwould occur in the foreseeable future werethen identified. Likely future actions weredetermined by reviewing the plans andactivities of

local counties and communities private timber land owners or managers federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs the National Park Service within Mount

Rainier National Park

From these, the list of projects (oftenembodied as plans) provided below wasdeveloped for consideration in determiningcumulative impacts.

Cumulative Impacts Geographic Area

For most of the impact topics, the cumulativeimpact analysis area extends approximately 30to 35 miles in each direction from the park’sboundary. This area includes the gateway com-

Methodologies

207

munities surrounding the park, such asEatonville on the west, Enumclaw on thenorth, and Packwood on the south. The areaencompasses parts of King, Pierce, Lewis, andYakima Counties, and includes portions of theSnoqualmie National Forest, Gifford PinchotNational Forest, William O. Douglas Wilder-ness, Clearwater Wilderness, Tatoosh Wilder-ness, and Glacier View Wilderness.

For three impact topics, it was determined thata different impact analysis than the onedescribed above gave a better representation ofthe cumulative impacts.

Air Quality. Because air quality impactsaffecting the park result from actions through-out the entire airshed, the cumulative impactsarea for this topic is the airshed covering thePuget Sound region. Actions that could affectair quality, particularly visibility, in thevicinity of the park were also considered.

Cultural Resources. Cumulative impacts forcultural resources were analyzed on a regionalbasis, generally corresponding to the PugetSound region. This area was chosen to reflectthe highly mobile nature of much prehistoricand historic activity that included occupancyof the Mount Rainier area primarily in thesummer.

Socioeconomic Environment. Cumulativeimpacts for the socioeconomic environmentwere analyzed for King, Pierce, Lewis, andYakima Counties. This four-county areasurrounding the park corresponds to the areaused in previous studies of the park’seconomic effects and recognizes that thesocioeconomic effects of park actions extendeven beyond the gateway communities.

County/Community Plans and Activities

Pierce County Comprehensive Plan (PierceCounty 1999a). Most of the land surroundingthe park is designated as forestland as part of

the land use element of this plan. Lands alongState Route 706 and bordering the Nisquallyentrance to the park are designated as rural 10,which allows a density of 1 residential unit per10 acres, with a maximum of 2.5 units per 10acres if 75% of the site is designated as openspace. This designation will help prevent high-density development and maintain the ruralcharacter on the western side of the park.

Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement for the Upper Nisqually ValleyCommunity Plan (Pierce County 1999b). Thearea encompassed by the plan shares a portionof the park’s southwestern boundary andincludes the gateway communities of Alder,Elbe, and Ashford. The plan amends the PierceCounty Comprehensive Plan by setting forthplanning and land use policies and alternativegrowth scenarios that will direct future landuse decisions in the upper Nisqually area.

The plan outlines several elements and visionsfor the area. Growth will be directed into com-munity-planned centers to maintain the ruralcharacter of the valley. Diversification of theeconomic base and the promotion of tourism,sustainable forestry, and coordination andmarketing of recreational lands and resourceswill be encouraged. The resulting need forinfrastructure and services will also be accom-modated. To protect against the effects ofgrowth, important viewsheds are to be pre-served, as are historic resources, criticalnatural areas, and natural vegetation. Impactsfrom waste disposal, air quality, and pesticideuse will also be addressed.

The provisions outlined in the plan could bothattract additional population and recreationalgrowth into the southwest area of the park andprovide some of the necessary controls toprevent environmental impacts related to thisgrowth.

Mount Rainier Resort at Park Junction(David Evans & Associates 1999). The MountRainier Resort at Park Junction is a proposed


208

440-acre destination conference center resorton State Route 706, approximately 12 mileswest of the Nisqually entrance and adjacent tothe park administration facility at TahomaWoods. The resort is targeting convention con-ferencing business and proposes a range ofservices and facilit ies, including a 270-roomlodge with a conference center for 500 people,a retail village, a golf course, a tennis and spacenter, a train station interpretive center (whichwould serve the proposed Train to the Moun-tain from Tacoma), 400 vacation homesitesand condominiums, and support facilit ies, suchas maintenance, sewage and water treatmentplants, and housing for more than 200 employ-ees. Peak population of permanent residentialand overnight guests is 1,500, with 85,000visitors projected annually. Construction of theresort is expected to be finished by 2011.

Following extensive hearings, Pierce Countyrecently approved rezoning the area to allow aresort. Also, to mitigate impacts on the parkand local communities, there will be conditionson the resort’s permit that require the develop-er to provide an off-site visitor welcome centerfor the park in the State Route 706 corridor andto provide a shuttle service for resort guests tothe park.

Train to the Mountain. For several years, aTrain to the Mountain has been considered thatwould link Tacoma with the Elbe and Ashfordarea. The City of Tacoma currently holdsrights as the owner and operator of the system.Once funding was found for the project, the 57miles of railroad tracks between Tacoma andAshford would be upgraded to allow trainspeeds of about 30 miles per hour, and wouldoffer a one-way trip time of two hours.

The Train to the Mountain would be estab-lished as an excursion railroad, with connect-ing bus service to Mount Rainier and otherregional attractions. Potential riders wouldinclude local residents, tourists, and conven-tion and meeting attendees. It is estimated thatridership would range from about 40,000 to

52,000 riders annually within the first fiveyears and would rise to 86,000 within a 15-year planning horizon.

Chinook Byways Corridor: Planning andManagement Guidebook and Action Plan(Otak Inc. 1999). This corridor plan covers thesegment of State Route 410 that extends fromeast of Enumclaw to the beginning of MatherMemorial Parkway, 4 miles east of Greenwa-ter. This portion of the state highway runsthrough both public and private forested lands,as well as through the historic community ofGreenwater. The Chinook Byways CorridorPlanning and Management Guidebook wascompleted to describe existing conditions andimportant qualities, provide guidance forsolving problems, and provide a starting pointfor future corridor planning, management, andimplementation.

An action plan outlines projects, programs,strategies, and ideas for achieving the visionfor the corridor. Suggested actions of relevanceto the Mount Rainier general management planinclude the following proposals:

expanding the organization to includeinterests and stakeholders for the entireState Route 410 road corridor, fromEnumclaw through the park to Naches,which would take in the area desig-nated in 1998 as an “All AmericanRoad” in the national scenic highwayprogram

implementing an interpretive program coordinating with the Washington

Department of Transportation tocomplete an updated transportation andtraffic analysis

developing recreational opportunitiesalong the corridor

Well-planned constructive improvementsalong State Route 410 could enhance theexperience of visitors using this road corridorto travel to and through Mount Rainier

Methodologies

209

National Park by providing new visitorservices, improved interpretive opportunities,and additional recreation opportunities.

Mount Tahoma Trails System. The MountTahoma Trails system consists of 100 miles ofhut-to-hut cross-country skiing on snow-covered logging roads. It is a partly connectedsystem of ski trails located in Elbe Hills Forest,Tahoma State Forest, privately owned timber-land, and the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Na-tional Forest. The trails are open to hiking,bicycling, skiing, and snowshoeing.

The Mount Tahoma Trails Association(MTTA) has a cooperative agreement with theWashington Department of Natural Resources,the U.S. Forest Service, Rainier T imber Com-pany, LLC, and Mount Rainier National Park.The association and the Department of NaturalResources are promoting all-season use of thetrail network on the west side of MountRainier for hikers, bikers, and skiers.

Private Timber Lands

The Plum Creek T imber Company, the U.S.Forest Service, and eight environmentalorganizations reached an agreement in Novem-ber 1999 to complete the I-90 land exchange incentral Washington. The resulting agreementwill result in an exchange of 31,713 acres ofPlum Creek T imber Company land within theboundaries of the Wenatchee and MountBaker-Snoqualmie National Forests for 11,556acres of U.S. Forest Service land in theWenatchee, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, andGifford Pinchot National Forests.

The revised land exchange protects largeecosystems containing important habitat forfish and wildlife and will also preserverecreational opportunities for state residents.The results of the exchange are an increase inpublic ownership of 8,000 acres of old-growthforests and 20,000 acres of roadless lands.More than 25 miles of well-known hiking trails

are added to public ownership, and some of thestate’s most scenic areas are protected. Theseinclude four roadless, old-growth-forestedvalleys near the Alpine Lakes Wilderness(Scatter Creek, Silver Creek, Domerie Creek,and the West Fork of the Teananway River). A15,000-acre area bordering the Alpine LakesWilderness will be evaluated for potentialaddition to the wilderness system.

This land exchange will enhance biologicalconnectivity between the North and SouthCascades by increasing the amount of publicland on both sides of I-90. Such preservationof lands, in combination with existing federallands, will help address the problems ofwildlife habitat fragmentation that havethreatened to isolate wildlife populations.

Adjacent National Forests

Crystal Mountain Ski Area (Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest) (Sno-Engineering, Inc. n.d.). The Crystal Mountainski area is north of State Route 410, about 21miles east of Greenwater and adjacent toMount Rainier’s eastern wilderness boundary.Current facilit ies include downhill ski runs,chair lifts, three restaurants, a bike rental store,a recreation center, gift and grocery stores, twohotels, and private condominiums. Visitor ac-tivities include skiing in winter and hiking andmountain biking in summer.

The ski area, which operates under permit inthe Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,is proposing a new master plan to allow in-creased development and additional recrea-tional opportunities. The main focus of theexpansion is to promote and enhance ski ser-vices, with some emphasis on summer (off-season) use. The draft master developmentplan / environmental impact statement isscheduled for public review in the summer of2001, with a record of decision expected inDecember 2001.


210

The proposed master plan (alternative 2) callsfor increasing skiers at one time from 7,150 tomore than 10,990, expanding the ski area from450 acres to 714 acres, and authorizing morenight skiing. To support this increased skicapacity and offer year-round recreationalopportunities, new facilit ies would be devel-oped, including 10 new chair lifts, a 100-passenger aerial tram, new housing for em-ployees, a new hotel, an ice-skating rink, and aconference center. Capacity would beincreased by expanding the hotel, the ridgetoprestaurant, and parking areas. Both the tramand the restaurant would operate year-round.The restaurant and conference area would benear the ridgetop that defines the park’snortheast boundary. One of the new chairliftswould be on an undeveloped peak adjacent tothe park, Silver King Mountain. Another newlift would be constructed into Morning GloryBasin, also adjacent to the park.

The resort expansion is to be finished by 2013.Total annual visitation under the owner’spreferred alternative would be 748,000 (83%of which are winter users) versus 437,000users currently (of which 95% are winterusers).

Carbon River Bridge Replacement (MountBaker–Snoqualmie National Forest) (USFS1999d). After a flood destroyed the CarbonRiver bridge serving the Copley Lake / Clear-water Wilderness, just outside the CarbonRiver park entrance, the Forest Service decidedto replace the bridge. A categorical exclusionwas prepared, and consultations with theWashington State Department of Fish andWildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehave been completed. A permit has beenobtained from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to remove the diking and otherstream restrictions of the old bridge.

The replacement bridge will be multi-span,with a length of approximately 800 linear feet.It will not have the numerous stream restric-tions that were characteristic of the old bridge.

It will be single-lane wide with a pullout inmid-span that will provide pass-by oppor-tunity. The current schedule is to start work onthe new bridge in the summer of 2001. Whenthe bridge is completed it will reinstate recrea-tional opportunities in this portion of theSnoqualmie District of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

Wilderness Resource Protection Project(Gifford Pinchot National Forest) (USFS1999b). A decision notice and “Finding of NoSignificant Impact” was issued in April 1999for a wilderness resource protection projectthat evaluated and amended wilderness man-agement strategies for seven wilderness areasthat fall within the forest. The alternativeselected amends the Forest Plan Standardsand Guidelines for Gifford Pinchot NationalForest wilderness areas, implements a re-strictive permit system for climbing MountAdams and overnight camping in all GiffordPinchot National Forest wilderness areas, andimplements limited campsite designations inenvironmentally sensitive areas and/or heavilyimpacted wilderness areas. The goal is to pro-vide an effective and administratively feasiblemeans of protecting and restoring wildernessresource conditions without excessive closuresand restrictions. Permitted use levels in eachwilderness area would depend on informationgathered through resource monitoring.

Bronze Billy Timber Sale (Gifford PinchotNational Forest) (USFS 2000). An environ-mental assessment is being prepared for thethinning and regeneration harvest of 1.4million board feet of t imber approximately 4miles east of Ashford (T15N, R7E, sections28, 29, and 32) near the Nisqually entrance tothe park. Alternative development and analysisfor the environmental assessment currently isunderway.

Campground Reconstructions at SodaSprings, Lodgepole, Halfway Flat, PleasantValley, and Bumping Lake Campgrounds(Wenatchee National Forest). Planning and

Methodologies

211

execution for a program to upgrade camp-ground facilit ies, including access roads,toilets, picnic tables, fire rings, and shelters, isunderway. These facilit ies are in the American/ Bumping River drainage east of the park andsouth and east of State Route 410.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is proposing thedevelopment of a 20,000-seat open-airamphitheater within the boundaries of theirreservation, approximately 35 road miles fromthe northwest (via State Route 164 and 165)and northeast (via State Route 164 and StateRoute 410) quadrants of Mount RainierNational Park (BIA and WDOT 1999). Thisfacility would serve as a performing arts centerfor the greater Puget Sound outdoor concertmarket, and as a cultural center for the tribe.The 95-acre site would be located on depositsfrom the Osceola Mudflow and would includeup to 7,300 surface parking spaces, driveways,internal roads, landscaping, and a mitigationarea. The facility would have a fairly shortseason, ranging from 25 to 40 concerts, pri-marily on weekends and during evening hours(Bureau of Indian Affairs and WashingtonDepartment of Transportation 1999). Theamphitheater’s median annual attendance isestimated at 310,800.

The final environmental document and recordof decision for this project are pending. It isestimated that the amphitheater would becompleted within two years following approvalof the environmental impact statement.

Mount Rainier National Park Actions

The following actions undertaken by the parkin the past were considered as part of thecumulative projects:

• replacing Paradise dormitory (NPS 1995d)

• rehabilitation of Carbon River Road (NPS1998a)

• rehabilitation of the National Park Inn

• replacing Laughingwater Bridge andDeadwood Creek Bridge (NPS 1992d;NPS 1992e)

• constructing the Grove of the Patriarchsboardwalk (NPS 1999g)

• establishing the National HistoricLandmark District (NPS 1997d)

• rehabilitating State Route 410 (MatherMemorial Parkway) (NPS 1997c)

The following future actions to be undertakenby the park were considered as part of thecumulative projects:

• replacing the White River Entrance station(NPS 2000d)

• rehabilitating the Paradise Guide House

• replacing Sunrise Lodge (NPS 1992b)

• stabilizing and improving Camp Muir

• rehabilitating the Stevens Canyon viaduct

• rehabilitating State Route 123 and StateRoute 410

• completing natural and cultural resourcestudies and management actions

212

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

IMPACTS O N NATURAL RESO URCES

Air Quality

Analysis. Under the no-action alternative(continue current management), the park staffwould continue to work with its partners tomaintain and improve the air quality of thepark and region. For example, concessionemployees and many park staff would continueto take shuttles during peak-use periods.However, no new efforts would be initiated toreduce pollution levels or minimize the effectsof in-park pollution sources on air quality.

Visitor use is expected to increase slightly.Increased visitation would result in slightincreases in vehicle miles traveled within thepark, which would cause increased vehicularexhaust, and slight increases in the numbers ofcampfires, which would cause increasedemissions of particulates, carbon monoxide,and volatile organic compounds. Therefore,alternative 1 would have a minor, adverseimpact on local air quality.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects onair quality are considered on a regional basis,and pollutants from the Puget Sound regionand areas to the south would continue to affectair quality in the park to a much greater degreethan would park activities. In particular, sulfurdioxide generated from the Centralia PowerPlant contributes to air quality degradationwithin Mount Rainier National Park. Theinstallation of scrubbers at this plant isexpected to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by90% from the previously allowable limit by theyear 2003, which would improve regional airquality.

Forest fires would contribute large amounts ofparticulates for limited periods of time,generally during the summer and fall. Forest

fires would continue to have major, short-term,adverse impacts on regional air quality.

Actions outside the park, such as the proposedMount Rainier Resort at Park Junction andCrystal Mountain ski area, would increasevehicle miles traveled in the region, and resultin increased vehicular and railway exhaust.Dust and pollutants from logging activitiespollutants from campfires in the surroundingrecreational areas and from slash burning areexpected to continue. These sources wouldcontribute to a moderate adverse impact onregional air quality and to a major adverseimpact on visibility.

The proposed Train to the Mountain couldreduce the number of vehicle miles driven byvisitors to the park, and therefore would reducethe amount of vehicle emissions. This wouldcontribute to a slight improvement in regionalair quality and, therefore, would be a minorbeneficial impact.

In the long term, local planning efforts tomanage and control growth and development,such as the Pierce County ComprehensivePlan and the Upper Nisqually Valley Com-munity Plan, could have a minor beneficialeffect by limiting the extent of new develop-ment and reducing the amount of pollutantsfrom vehicle emissions and new stationarysources. However, these plans would notdiminish the effects of currently planneddevelopments.

Other actions within the park such as restora-tion activities and rehabilitation of buildingswould cause localized increases in dust andemissions from construction vehicles andequipment. This would result in temporaryeffects on air quality. These effects would belocalized and mitigated to the extent possible.The impacts on air quality, although adverse,would be short-term and minor.


213

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with actionsassociated with this alternative, the cumulativeeffect of all of these actions would be a minor,long-term, adverse impact on air quality, andthe cumulative air quality impact on visibilitywould be adverse and minor to moderate.These impacts would be primarily due to theeffect of pollutants from the Puget Soundregion and areas to the south of the park. Thisalternative’s contribution to these cumulativeimpacts would be minor.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative wouldresult in a minor impact on local air quality,due to slight increases in pollutants fromvehicle exhaust and campfires. Cumulativeimpacts would include minor, adverse impactson regional air quality, and minor to moderate,adverse impacts on regional visibility. Thisalternative’s contribution to these cumulative,regional impacts would be minor.


Analysis. Minor, long-term, adverse impactson water quality would result under alternative1, due to slight increases in levels of sediment,pollutants, and nutrients in the water. Minorimpacts on the clarity of water in MowichLake from roadway runoff also would beexpected. These effects would be associatedwith increased visitor use of the park.

Visitor uses such as camping, hiking, andhorseback riding would increase slightly andwould continue to have localized, indirecteffects on water quality due to increased soilcompaction, vegetation trampling, and ulti-mately the loss of vegetation in some areas.These effects would lead to greater erosion andthe addition of sediment to adjacent waters.The nature and extent of soil compaction andvegetation damage and, therefore, of relatedimpacts on water quality, would depend on thetype of local soils, vegetation, and topography,as well as the areal extent, duration, and

intensity of use (USFS 1985). However, sedi-mentation effects generally would be slight incomparison to the natural sedimentation occur-ring as a result of spring snowmelt, summerand fall runoff from precipitation, or floodflows on glacially influenced rivers andstreams. Therefore, sedimentation-relatedimpacts on water resources would benegligible to minor.

The increased use of unpaved roads couldmake these facilit ies more susceptible tosurface erosion and runoff. Vehicle use alongroads and in parking lots would continue todeposit petroleum products that could bewashed into adjacent waters. Increasedoverflow parking along roads would increasethe potential for erosion of road shoulders andthe resulting sedimentation. Impacts wouldgenerally be minor due to mitigation tech-niques such as placement of sediment trapsand/or biofiltration (vegetation filtration) alongroadsides. Dust and sediment runoff fromincreased traffic on Mowich Lake Road wouldcontribute to reduced clarity of the lake. How-ever; the increased volume of sediment wouldbe slight and the impact, although adverse,would be minor.

Roads that are subject to flood inundation andrepeatedly need repair, such as Westside Roadand Carbon River Road, would continue toproduce multiple incidents of adverse impactson water quality and water resources due tosediment runoff into adjacent waters. In mostcases, these adverse impacts would be minorand short-term.

Improper disposal of untreated human waste inareas without toilet facilit ies currently causesminor water quality problems. Under the no-action alternative, this problem would increaseproportionally with increased human use of thepark.

Because winter visitor use in the park is lowand future increases in visitation would beslight, winter use would have few impacts.


214

Visitors are encouraged to participate in camp-ing and other activities only in areas where thesnow is at least 2 feet deep. To the extent thatthis policy is ignored, an inadequate snow covercould result in soil disturbance and loss ofprotective vegetative cover, which could causelocalized soil erosion and sedimentation,resulting in minor adverse impacts.

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the parkwould result in minor to major, adverse effectson water quality due to increased loading ofsediment, nutrients, and pathogens.

• Logging and timber harvesting would havemoderate to major short-term adverseeffects on water quality. These wouldresult from sediment entering rivers thatoriginate within the park. For example, theNisqually River would be affected by theU.S. Forest Service’s planned Bronze Billytimber sale, and the Carbon River wouldbe affected by private timber harvesting.Although the impacts at each site would belast only a few years until a vegetativecover was reestablished, the continuouscycle of timber harvest would result in amoderate to major, long-term, adverseimpact on the region’s water quality.

• Runoff from other proposed developments,including Mount Rainier Resort at ParkJunction and expansion of the CrystalMountain ski area, would have minorlong-term adverse impacts on waterquality in local rivers such as the Whiteand Nisqually Rivers. These impactswould occur as small amounts of sediment,pollutants, and nutrients entered the riversfrom the developed areas.

In the long term, local planning efforts tomanage and control growth and development,such as the Pierce County ComprehensivePlan and the Upper Nisqually Valley Com-munity Plan, could have a minor beneficialimpact by providing additional protection forwater quality and water resources. They might

also limit the extent of new development in theregion. However, these plans would not dimin-ish the effects of currently planned develop-ments.

Watershed restoration projects on nationalforest lands, including the decommissioningand revegetation of some roads, would reducethe entry of sediment into local waters. Thiswould affect small, localized areas and wouldhave a minor beneficial effect.

Past and reasonably foreseeable projectsundertaken within the park that would affectwater resources include construction of theGrove of the Patriarchs boardwalk and thereplacement of Sunrise Lodge. These actionswould continue to have minor short-termadverse impacts on water quality resultingfrom small increases in sediment and otherpollutants. Continued adherence to bestmanagement practices would ensure that theimpacts were minor.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with impactsassociated with this alternative, the cumulativeimpacts would be major to moderate, long-term, and adverse in the region, primarilybecause of the effects of logging and landdevelopment outside the park.

This alternative’s contribution to the cumu-lative impacts would be minor. This wouldoccur because of the National Park Service’smandate to protect resources within the parkand its commitment to mitigate even minorwater quality impacts through such measuresas trail maintenance and reconstruction.

Conclusion. Increasing visitor use in the parkwould have a minor adverse impact on resour-ces and water quality by increasing levels ofsediments, vehicle-related pollutants, andnutrients in lakes and streams. Most of theseeffects would be localized. There would bemajor to moderate long-term adverse cumu-lative impacts in the region, primarily because


215

of pollutant loads in runoff associated withlogging and land development outside thepark. This alternative’s contribution to theseadverse cumulative, impacts would be minor.

Floodplains

Analysis. Alternative 1 would have minor tomoderate adverse impacts on floodplain valuesfor the Nisqually River and minor adverseimpacts for the Carbon River. These effectswould be associated with the continued needfor maintenance of existing levees, roadreconstruction, and streambank protection.

No new developments would occur inregulatory floodplains in this alternative.Therefore, only current and ongoing conditionsat developed areas that are in or nearfloodplains have been evaluated.

Both Longmire and the Sunshine Point camp-ground are outside the regulatory floodplainfor precipitation-related events. Flooding alongthe Nisqually River in the 1950s was a resultof outburst flood activity from the NisquallyGlacier when a massive amount of water wassuddenly released from the glacier. Becauseoutburst flooding from the glacier has de-creased over the past few decades, the proba-bility that these areas would flood from suchan event is small. However, continued sedi-ment deposition in the existing Nisqually Riverchannel could cause higher flood elevationsand continued erosion of the levees protectingthese areas.

Because the levees are within the regulatoryfloodplain, levee maintenance and streambankprotection would have long-term adverseimpacts on floodplain values by continuing toalter the path of natural river flows and ad-versely impacting riparian soils and vegetation.These would be moderate at Longmire becauseit involves a longer stretch of the river, andminor at Sunshine Point because it affects asmall portion of the river. Similarly, ongoing

operation of the Ipsut Creek campgroundwould have minor adverse impacts onfloodplain values.

Under the no-action alternative, WestsideRoad and Carbon River Road would continueto be reconstructed each time they washed out.Continuing bank protection, channel manipu-lation, and repair activities could interfere withnatural river processes in multiple sections ofstreams and rivers in the park and would havelong-term, moderate, adverse impacts onfloodplain values on the Carbon River,Tahoma Creek, Fish Creek and the SouthPuyallup River.

All the facilit ies at the Carbon River entrance,including housing and the ranger station, areinside the 100-year regulatory floodplain.Therefore, their continued use would have aminor adverse effect on the floodplain.

Cumulative Impacts. There are numerousprojects on private and national forest landsthat could affect floodplains in the Nisquallyand Carbon River drainages. Ongoing com-mercial logging activities and associated roaddevelopments have had moderate impacts onfloodplains and river processes in the area.Permanent roads developed to access theforested areas cross floodplains and havecreated permanent alterations that affectfloodplain values. Impacts on the Nisquallyand Carbon Rivers from these activities arelong-term, adverse, and moderate.

The U.S. Forest Service’s planned CarbonRiver Bridge Replacement project could affectthe floodplain in the immediate area of theCarbon River along Forest Road 7810 duringconstruction. This would result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts. Watershed restorationprojects on national forest lands, including thedecommissioning of some roads, would resultin positive effects on floodplain values byreducing long-term impacts on some flood-plains. However, the area affected would be


216

relatively small, resulting in a minor beneficialeffect.

In the long term, local planning efforts to man-age and control growth and development, suchas the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan andthe Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan,would have a minor beneficial impact by pro-viding additional protection for floodplains inthe region. However, these plans would notdiminish the effects of currently planneddevelopments.

Other actions by the National Park Service thatwould affect floodplains in the park primarilyinclude road rehabilitation, such as the re-habilitation of Carbon River Road. These typesof projects, which require manipulation ofriverbanks, produce minor short-term adverseimpacts on floodplain values and riverprocesses.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with impactsassociated with this alternative, there would bea moderate long-term cumulative adverseimpact on floodplains, primarily because of theeffects of maintaining logging roads on privateand public lands outside the park. This alterna-tive’s contribution to these adverse cumulativeimpacts would also be moderate, because ofthe multiple sections of floodplains in the parkthat would be involved.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inminor to moderate long-term adverse impactson floodplain values along relatively smallsections of several rivers and streams. Theimpacts would occur due to ongoing leveemaintenance and riverbank protection. Cumu-lative effects would include moderate long-term adverse impacts on floodplains becauseof actions outside of the park. This alterna-tive’s contribution to these cumulative impactswould also be moderate.

Wetlands

Analysis. There would be no impacts onwetlands under this alternative. No actions areproposed under this alternative that woulddirectly affect wetlands, and existing practicesthat prevent indirect impacts on wetland areaswould continue.

Cumulative Impacts. Wetlands on both pub-lic and private lands in the vicinity of the parkhave been extensively modified by logging anddevelopments. Past NPS actions also havemodified wetlands in the park. Although long-term effects on wetlands must be mitigatedthrough wetland restoration or the creation ofreplacement wetlands under the Clean WaterAct, there still has been a moderate adverselong-term cumulative impact on wetlands inthe region. Alternative 1 would not contributeto this cumulative impact.

Conclusion. This alternative would not causeany impacts on wetlands. Although therewould be a moderate adverse long-termcumulative impact on wetlands in the region,alternative 1 would not contribute to thisimpact.


Analysis. Throughout most of the park,increased visitor use associated withalternative 1 would result in negligible tominor long-term adverse impacts on soils andvegetation. Moderate long-term adverseimpacts would occur in high-use areas.

Visitor uses such as camping, hiking, andhorseback riding would increase slightly andcontinue to have localized effects on soils andvegetation. In undisturbed areas, humantrampling would bend or break abovegroundplant parts. Trampled vegetation makes a siteeasily recognizable as an informal (social) trailor campsite, often causing human use toescalate. Repeated use of these newly disturbed


217

areas, as well as previously disturbed areas,would result in vegetation loss followed by soilcompaction and erosion. Social trails on slopinghillsides would act as channels for surface waterrunoff, resulting in soil erosion.

The nature and extent of vegetation loss andsoil compaction under the no-action alternativewould depend on the amount, t iming, type, andlocation of use. For example, soils and vege-tation are most susceptible to damage duringspring when soils are water-saturated andprone to disturbance, and when plants areinitiating growth. Due to the short growingseason in the park, many plant species areunable to generate new growth followingtrampling, and vegetation loss occurs quickly.In high-use areas, this plant mortality wouldresult in continued degradation even afterrecreational use ceased.

In some high use areas, such as ParadiseMeadows or Spray Park, there would bemoderate adverse impacts, as repeatedtrampling resulted in high plant mortality andincreased erosion potential. In problem sites,the park staff would continue attempts toprevent and reduce impacts and to restoredamaged sites. However, current efforts wouldnot prevent or reduce all impacts under currentvisitation levels. Thus, increased impacts areexpected as visitation increases.

In other areas of the park, there would benegligible to minor adverse impacts onvegetation as relatively few plants in smallareas were affected. The potential for soilerosion in these areas would not increase.

Increased visitor use might also help spreadexotic (nonnative) or noxious species — fromseeds carried into the park on vehicles, packstock, clothing, maintenance equipment, andother materials. Impacts would range fromminor to moderate, depending on the type ofplant and where it was introduced. Moderateimpacts would occur if a local population of aspecies or plant community was sufficiently

affected to cause a change in its abundance ordistribution.

Dust and pollutants from motor vehicles in thepark would increase slightly and continue toaffect vegetation adjacent to roadways byinterfering with plant respiration and causingchlorosis in leaves. Increased parking byvisitors in vegetated areas along roads wouldcause loss of vegetation, which would con-tribute to soil erosion and might lead to inva-sion by noxious weed species. Because theseeffects would be localized and occur in previ-ously disturbed areas, the impacts would benegligible to minor.

In winter visitors are encouraged to participatein winter wilderness camping only in areaswhere snow is at least 2 feet deep. To theextent that the policy is ignored, increased usecould increase soil erosion during snowmeltand retard sensitive new vegetation growth asthe snow receded. However, because theseeffects would be localized, impacts would beminor.

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the parkhave resulted in, and would be likely to con-tinue to result in, minor to major long-term ad-verse effects on soils and vegetation in thevicinity of the park, such as the Carbon Rivervalley. In particular, logging and commercialand housing developments on lands outside thepark boundary have had (and would continueto have) edge effects on vegetation and soilsalong the park boundary, such as soil erosionand changes in species composition due towindthrow, changes in the light regime, andinfestations of nonnative plants.

The expansion of the Crystal Mountain skiarea is expected to increase summer and winteruse of the adjacent park area. Although miti-gating measures should help reduce impacts,increased trampling of vegetation and theestablishment of social trails still would belikely to occur.


218

In the long term, local planning efforts tomanage and control growth and development,such as the Pierce County ComprehensivePlan and the Upper Nisqually Valley Com-munity Plan, could have a minor beneficialeffect to the extent that they limited newdevelopment in the region. However, theseplans would not diminish the effects ofcurrently planned developments.

Watershed restoration projects on nationalforest lands, including the decommissioningand restoration of some roads, would reducethe potential for soil erosion. Because theseactions would affect small, localized areas,their long-term beneficial effects would beminor.

Past and reasonably foreseeable projectsundertaken in the park that would affect soilsand vegetation include replacing the Paradisedormitory and the White River entrancestation. These actions would continue to causeminor short-term adverse impacts on soils andvegetation because of their small sizes, the useof best management practices to control soilloss during construction, and promptrevegetation after their completion.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with impactsassociated with this alternative, the impact ofall of these actions would be likely to result inminor to major long-term cumulative adverseimpacts on soils and vegetation in the region,primarily because of the effects of logging andland development outside the park.

This alternative’s contribution to the cumu-lative impacts would be minor because of therelatively small areas of soils and vegetation inthe park that are disturbed and the NationalPark Service’s commitment to ensuring theprotection of soils and vegetation as an integralcomponent of the park.

Conclusion. Increased visitor activities mostlywould result in localized minor long-term

adverse impacts on soils and vegetation, withmoderate impacts in some high-use areas suchas Paradise Meadows and Spray Park. Impactswould include trampled vegetation, loss ofplants, spreading of exotic species, and in-creased soil erosion. There also probablywould be minor to major long-term cumulativeadverse effects on vegetation and soils in theregion, primarily due to logging and land de-velopment. This alternative’s contribution tothese cumulative impacts would be minor.

Wildlife

Analysis. Alternative 1 impacts on wildlifewould be adverse and would range fromnegligible to minor. These effects would becaused by increased recreational activity andvehicular traffic associated with slightincreases in visitor use.

Most visitor use is concentrated in nonwilder-ness areas, along wilderness trails, and atwilderness campsites. Increased humanpresence in these areas might disturb wildlife.However, because these areas already areheavily used, it is doubtful that slight increasesin human activity would further impact wild-life and wildlife habitat in these areas. Wildlifesensitive to human use already avoid theseareas, and animals that do inhabit such loca-tions would be accustomed to human use andwould not be further impacted by additionalhuman habitation. To the extent that wildlifewere disturbed, it would be temporary (lastingonly until visitors passed by) and would notaffect local or regional populations. Therefore,the impacts, although adverse, would benegligible.

Increased use would cause a proportionalincrease in improper food storage by visitors.Food and garbage left out attracts wildlife,resulting in animals associating food withpeople and possibly causing human-wildlifeconflicts. Some visitors would continue to feedwildlife, which would also condition wildlife


219

to associate humans with food. Existing wild-life management practices, such as providingwildlife-resistant garbage cans and foodstorage sheds and educating visitors, wouldcontinue to be implemented, resulting innegligible to minor impacts.

Wildlife are occasionally injured or killed bymotor vehicles on park roads, and this impactmight increase slightly with additional motorvehicle travel. These adverse impacts would beminor, because they would affect individuals,but not entire populations.

In winter, visitor-use impacts on wildlifewould be negligible because visitor use inwinter would increase only slightly, and wouldcontinue to be low.

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the parkwould result in minor to major long-term ad-verse effects on wildlife. Many of these effectswould be associated with the conversion ofwildlife habitat to commercial and residentialdevelopment. Additionally, land developmentwould fragment remaining habitat, making itunsuitable to support species that are sensitiveto the presence of humans.

Except for species that rely on large tracts ofmature or old-growth forests, the effects oftimber harvesting in already roaded areaswould be short-term, adverse, and minor tomoderate. Animals would be displaced duringtimbering operations, and the land would havea lowered ability to support wildlife until vege-tation was reestablished. Thereafter, thecreation of “edge” and early successionalstages would improve the habitat for manywildlife species, including game animals suchas deer and elk.

Logging would cause long-term major adverseeffects on species that rely on large tracts ofmature or old-growth forests because timber-ing would produce long-term habitat loss.Long-term major adverse effects would resultfrom timbering in unroaded areas because the

logging roads would open these areas toincreased human disturbance. These effectscould be reduced or eliminated if the roadswere permanently closed and revegetated afterlogging was completed.

In the long term, local planning efforts to man-age and control growth and development, suchas the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan andthe Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan,could have a minor beneficial effect by lim-iting the extent of new development that coulddisrupt or remove wildlife habitat. However,these plans would not diminish the effects ofcurrently planned developments.

Other actions in the park that could affectwildlife are the replacement of bridges and therehabilitation of the Stevens Canyon viaduct.Effects during construction would be minor,short-term, and adverse. Habitat restorationafter completion would prevent long-termeffects.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with impactsassociated with this alternative, the cumulativeimpacts would be minor to major, long-term,and adverse, primarily because of the effects oflogging and land development outside thepark.

This alternative’s contribution to the cumula-tive impacts would be minor because theadverse effect within the park would be smalland because of the large area of habitat loss ordegradation that would occur outside of thepark.

Conclusion. Increased visitor activities asso-ciated with alternative 1 would cause negli-gible to minor long-term adverse impacts onwildlife. Impacts would be associated withincreased visitor use displacing or disturbingwildlife, conditioning wildlife to associatefood with people, and injuring or killingwildlife in collisions with motor vehicles.Cumulative effects would include minor to


220

major long-term adverse impacts, primarilythrough habitat loss associated with loggingand land development outside the park. Thisalternative’s contribution to these cumulativeimpacts would be minor.


Analysis. Alternative 1 would not be likely toadversely affect any special-status species.However, some inconsequential changes tohabitat or loss of individuals might occur, asdescribed belo w.

Site-specific surveys would be conductedbefore implementing specific actions todetermine if special-status species existed inthe project area. If any were located, theNational Park Service would consult with theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, and theWashington State Department of NaturalResources to determine mitigation measures toavoid or minimize adverse impacts on thespecies.

The potential effects on most special-statusspecies from the implementation of alternative1 would be associated with increased humanuse of the park. The following analysis isarranged by groups of species with similarhabitat requirements.

Marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, andnorthern goshawk — Although their feeding orforaging habits vary, these three species allnest in mature or old-growth forests within thepark. Alternative 1, which would continue toprotect these forest types, would not be likely toadversely affect these species.

Most of the park’s 22,000 acres of murrelethabitat and 68,000 acres of northern spotted owlhabitat would receive litt le additional humanuse, and the number and frequency of human-related impacts would remain low. Current

management practices that would continueunder alternative 1 include protecting identifiedspotted owl or marbled murrelet nest sites fromhuman impacts.

The slight increases in human noise and activitythat would be associated with increased visitoruse could displace or disturb some individualbirds. Increased human uses, particularly inpicnic and camping areas, could result in anincrease in jays, crows, and magpies, which preyon nestlings and eggs of northern spotted owls,marbled murrelets, and goshawks. However,breeding murrelets may be less affected than theother two species because their nests are wellhidden 100 feet or more above the ground.

Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and ferruginoushawk — The bald eagle and ferruginous hawkare transient and do not nest within the park, sothere would be no effect on these species.Peregrine falcons have been found nesting inthe southwest area of the park, but they wouldnot be affected by actions under alternative 1.

Olive-sided flycatcher — This species, whichis known to breed in the park, would not belikely to be adversely affected under alterna-tive 1. The olive-sided flycatcher prefers forestedges adjacent to open areas, such as burns,montane meadows, and subalpine parklands.This habitat would remain relatively undis-turbed by actions under this alternative. Al-though increased human noise and activity couldcontinue to displace or disturb individual birdsnear trails, campsites, and other activity areas,the impacts would be minimal and localized.

Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Cali-fornia wolverine, and pacific fisher — It isunlikely that any of these species of carnivor-ous mammals currently inhabit the park.Grizzly bears have never been documented inthe park, lynx and wolves have not been docu-mented since the 1920s, wolverines have notbeen documented since 1933, and fishers havenot been documented since 1947. Therefore,these species would not be affected by the no-


221

action alternative (continue currentmanagement).

Reestablishing some of these species in thepark has been discussed and could be con-sidered under alternative 1. All these speciesrequire large expanses of land relatively freefrom human use. Increases in human use inalternative 1 might be expected to reduce theamount of suitable habitat. However, humanuse in the park is likely to continue primarilyin nonwilderness areas and along trails and atdesignated campsites in the wilderness areas.Therefore, increased use would have lit t leeffect on the habitat preferred by these species.

Long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis —These bat species roost in caves, rock crevices,abandoned buildings, and trees. They forage inforests and open areas at night. This alternativewould not be likely to adversely affect thesespecies because it would not include any actionsthat would disturb roosting sites or foraginghabitat, or that would disrupt their overnightactivity.

Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat — Thisspecies was detected in 2000 near Longmire. Noactions are proposed that would be likely to dis-turb potential roosting sites or foraging. There-fore, alternative 1 would not affect this species.

Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, bull trout, andcoastal cutthroat trout — This alternative is notlikely to adversely affect any of these fishspecies.

• Small numbers of federally threatenedChinook salmon (Puget Sound population)are likely to occur and spawn in severalpark drainages, including the Carbon,White, Mowich, and Puyallup Rivers. Inthe past, Chinook salmon were docu-mented in the Carbon River just outsidethe park boundary.

• Coho salmon were historically found in thesame drainages. Although no recent sur-

veys have been conducted, it is likely thatthey are present today in small numbers.

• Bull trout are found in several of the park’srivers and streams, including the White,West Fork, Carbon, and Puyallup Riversand their tributaries.

• Coastal cutthroat trout have been docu-mented in the park. However, this speciesmay have been introduced on the east side;it was not historically present in parkwaters.

Under alternative 1, increased visitor activitiessuch as hiking and horseback riding could re-duce shoreline vegetation, which would in-crease sediment levels in the park’s rivers,streams, and lakes. Increased sedimentationcould adversely affect trout and salmon duringspawning (fall and winter after the first rains)and rearing (spring). However, additional sedi-mentation associated with alternative 1 wouldhave litt le overall effect on fall spawning habi-tat because the additional sediment quantitiesassociated with alternative 1 would be smallcompared to the normal sediment volumeswashed do wn by the first rains of the season.Little additional springtime sedimentationwould be expected because park visitation islow in the spring when streams are used forrearing of young.

Red-legged frog, tailed frog, cascades frog,western toad, and California floater — Theseamphibians and mussel are grouped becausethey have similar habitat requirements. Like thefish discussed above, the primary concern foralternative 1 is increased sedimentation. The no-action alternative would not be likely to result inadverse effects on these species because theexpected increases in sediment loads would benegligible in comparison to natural sedimentloads, especially during first rains and snowmeltor flooding.

Larch Mountain salamander and Van Dyke’ssalamander — This alternative is not likely to


222

adversely affect these salamanders, whichinhabit the park, as follows:

• Larch Mountain salamanders are found inforested or talused environments and havebeen documented in the park.

• Van Dyke’s salamanders are found in avariety of habitats and have been docu-mented in the park in the Nisqually,Carbon, and Mowich drainages andoutside the park near Longmire.

Actions taken under this alternative would notaffect the species’ habitats or populationsbecause no additional forested, talused, orstreambank areas would be developed. Increasedvisitor use is not expected to produce adverseeffects because litt le additional human activitywould be expected in the salamander habitats.

Valley silverspot, whulge checkerspot, andFender’s soliperlan stonefly — It is unknownwhether the valley silverspot or the whulgecheckerspot occur in the park. The stonefly hasbeen identified near Westside Road. Theseinsects would not likely be adversely affectedbecause current management practices to protectthese species would be continued under alterna-tive 1. These include identifying their foodplants and breeding habitat, conducting surveysfor food plants and habitats before any vege-tation removal (butterflies) or changes in aquatichabitat (stonefly), and implementing measures toprotect food plants and habitat.

State-listed sensitive plant species — Individ-ual plants of the obscure Indian paintbrush andthe other state-listed sensitive plant specieswould be directly impacted if increased visitoruse resulted in additional crushing or picking.However, before implementing any action thatmight cause harm, the National Park Servicewould conduct surveys and provide mitigation,as described at the beginning of this analysis.Therefore, alternative 1 would not be likely toadversely affect the Indian paintbrush or othersensitive plant species.

Cumulative Impacts. Timber cutting on pri-vately owned old-growth forests outside thepark is of particular concern because it wouldcontinue to result in the loss or fragmentation ofhabitat for two federally endangered species, thespotted owl and marbled murrelet. Land devel-opment and timber harvesting would continueto adversely affect all of the special-statusspecies outside of the park through suchmechanisms as habitat loss, habitat degrada-tion (for example, decreased water temperatureand flow, and increased turbidity), andincreased sedimentation.

Other actions undertaken by the National ParkService within the park, such as replacingbridges or rehabilitating the Stevens Canyonviaduct, could result in some loss of individu-als or inconsequential changes to habitat. Be-cause the National Park Service would imple-ment mitigation, these actions would be notlikely to adversely affect any special-statusspecies.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with effectsassociated with this alternative, the cumulativeeffect of all of these actions would be likely toadversely affect special-status species, primari-ly because of the impacts of logging and landdevelopment outside the park. Alternative 1would not contribute to this cumulative effect.

Conclusion. Continued human use, along withthe expected increases in visitor use in thepark, would cause disturbance to individuals ofspecial-status species. However, the survey,avoidance, and mitigation actions that wouldbe taken by the National Park Service wouldensure that alternative 1 would not adverselyaffect any species of federal or state status.

The effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park, when combined with theeffect of actions under this alternative, wouldbe likely to adversely affect special-statusspecies. Alternative 1 would not contribute tothis cumulative effect.


223

IMPACTS RELATED TOGEO LO GIC HAZARDS

Analysis. Adverse impacts under alternative 1would range from major to negligible. Devel-opment sites within the park that are currentlyin volcanic and nonvolcanic hazard areaswould remain in their current locations. Noactions under this alternative would result infacilit ies being built in or removed from high-hazard areas. Therefore, all impacts would beassociated with increased visitation to parkfacilit ies within areas that are subject togeologic hazards.

With the expected slight long-term increases inthe number of visitors to the park, more visi-tors would be exposed to volcanic hazards.Short-term safety hazards would range fromnegligible to major, although the likelihoodthat any event would occur within five years orless would be low. However, in the long term(up to 100 years or more), negligible to majorlong-term safety hazards would continue toexist at these sites because of the potential forinjury or loss of life should a geologic eventoccur. The degree of risk, and therefore thelevel of impact due to volcanic hazards, woulddepend on the potential recurrence interval fora debris flow event likely to occur in therespective zone.

Several developed areas of the park (WhiteRiver campground, Cougar Rock campground,the Longmire area, the Box Canyon picnicarea, the Kautz Creek maintenance area, andIpsut Creek campground) as well as portions ofWestside Road (below Dry Creek and at thePuyallup River) are within case III zones.Increased visitor use at these areas would havemajor adverse impacts because these areashave the highest degree of risk with a recur-rence interval estimated at less than 100 years.

Areas within case II zones (the Nisqually,Stevens Canyon, White River, and CarbonRiver entrances; Sunshine Point campground;and the Falls Creek picnic area) would have

less risk, with a recurrence interval of 100 to500 years, but still there would be moderateadverse impacts. Areas within case I zones(Tahoma Woods, and Camps Schurman andMuir on the mountain) would have the leastdegree of risk with a recurrence interval ofmore than 500 years, with minor adverseimpacts.

Areas outside these zones (Paradise, Sunrise,and Mowich Lake) would have a negligibledegree of risk for debris flows. However, theseareas are close to the mountain and would behazardous if a volcanic event occurred. Inaddition, evacuation routes from these areaswould cross case II or case III inundationzones. Although visitors would be advised tostay in these locations during some types ofvolcanic emergencies, the large number ofvisitors who could be affected by a volcanicevent and blocked evacuation routes wouldconstitute a major adverse impact.

Efforts to educate visitors and employeesabout hazards would better prepare individualsto respond appropriately and to assist inevacuation efforts in the event of a hazard-related emergency. However, education wouldnot eliminate the long-term public safety risksassociated with sites in existing hazard zones.

Exposure to nonvolcanic hazards such as ava-lanches and rockfalls would also increase withmore visitors in the park. This would result inmajor adverse impacts at the White Rivercampground, where fractured rock on LittleTahoma peak is perched just above the camp-ground. Major to moderate adverse impactsalso would occur along the southern portion ofWestside Road (along Tahoma Creek), whereseveral mass movements of rock have beensent into the valley, and in moderate adverseimpacts at the Cougar Rock campground dueto the proximity of cliffs producing large rocksin accumulated talus.

There would be moderate to minor adverseimpacts along portions of the Nisqually to


224

Paradise road and Stevens Canyon road due toareas of adjacent rockfall terrain, and at Ohan-apecosh due to potential failure of weak rockson the east valley wall. Other developed areasof the park, such as Camp Muir, could be sub-ject to lesser risk of rockfall, constituting aminor adverse impact.

Winter use, including skiing, snowshoeing,snowboarding, and overnight camping, wouldincrease slightly under alternative 1. Parkvisitors and employees would remain in areasprone to avalanches throughout the park. Thepark staff would continue current efforts toalert visitors and employees to the potentialavalanche hazards. However, there still wouldbe adverse impacts due to risk of avalanches.These would be minor to moderate because,there would be fewer visitors and employeesthan in summer.

The Ipsut Creek campgrounds, as well asportions of the Longmire area, would besubject to hazards from flooding due to theirproximity to the floodplains of the Nisquallyand Carbon Rivers. The impact in the Long-mire area would be mitigated because of theexistence of levees. Facilit ies at the CarbonRiver entrance and the Ipsut Creek camp-ground have been subject to flooding in thepast. This flooding would continue to pose ahazard. Because of the number of visitors andemployees affected and the localized nature ofthe flooding, it would constitute a minor tomoderate adverse impact.

Cumulative Impacts. Adverse impacts relatedto geologic hazards under alternative 1 wouldrange from major to negligible. Impacts relatedto geologic hazards caused by other actions,either inside or outside the park, would occuronly in the close vicinity of those actions.Therefore, no cumulative impacts have beenidentified because the impacts of alternative 1would not add to or decrease the impacts fromhazards in other locations.

Conclusion. As park visitation increases in thefuture, keeping NPS facilit ies in hazardouszones would continue to represent major tonegligible adverse impacts resulting from risksto visitors and employees. Many developedsites in Mount Rainier National Park are inareas at risk from debris flows that could occurat any time of year, some without warning.The debris flows to which these areas are sub-ject are far more destructive than water-domi-nated floods. As visitation levels increased,more people would be exposed to the risks ofvolcanic hazards.

No cumulative impacts have been identified.Impacts related to geologic hazards resultingfrom this alternative would not increase ordecrease the impacts related to other actionsinside or outside the park, because impactswould be restricted to areas in the closevicinity of those projects.

IMPACTS O N CULTURAL RESO URCES

Archeological Resources

Analysis. No adverse effects on archeologicalresources would result from alternative 1. Atpresent, less than 2% of the total land area inMount Rainier National Park has been system-atically surveyed for archeological resources.As a result of these surveys, 54 archeologicalsites and 31 isolated finds have been docu-mented. Additional reconnaissance and subsur-face testing would be likely to increase thenumber of recorded sites.

Disturbances can result from construction andmaintenance activities and unrestricted visitoraccess to areas of known sensitivity for archeo-logical resources. Visitor access impacts caninclude disturbances caused by overflow park-ing along roadside and trailhead areas, thecreation and use of social trails, and occasion-ally the use and maintenance of existing trails.


225

Some prehistoric archeological sites arelocated near areas of high public use andvisibility, including Sunrise Ridge, FrozenLake, and T ipsoo Lake. Several of these havesustained impacts from both natural andhuman-caused erosion (a consequence ofpedestrian traffic on designated and socialtrails). The increase in visitors anticipatedunder alternative 1 would continue the human-caused erosion of these sites or other known orunknown prehistoric sites. However, miti-gating measures adopted by the park requireavoidance and protection of these resources.Therefore, there would be no adverse effect.

The park staff would continue establishedresource protection measures for the identifi-cation and treatment of archeological resourceson a case-by-case basis. Where potential im-pacts were identified, possible mitigation couldinclude, but would not be limited to, avoidanceand protection, data recovery (evaluated as anadverse impact that would be undertaken as alast resort), and educational outreach programssuch as informative onsite tours and presenta-tions.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts onarcheological resources are considered on aregion-wide basis because prehistoric and his-toric activity in the Mount Rainier region wasnot limited to the area within the current parkboundary.

Actions outside the park include a variety ofdevelopment projects, public improvements,and timber harvest proposals, including thosedescribed in the “Methodologies” section.Because of the large acreage involved and thefact that Native American sites are in thevicinity of Mount Rainier and have been im-pacted, it is likely that numerous sites wouldcontinue to be impacted. If the actions wererecently permitted by state or federal agencies,recordation may have been required. However,it is likely that many archeological resourceshave been destroyed without knowledge,causing an adverse effect.

Examples of other actions in the park thatcould affect archeological resources includethe replacement of bridges and the stabilizationand improvement at Camp Muir. These actionswould be subject to NPS policies requiringavoidance or mitigation of impacts onarcheological resources, and therefore wouldhave no adverse effect.

When other actions that are external to thepark are considered, along with this alternativeand other actions in the park, the cumulativeeffect would be major, long-term, and adverse.This would occur because of development out-side the park that would impact sites withoutrecordation. However, alternative 1 would notcontribute to this adverse effect. In fact, be-cause mitigating measures adopted by the parkrequire avoidance and protection of these re-sources, this alternative would be expected topreserve archeological resources for theregion.

Conclusion. Established resource protectionmeasures for the identification and treatmentof archeological resources would continue on acase-by-case basis. More visitation, whichcould result in continuing erosion of somearcheological sites, would have no adverseeffects because the park’s resource protectionmeasures would continue to be implemented.When other actions that are external to thepark are considered, along with this alternativeand other actions in the park, there would be amajor cumulative adverse effect on archeologi-cal resources. However, alternative 1 wouldnot contribute to this adverse effect.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. No adverse effects on ethnographicresources would result from alternative 1.Ethnographic resources include gathering andceremonial sites, sometimes referred to as“traditional cultural properties.”


226

Traditionally, NPS resource protection policieshave restricted the traditional procurement ofplants by Native American within the parkboundaries, thereby limiting tribal access tothese ethnographic resources. However, a re-cent agreement between one federally recog-nized tribe and the National Park Service atMount Rainier National Park has partiallyrestored tribal access rights, permitting theprocurement of certain plants for religious andcultural purposes. This has benefited the tribeby reestablishing traditional cultural connec-tions with the mountain’s resources.

Slight increases in visitor use under the no-action alternative would have no adverse effecton the ability of Native Americans to continuecooperative agreements with the park. Shouldethnographic resources be identified in thefuture, the National Park Service would ensurethat efforts were made to avoid or appropriate-ly mitigate impacts on such resources. Tribalpreferences regarding the confidentiality andtreatment of culturally sensitive resourceswould be respected. Therefore, there would notbe likely to be any adverse effects on ethno-graphic resources.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts onethnographic resources are considered on aregional basis because prehistoric and historicactivity in the Mount Rainier region was notlimited to the area within the current parkboundary. Actions outside the park that couldaffect ethnographic resources would the sameas those identified for archeological resources.Specific impacts on ethnographic resourcesdue to these actions are unknown. However, itis likely that numerous resource collection andtraditional cultural sites have been impacted,and would continue to be adversely affected,because of the large acreages affected bylogging and land development, and the highprobability that Native American sites occurthroughout the Mount Rainier vicinity. Ifrecent actions were permitted by state orfederal agencies, data recovery may have been

required. However, it is likely that manyethnographic resources have been destroyedwithout knowledge, resulting in an adverseeffect.

Examples of other actions in the park thatcould affect ethnographic resources include thereplacement of bridges and the stabilizationand improvement at Camp Muir. These actionswould be subject to NPS policies requiringavoidance or mitigation of impacts onethnographic resources, and therefore wouldhave no adverse effect.

When other actions that are external to thepark are considered, along with this alternativeand other actions in the park, the cumulativeeffect on ethnographic resources would bemajor, long-term, and adverse. This wouldoccur primarily because of developmentoutside of the park that would impact siteswithout recordation. The contribution ofalternative 1 actions to these cumulativeimpacts would be negligible. Because effortswould be made to avoid or appropriatelymitigate impacts on ethnographic resources,this alternative would be expected to preserveethnographic resources for the region.

Conclusion. Although the park’s ethnographicresources are largely unknown, alternative 1would not affect existing or potential futurecooperative agreements between NativeAmericans and the park, nor would it affecttraditional cultural properties. Should ethno-graphic resources be identified in the future,appropriate mitigation would be implementedto avoid or reduce impacts so that no adverseeffects would occur.

The cumulative effects on ethnographic re-sources would continue to be adverse. How-ever, alternative 1 would not contribute tothese adverse effects. Because efforts would bemade to avoid or appropriately mitigateimpacts on such resources, this alternativewould help preserve ethnographic resourcesfor the region.


227

Historic Resources, includingthe Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District

Analysis. No adverse effects would result fromthe implementation of alternative 1. This alter-native would not include any major new con-struction or major changes that would affecthistoric resources known to contribute to thesignificance of the National Historic LandmarkDistrict. However, impacts on the districtwould not be fully known until cultural land-scape characteristics were identified throughcultural landscape inventories and reports. Thereplacement of the Sunrise Lodge with aranger/concession facility would be a mitigatedadverse impact, as discussed in the Environ-mental Assessment: Sunrise DevelopmentConcept Plan (NPS 1992b).

The park staff would continue to implementestablished resource protection measures forthe treatment of historic resources. Treatmentmeasures for historic resources would continueto conform to park guidelines and the Secre-tary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelinesfor the Treatment of Historic Properties (36CFR 68). However, as structures aged andmore visitors to the park encountered thehistoric structures, the potential would exist forincreasing impacts.

Conditions that are now known to be inconsis-tent with the original design of the park wouldcontinue. These include the historic vehicularcirculation pattern, which helps determine, to alarge degree, the sequence and content of thevisitor’s experience of the park. At Paradise,vehicular circulation would continue to bereversed from its historic, counter-clockwisedirection. Continued closure of Westside Roadto private vehicles above the Dry Creek areawould also be inconsistent with historic visitorcirculation and would limit visitors’ experi-ences as defined by the original master plan.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts onhistoric resources are considered on a region-wide basis because they would extend beyond

the current park boundary. Actions outside thepark that could affect historic resources wouldbe the same as those identified for archeo-logical resources.

It is likely that, based on the large acreageinvolved and the knowledge of historic sitesoccurring in the vicinity of Mount Rainier,numerous sites have been impacted and wouldcontinue to be impacted. If the actions wererecently permitted by state or federal agencies,data recovery may have been required. How-ever, it is likely that many historic resourceshave been destroyed without knowledge, caus-ing an adverse effect. Although regionwideimpacts have had a cumulative adverse effecton historic resources, they have not directlyaffected the National Landmark HistoricDistrict.

Projects visible from the park, such as theexpansion of the Crystal Mountain Ski Resortand several t imber harvest plans, might dimin-ish the visual integrity of the district for visi-tors whose viewsheds would include newlydeveloped or logged land. This would have anindirect adverse effect on the district.

Examples of other actions in the park thatcould affect historic resources includemaintaining or replacing historic bridges,replacing the Paradise dormitory, and re-placing the Sunrise Lodge. These actionswould be subject to NPS policies requiring theavoidance or mitigation of impacts on NationalHistoric Landmark District resources. Separateenvironmental analysis would occur for actionsthat were considered adverse effects, as wasdone for the replacement of the Sunrise Lodge.Therefore, there would be no adverse effect.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park are combined with impactsassociated with this alternative, the cumulativeimpact would be major, long-term, and ad-verse, primarily because of the effects oflogging and land development on historicresources outside the park. Alternative 1 wouldnot contribute to this cumulative adverse


228

effect. In fact, because the ongoing preserva-tion maintenance of buildings and structureswould continue and because cultural landscapeanalyses would be completed for the district,this alternative would preserve historicresources for the region.

Conclusion. No adverse effects from the no-action alternative were identified. Regionwideimpacts would continue to have a cumulativeadverse effect on historic resources but wouldnot affect the National Historic LandmarkDistrict. Alternative 1 would not contribute tothe regionwide cumulative adverse effect.

Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center

Analysis. Under the no-action alternative, theHenry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Centerwould be retained in its current condition andfunction. If the building was determined to beeligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places as a significant example of theMission 66 program, the no-action alternativewould have no effect on the building’s eligi-bility. However, the continued physical preser-vation of the building would remain difficult.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impactswould not occur because the building would bepreserved and there would be no adverseeffect.

Conclusion. Retaining the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center in its current capacityas part of the no-action alternative would haveno effect, and no cumulative effect, on thebuilding’s potential historical integrity.

IMPACTS O N THEVISITO R EXPERIENCE

Based upon a continuation of existing trends invisitation, the number of visitors to the park isexpected to increase slightly over the longterm, with substantial fluctuations from year toyear. It is expected that as much as 50% of the

total visitation would occur in July andAugust, and as much as 75% would occurduring the peak-use period (June–October).

The increase in annual visitation would belikely to result in more visitors during peak-usedays (sunny weekends and holidays) within thepeak period. Many or most of the additionalvisitors would want to go to the major devel-oped areas, including Longmire, Paradise,Ohanapecosh, and Sunrise, or the popularaccessible portions of the wilderness area suchas Spray Park, Reflection Lake, and FryingpanCreek.

Increases in annual visitation could also resultin more summer visitor use on off-peak days,including weekdays and days with cloudyweather. More visitation could also occur inthe spring and fall shoulder seasons.

The visitor experience would be affected bychanges in access to or within the park, therange of activities available and how enjoyablethose activities were, the availability ofinformation, and the character of the wilder-ness experience. The impacts on the visitorexperience for each of these four measures arepresented in the following sections.

Visitor Access

Analysis. Alternative 1 would result in majoradverse impacts on visitor access during peakperiods. These impacts would be caused bydelay and inconvenience in finding parking;the long distance of parking from visitor des-tinations, and vehicular congestion in popularareas.

With the no-action alternative, the overallaccessibility of the park to visitors would notchange. Specifically, there would not be anychanges in

• practices to control or manage visitoraccess


229

• the operation or location of the visitorentrances to the park or the major road-ways used by visitors to travel within thepark

• access to trailheads and minor developedareas

• the amount of parking available

• the current management practices ofallowing overflow parking along roadsides

Because the number of visitors at peak periodsnow causes congestion, any increases in visita-tion associated with the no-action alternativewould increase peak-period congestion, par-ticularly at popular activity areas.

Most visitors would be able to find parkingunder the existing policy that allows overflowparking. However, at peak periods, the avail-able parking would be quite distant from theirdestinations. Currently under peak-useconditions, the following percentages ofvisitors use overflow parking:

Longmire ------------------ 14%Paradise-------------------- 40%Ipsut Creek Campground - 50%Sunrise --------------------- 55%Mowich Lake-------------- 72%

During highly congested periods, some visitorschoose to pass through an area without stop-ping. Many of these visitors are deterred fromstopping because of the inconvenient parking.

As visitor use increased on peak-use days, thenumber of days and the length of time duringthose days with congestion would increase. Asa result , more visitors would have to park atinconvenient or remote locations, or mightchoose to pass through an area. This wouldincrease visitor frustration and detract from thevisitor experience.

Trailhead parking would continue to overflowalong roads. For example, during peak periods,designated parking at the Fryingpan Creektrailhead is barely adequate to serve existingvisitor use, and designated parking at theWhite River picnic area and trailhead is fullyoccupied for much of the day. These condi-tions would get worse under alternative 1.

Visitor surveys have indicated that congestionis the top cause of dissatisfaction with thevisitor experience. The perceptions of highnumbers of vehicles in parking lots or on theroads also is important in determining the qual-ity of visitors’ experiences. Therefore, asvisitation increased, this alternative wouldhave a minor adverse impact in the short termand a moderate to major adverse long-termimpact on the visitor experience in the peakperiods.

At off-peak times in summer, and during theshoulder season (May and November), visita-tion would continue to be low enough that anincrease in visitors would not be likely tocause noticeable congestion, even in thepopular visitor areas. (For example, in 1998–1999 the average number of visitors in Maywas less than 25% of the number in August.)Visitors would be able to drive from one areain the park to another without experiencingcongestion and would generally be able to finda parking space near their destination. There-fore, this alternative would have a negligibleeffect in off-peak periods during the summerand shoulder seasons.

In winter, visitor access would not changeunder the no-action alternative. Most wintervisitors would enter the park through theNisqually entrance, with Longmire or Paradiseas their destination. The park would also beaccessible as far as Ohanapecosh from StateRoute 123. On the western side, visitors wouldbe able to access Carbon River Road andWestside Road near the junction with theNisqually to Paradise road. Although StateRoute 410 in the park is not plowed, access for


230

winter activities would continue to be availableat the gate at the park’s northern boundary. Allthese roads would be subject to temporaryclosures during adverse weather conditions,such as heavy snowfall or downed trees.

Except for weather-related closures at Para-dise, or when there is some temporary con-gestion in the Longmire area, the park roads inwinter are not congested, and parking use isless than the available supply, even on peak-use days. During popular winter days (usuallysunny weekends and holidays), congestion andheavy use of overflow parking at Longmirewould continue on mornings when heavy snowdelayed opening of the road. Currently, about35% of the visitors to Longmire in the winteruse overflow parking on peak days. As visitornumbers increased, more visitors would beinconvenienced by the need to use overflowparking.

In winter peak periods, the impacts of imple-menting the no-action alternative on visitoraccess in the Longmire area would be moder-ately adverse. However, at off-peak periods inLongmire, and throughout the winter in otherareas, there would be no congestion, parkingwould be adequate for the number of visitors,and impacts would be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts. An unknown, butgrowing, number of Crystal Mountain SkiResort visitors are skiing into the park.Development projects in the vicinity of thepark, especially the Mount Rainier Resort atPark Junction, the expansion of the CrystalMountain Ski Resort, and the Train to theMountain, could bring additional numbers ofvisitors to the general area. This could increasetravel t imes to the park and visitation in thepark. Peak-use periods for these developmentsprobably would correspond to peak periods ofvisitor use in the park (sunny summer week-ends and holidays). Therefore, any increase inpark visitation associated with these develop-ments at peak times would have negativeeffects on visitor access to and within the park.

It has been suggested that some of the planneddevelopments could divert some visitor usefrom the park, reducing impacts. This isconsidered unlikely based on the popularity ofthe park as a regional recreation destination.

In the long term, local planning efforts to man-age and control growth and development, suchas the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan andthe Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan,could stabilize visitor use levels and limit thepossibility of developing additional largevisitor attractions near the park. However,these plans would not diminish the effects ofcurrently planned developments.

When the cumulative effects of actions byothers were combined with impacts associatedwith this alternative, there would be majorlong-term cumulative adverse impacts onvisitor access during peak-use days. In winterand in off-peak periods in summer, visitationwould be accommodated by existing parkingand circulation facilit ies, and the cumulativeimpact would be negligible.

Conclusion. Under alternative 1, peoplevisiting the park during off-peak periods wouldcontinue to find ready access to areas that offerhigh-quality recreation experiences. Thus, thealternative would have a negligible effect onvisitor access during off-peak periods. How-ever, during peak-use days, alternative 1 wouldhave major adverse impacts on visitor access.Increased traffic congestion and difficulty infinding convenient parking would cause adecrease in the quality of the experience formany visitors, and visitor frustration wouldincrease.

Development projects in the area have thepotential to increase the number of visitorsduring peak periods of park visitation. Whencombined with the major adverse impacts ofalternative 1 on visitor access, there would bemajor long-term cumulative adverse impactson visitor access.


231


Analysis. The existing range of visitor experi-ences would continue, and the existing man-agement zones in the park would continue toprovide for the existing summer and winteractivities in both wilderness and nonwildernessareas.

Except in some areas during sunny summerweekends and holidays, park visitors wouldcontinue to find opportunities for high-qualityrecreation activities and experiences as theydrive park roads, hike trails, picnic, camp, anduse other park facilit ies. There would be nomajor new developments that would detractfrom scenic views under this alternative. Attimes of peak use, the noise levels wouldcontinue to be affected by people and theirvehicles, even in some parking areas outsidethe major activity centers, particularly populartrailheads and picnic areas with high visitoruse, but natural sounds would still largelydominate the park as a whole.

Impacts from increasing levels of visitor usewould be most pronounced at popular loca-tions in nonwilderness areas, such as Paradiseand Longmire, as well as in the wilderness areaon sunny summer weekends and holidays.Visitor centers, museums, hiking trails ,andpicnicking areas would become more crowded.Wait t imes to talk with rangers or use facilit ieswould also increase, all of which would detractfrom the quality of the visitor experience.

The intrusion of parked vehicles, particularlyalong the roadways, as well as the number ofvehicles would detract from visitors’ enjoy-ment, particularly at Paradise, where duringpeak periods overflow roadside parkingintrudes on the natural setting of ParadiseValley Road and views of the mountain.

Without rehabilitation, the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center would continue to beinaccessible for visitors with disabilit ies andwould not meet current life-safety code

requirements. The inaccessibility for visitorswith disabilit ies and the lack of compliancewith life-safety code requirements wouldcontinue to have a moderately adverse impacton visitors’ experiences over the long term,and if the building were to be closed for anextended period due to unsafe structuralconditions, there would be major adverseimpacts on the range of activities available.

This alternative would not change the range ofvisitor activities offered in the winter. Withfewer visitors in the winter, and only a modestgrowth rate expected, most visitors would con-tinue to find opportunities for winter campingand high-quality skiing, snowshoeing, orsnowboarding, and thus would have excellentexperiences. Noise levels would be dominatedby natural sounds, except for the occasionalsounds of people and snow removal equip-ment, which are part of the expected winterenvironment.

Overall, during peak-use periods there wouldbe more crowding than currently exists asvisitor use increases. This would have a minoradverse impact in the short term and, as thenumber of visitors continued to increase, therewould be major adverse, long-term impacts onthe enjoyment of visitor activities, particularlyin popular areas of the park such as Paradiseand Sunrise.

During non-peak times in the more popularareas, and throughout the year outside theseareas, the impact of this alternative would benegligible in both the short term and the longterm.

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative 1 wouldresult in major adverse impacts on visitors’enjoyment of activities during peak periods ofvisitor use because of congestion and crowdingin and around visitor facilit ies and the intrusionof vehicles in popular activity areas.

As discussed in the above analysis of cumu-lative impacts on visitor access, Crystal


232

Mountain Ski Resort visitors are skiing into thepark. Development projects in the vicinity ofthe park could bring additional visitors to thegeneral area, which could in turn increase visi-tation in the park. It is likely that peak-useperiods for these developments would cor-respond to peak periods of visitor use in thepark (that is sunny weekends and holidays).

Therefore, because any increase in park visi-tation at these times would increase thecongestion and crowding in the park, therewould be a negative effect on enjoyment ofvisitor activities in the park. Although thesedevelopment projects would provide newvisitor activities outside the park, potentiallyredirecting some visitor use away from thepark at peak times, they would be unlikely tooffset the attraction of the park.

Other past and future projects in the park havehad, and would continue to have, minor bene-ficial effects by improving visitor facilit ies inthe park.

Overall, other projects have the potential toincrease the number of visitors to the parkduring peak periods of visitation with resultingnegative effects on congestion and crowding inthe park. Combined with the major adverseimpacts of alternative 1, there would be major,adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts onenjoyment of visitor activities.

In winter and in off-peak periods during sum-mer, the impacts of the no-action alternativewould be negligible, and because otherprojects within and outside the park (e.g.,Crystal Mountain) would have a minor adverseeffect on the range or enjoyment of activitiesin the park, the cumulative impact would alsobe minor.

Conclusion. Under alternative 1, visitorsduring off-peak periods would continue toenjoy a high-quality recreation experience withthe existing range of activities. Thus, alterna-tive 1 would have a negligible effect on the

range and enjoyment of visitor activitiesduring off-peak periods. However, alternative1 would result in major adverse impacts duringpeak periods in the long term as increased uselevels reduced the enjoyment of park activitiesand increased visitor frustration due to in-creased crowding and congestion at visitorcenters, at camping and picnicking facilit ies,and along trails. Visitors’ enjoyment of theactivities would also be diminished by theintrusion of vehicles, particularly at Paradiseand Sunrise.

Overall, other projects have the potential toincrease the number of visitors to the parkduring peak periods of visitation with resultingnegative effects on congestion and crowding inthe park. Combined with the major adverseimpacts of alternative 1, there would be major,adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts onenjoyment of visitor activities.


Analysis. Under alternative 1, current oppor-tunities for information, orientation, and inter-pretation would be continued at existing loca-tions. In addition to the facilit ies in the park(Paradise, Sunrise, Longmire, Ohanapecosh,and White River), the existing visitor contactcenters outside the park (Silver Creek, Enum-claw, and Wilkeson) would be retained, andthe park wilderness information centers wouldremain in their current locations.

Visitor information would continue to be avail-able through personal contact, printed material,and on the park’s Web site. No new centers forvisitor information would be added, and noprograms to provide additional signs or otherdirectional information would be undertaken.

Over the long term, increased visitation duringpeak-use periods would make it more difficultfor some visitors to obtain park information.This is important because, according to visitorsurveys, the availability of information is one


233

of the most significant contributors to the levelof satisfaction, and the inability to provideadequate information to all visitors seeking itwould have a major effect.

Therefore, this alternative would have majoradverse impacts on visitors’ experiences atpeak periods, as visitor levels increased overthe long term. During off-peak periods, evenwith increased visitor levels, visitors would beable to get information in a timely way fromcurrent locations and programs, and thereforethe impact at off-peak periods would benegligible.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 1,there would be major adverse impacts duringpeak periods of use caused by visitors’ diffi-culties in getting information to plan their visit,finding directions, or talking with someone at avisitor center.

As discussed in the above analysis of cumu-lative impacts on visitor access, developmentprojects in the vicinity of the park, could bringadditional numbers of visitors to the generalarea, thus increasing visitation in the park atpeak times and having negative effects on theability of visitors to get information. To someextent, these projects could provide expandedinformation about the region and the park, butbecause they would not be part of a broaderprogram of information for the park the effectswould be limited. Other actions within the parkwould have no effect on the availability ofinformation.

Overall, other actions have the potential toincrease the number of visitors to the parkduring peak periods of visitation, withresulting negative effects on the ability ofvisitors to obtain information both in andoutside of the park. When these effects arecombined with the major adverse impacts ofalternative 1, there would be major, adverse,long-term, cumulative impacts on convenienceand accessibility of information.

In winter and in off-peak periods during sum-mer, the impacts of the no-action alternativewould be negligible, and even with increasedvisitation generated by the other projects thetotal visitation could be accommodated by theexisting information programs; therefore, thecumulative impact would also be negligible.

Conclusion. During off-peak periods thisalternative would have a negligible effect onvisitors obtaining information. However,increased visitation during peak-use periodswould make it more difficult for some visitorsto obtain park information. Because theavailability of information is one of the mostsignificant contributors to the level of satis-faction with visitors’ experiences, this alterna-tive would have major adverse impacts asvisitor levels increased over the long term.

Other actions would have the potential toincrease the number of visitors to the parkduring peak periods of visitation with resultingnegative effects on the ability of visitors toobtain information. When these effects werecombined with the major adverse impacts ofalternative 1, there would be major adverselong-term cumulative impacts.


Analysis. Under alternative 1 the currentmanagement of visitors in wilderness areaswould generally continue, and the restrictionson trailside camps, camping, and climbing(e.g., different party size limits in differentzones, campsite locations in the cross-countryzone), and wilderness standards would not bemodified.

Opportunities for Solitude — Even with theexpected increase in visitation, there wouldstill be many opportunities for visitors to findoutstanding opportunities for solitude, particu-larly in off-peak periods. In most of the wilder-ness area visitors would not be likely to


234

encounter other people or signs of use due tothe lack of trails and the rough terrain.

In particular, there probably would be manyopportunities for solitude in the lower forestsand alpine regions of the park. However, to getto the areas of greatest solitude, hikers andbackpackers would continue to have to walkthrough the highly visited nonwilderness areas.Opportunities for solitude would be low orwould decline on weekends and holidays inareas that are within a few miles of majoractivity centers (i.e., the distance most daytimevisitors would venture from Longmire, Para-dise, Ohanapecosh, and Sunrise) and in areasnear roads with pullouts or trailheads.

There are high use levels at a number ofpopular day-use areas — including CometFalls and Van Trump Park, Glacier Basin,Spray Park, Eunice Lake, Tolmie Peaklookout, the Naches loop trail, Snow Lake,Muir snowfield, Summerland, BurroughsMountain, and Mount Fremont. Visitor surveysin several of these areas indicate that visitorsalready feel crowded during peak periods.With higher day-use levels, visitor encounterswould increase, and fewer people wouldexperience solitude.

The existing permit system should minimizeuser encounters and maintain opportunities forsolitude in the cross-country zones. However,in areas with trailside camps and on the majorclimbing routes up Mount Rainier, multipleparties would probably continue to be encount-ered and opportunities to experience solitudewould be low. In time, as more climbers foundthey could not get permits to go up the stand-ard routes, they would be likely to try othermore difficult routes up Mount Rainier. If thisoccurred, opportunities for solitude would alsodecline on these routes.

Winter visitors would continue to find out-standing opportunities for solitude in the vastmajority of wilderness. There would be agreater likelihood of visitors encountering

other people near Paradise, Longmire, andother developed areas on weekends, althoughthe numbers would remain low in wintercompared to summer levels. The impact of thisalternative on opportunities for solitude inwinter would be negligible.

Overall, the opportunities for solitude wouldbe adversely affected by increased numbers ofvisitors in the wilderness areas, which at peaktimes would increase the level of crowding atpopular locations or create crowded conditionsat locations that are currently less used. Theseeffects would have a minor to moderate ad-verse impact in the short term, and a majoradverse impact in the long term as furtherincreases in the number of peak period visitorsoccurred. In off-peak periods, the lower levelsof activity would mean that the opportunitiesfor solitude would not be affected, and theimpact of this alternative would be negligible.

Opportunities for Primitive, UnconfinedRecreation — Continuing current managementpractices would not alter opportunities forprimitive recreation in the wilderness area,primarily hiking, backpacking, and climbing.Day-use visitors generally would have com-plete freedom to go wherever they pleased.However, overnight camping permit require-ments would continue to affect the freedom ofbackpackers and climbers to go where andwhen they wanted in the wilderness area.

Users already are redirected at t imes on week-ends from such popular areas as Comet Falls,Glacier Basin, Spray Park, Mystic Lake,Summerland, and Snow Lake because campsor zones have reached their use limits. Withincreased applications for permits, fewerpeople would be able to go to their first choice.Some users would be displaced into other areasin the park; others might go to other areas inthe region. In addition, increased numbers ofdaytime visitors could prevent overnight usersfrom being able to park near desired trailheadson weekends, such as in the T ipsoo Lake,Comet Falls, and Fryingpan Creek areas. This


235

would force overnight users to go elsewhere,either inside or outside the park. These effectswould create minor adverse peak-period im-pacts in the short term and moderate adversepeak-period impacts in the long term as morepotential users would be affected. In addition,some visitors might shift their use of the wil-derness area to off-peak periods. As use levelsincreased in off-peak periods and actionsbegan to be taken to manage this use, theremight be a minor adverse impact on oppor-tunities for primitive, unconfined recreation.

Naturalness — Under alternative 1 most userswould find what they perceive to be “pristine”natural conditions in most of the wildernessarea; that is, users would continue to find alandscape generally untrammeled by people,with few signs of disturbance or alteration. Inthe winter most visitors would continue toperceive the park’s wilderness as a naturalsnow and ice-covered landscape. In areaswhere the wilderness is close to roads, signs ofpeople would be more evident. For example,wilderness visitors would continue to be ableto see and hear traffic on the road in theStevens Canyon area.

Signs of human use, including social trails(unplanned, unofficial trails), trampledvegetation, and bare ground from camping, areevident in high use areas, particularly in alpineand subalpine meadows, and affect thenaturalness of the visitor experience. Effortsare underway to restore some of thesedamaged areas, but with use levels expected toincrease, it is likely that visitors, despitemitigation efforts, would alter additional areas.In addition, with more climbing parties, thereprobably would be more litter and humanwaste on the upper slopes of Mount Rainier.

Although there is not as direct a relationshipbetween increased numbers of users andimpacts on naturalness as there is for solitude,it is likely that greater numbers of users wouldincrease the chances for visitors going off-trailand outside of designated camping areas. The

resulting decrease in the perceived naturalnessof popular areas would be a moderate adverseimpact in the long term.

Cumulative Impacts. There are expected tobe adverse impacts on wilderness valueswithin the park under the no-action alternative,due to decreased opportunities for solitude andprimitive recreation and loss of naturalness inthe more popular wilderness areas.

As discussed in the above analysis of thecumulative impacts on visitor access, develop-ment projects in the vicinity of the park,including the Mount Rainier Resort at ParkJunction, the expansion of the Crystal Moun-tain Ski Resort, and the Train to the Mountain,could bring more visitors to the general area,and this could increase day and overnight usein the wilderness, which would have a minor tomoderate adverse effect on opportunities forsolitude and primitive, unconfined recreation.

In addition, if other national forest wildernessareas and national parks in the region shouldbegin proactive visitor management programs(instituting reservation systems or use limits),visitors could be redirected or turned awayfrom a number of wilderness areas in the re-gion at peak times when an increased numberof overnight visitors also would have to beredirected at peak times from popular wilder-ness areas in the park. This would result inminor effects in the short term, but greatereffects in the long term.

The expansion of the Crystal Mountain skiarea along the eastern boundary of the parkwould adversely affect the naturalness of thepark’s wilderness landscape by increasingnoise and views of people, ski lifts, and otherfacilit ies on ridgetops adjacent to the park. Onthe west side of the park, planned timber salescould affect the naturalness of the wildernessin the park through noise from timber opera-tions in areas such as the Tolmie Peak lookoutarea and Golden Lakes/Sunset Park, whichwould be a minor short-term impact. Visual


236

changes in the forest cover probably would beevident from high vantage points in the wilder-ness where visitors could look down on thelands and see the cuts; these changes would belong-term impacts, evident for many years,constituting moderate to major impacts on thenaturalness of the wilderness.

If the use of the Tahoma Trails system inwinter became more popular because of theproposed Mount Rainier Resort at ParkJunction near the park boundary, solitudecould decrease, although probably a smallnumber of users would be affected; this wouldconstitute a minor adverse impact.

Other actions in the park, such as natural andcultural resource studies and resource manage-ment actions would be expected to have anegligible to minor beneficial effect onwilderness values by improving the oppor-tunities for primitive recreation and retainingthe naturalness of the wilderness.

In summary, when all of the potential actionsoutside of the park are considered togetherwith the other actions in the park and theexpected increase in day use in the park, therewould be the potential for minor to major,adverse peak-period cumulative impacts onopportunities for solitude and primitiverecreation in the wilderness area.

In off-peak periods, the cumulative impacts onopportunities for solitude and primitive recre-ation would be negligible because even withincreased visitation generated by the projectsoutside, the wilderness area would be able toaccommodate the total visitation.

There would also be minor to major long-termadverse cumulative impacts on the naturalnessof the park’s wilderness areas, although thealternative’s contribution to these impactswould be negligible.

Conclusion. In most of the wilderness areaduring off-peak periods, summer and winter

users would continue to find outstandingopportunities for solitude and for primitive,unconfined recreation in what most peopleperceive to be a natural, unaltered landscape.As day-user numbers continued to increase inseveral popular areas, there could be long-termmoderate negative impacts on peak-periodsummer wilderness users and their experi-ences. These impacts would be concentrated inor near major day-use areas, areas near roadsand trailheads, and along the major climbingroutes, where opportunities for solitude wouldbe low, particularly on weekends. Some wil-derness users would have less freedom to gowhere and when they wanted to go, andresource impacts resulting from human pres-ence would be more visible, which would ad-versely affect the naturalness of the wilderness.

In winter there would be negligible impacts onvisitors’ opportunities to find solitude in thepark, to participate in recreational activities, orto appreciate the wilderness’ natural values.

External developments and activities (such asthe expansion of the Crystal Mountain ski area,logging of private lands, and development ofMount Rainier Resort at Park Junction) wouldadversely affect the park’s wilderness values,through increases in the number of wildernessvisitors and alterations to the natural landscapevisible from the park. When actions under thisalternative were combined with other actions,there would be minor to major adverse cumu-lative impacts on park wilderness values.

IMPACTS O N THE SOCIO ECO NO MICENVIRO NMENT

Regional Context

Analysis. The no-action alternative (continuecurrent management) would not result in theconstruction of new facilit ies at the park or inincreased employment at the park; therefore,there would be no direct impact on the regionaleconomy (the four counties of King, Pierce,


237

Lewis, and Yakima) under this alternative.However, people would continue to beattracted to the region, in part because of itsmany recreation resources, including the parkitself. Therefore, the attraction of the parkwould have a modest indirect beneficial effecton the growth of the regional tourism econo-my. However, in relation to the size of theoverall tourism sector in the four-countyregion (approximately $5.8 billion in 1995),the overall impact of this alternative in thecontext of the region would be negligible butbeneficial.

Cumulative Impacts. The four-county regionis expected to grow at a sustained rate duringthe next 20 years, reaching a total populationof over 3.3 million. The projected populationgrowth during that period is approximately700,000 people, which is equivalent to the1999 population of Pierce County. The areaaround the park, particularly within the UpperNisqually Valley, would be affected by theregional growth.

Development plans, including the MountRainier Resort at Park Junction and the Trainto the Mountain, could result in more con-centrated residential and commercial devel-opment near the park, and also stimulategrowth in tourism. Similarly, the proposedexpansion of the Crystal Mountain ski area andresort could draw visitors to the area, particu-larly the northeast part of the park.

The effects of growth in the regional contextcould have both beneficial impacts, such asincreased income and employment, and ad-verse impacts, such as lessened housingaffordability and increased traffic congestion.

Other actions within the park would have onlya slight effect on increased employment orexpenditures in the regional context, andtherefore the impact, although beneficial,would be negligible.

Overall, development in the region would belikely to have major adverse and beneficialcumulative socioeconomic effects on theregional economy. Although alternative 1would have a small beneficial effect onregional tourism, it would not cause changes intrends in regional population or economicgrowth; therefore, in a regional context thisalternative would have a negligible effect onthe overall cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Any socioeconomic impacts onthe region that could be expected under thisalternative would be negligible in effect.Although there probably would be majoradverse and beneficial cumulative effects onthe economy from regional growth, the effectof alternative 1 on this growth would beminimal.

Gateway Communities

Analysis. Under alternative 1 the park wouldcontinue to be managed according to currentpolicies and previously approved plans. Gate-way communities would continue to experi-ence positive cyclical increases in businessrelated to tourism. The seasonal influx ofvisitors to the park would also contribute totraffic congestion problems that currentlyexist. The local tourism industry would dependon and benefit from visitors attracted to thepark; and the park would continue to be animportant attraction in the area. The overalleffects of the park on gateway communities orthe regional area would not change substan-tially under this alternative, although themodest increases in park visitation would belikely to result in modest increases in visitorexpenditures in the gateway communities. Thepark would continue to coordinate efforts withgateway communities case by case. Therefore,this alternative would have a minor beneficialeffect.

Cumulative Impacts. As a result of increasedvisitation to the park over the years, business


238

and residential development has grown alongthe access corridors. This growth trend has hada positive impact on the local economy, whichis expected to continue under this alternative.Other NPS actions in the park have had andwould continue to have a beneficial indirectimpact on gateway communities by supportingincreased visitation.

Other actions outside the park, such as theMount Rainier Resort at Park Junction, wouldalso be likely to have a minor to moderatebeneficial impact on the gateway communitiesby leading to increases in business in thesecommunities. Recent regional planning initia-tives, particularly by Pierce County, could leadto better protection against haphazard develop-ment in rural areas adjacent to the western partof the park. These initiatives would also helpensure the long-term health of the local econo-my while continuing to benefit from increasedpark visitation. Although the impacts of theno-action alternative itself would be minor,when combined with these other planning anddevelopment actions, there would be a mod-erately beneficial cumulative effect on thegateway communities.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative wouldresult in a minor beneficial effect on the socio-economic environment of the gateway com-munities. When combined with other planningand development actions in the area, thisalternative would be moderately beneficial forthe gateway communities.

Regional Recreational O pportunities

Analysis. Tourists and recreational visitorstend to choose from a finite set of resourcesavailable to them given their budget, t ime, andpreferences about the type of experience theywant. Clearly, there is some competitionamong the various regional recreationalresources for an individual’s t ime and otherresources that can be allotted to outdoorrecreation. Mount Rainier National Park

probably is perceived as one of the fewrecreation resources in the immediate regionthat offer an alpine and subalpine wilderness,old-growth forests, panoramic vistas, andabundant glaciers. This perception accounts forsome of the park’s popularity.

Alternative 1 would not be likely to cause anychanges in regional recreational use patternsduring either the summer or winter. No majornew facilit ies or activities would be added tothose already available in the park, and nomajor actions would be taken that wouldattract more visitors or redirect any substantialnumber of visitors to other recreational facili-ties. The competitive situation would not bechanged, and people would continue to basetheir selections of outdoor recreational oppor-tunities on their own desires, perceptions, andavailability of time and other resources.Therefore, the no-action alternative wouldhave a negligible impact on regionalrecreational opportunities.

Cumulative Impact. Neither alternative 1 norother NPS actions in the park would add anynew recreational opportunities in the region.However, the completion of several proposedrecreation projects, including the Train to theMountain and the expansion of the CrystalMountain ski area and resort, would increasethe local job base as well as the number ofrecreation visitors to the region. Together withthe improvements in national forest recreationareas in the region, there would be moderatebeneficial cumulative impacts on regionalrecreation opportunities. However, with nomajor new facilit ies or management actionproposed under alternative 1, the park’scontribution to these effects would benegligible.

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would not cause anysignificant change in regional recreationalopportunities; therefore, it would have anegligible effect. There would be moderatebeneficial cumulative impacts on regionalrecreation opportunities from new develop-


239

ments outside the park; however, the con-tribution of alternative 1 to these beneficialimpacts would be negligible.

Concessions

Analysis. Alternative 1 would not result inmajor changes in management policies, plans,or actions. Concession contractors and otherbusiness permit holders would continue toexperience positive, albeit small and seasonal,increases of business activity associated withnormal tourism-related growth, resulting in anegligible beneficial effect.

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative 1 wouldresult in minor beneficial effects. Other actionsin the park would have negligible beneficialeffects; they would not be likely to increase thenumber of visitors or opportunities for con-cessioners. Recreation-related development inthe vicinity of the park, such as Crystal Moun-tain and Mount Rainier Resort at Park Junc-tion, could generate additional business for theconcessioners. This, in conjunction with thenormal tourism-related growth at the park,would have a minor beneficial cumulativeeffect; however, the contribution of otheractions to this beneficial effect would begreater than that of alternative 1.

Conclusion. The socioeconomic impacts onconcessioners and other commercial busi-nesses operating within the park would bepositive but negligible under the no-actionalternative. Considering the positive effect onoverall recreational activity of other develop-ments in the vicinity of the park, thecumulative effects would be minor andbeneficial.

IMPACTS O N ENERGYREQ UIREMENTS ANDCONSERVATIO N PO TENTIAL

Private vehicles would continue to be the pri-mary means of transportation to and through

the park. Additional energy requirements(gasoline consumption and fuel for heating andlighting visitor facilit ies,) would be expectedonly as a direct result of increased visitation tothe park. The Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center would continue to require anexcessive amount of energy for heating, cool-ing, and the roof snow-melting system.

UNAVO IDABLE ADVERS E IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined asimpacts that cannot be fully mitigated oravoided. Minor adverse impacts on naturalresources would occur in some areas through-out the park due to human use. Minor to majoradverse impacts would result from the expo-sure of visitors and employees to nonvolcanichazards. There would be major adverseimpacts on visitors’ experience of the parkfrom crowding and congestion in wildernessand nonwilderness areas at t imes of peak use.Although all these impacts would be unavoid-able (short of not allowing any increasedhuman use), mitigation to reduce them wouldbe carried out where possible.

IRRETRIEVABLE O R IRREVERSIBLECO MMITMENTS O F RESO URCES

Under alternative 1 the additional energyrequirements identified above would result inan irreversible commitment of resources.There would be no permanent effects on parkresources.

RELATIO NSHIP O F SHORT-TERMUSES O F TH E ENVIRO NMENT ANDMAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENTO F LO NG-TERM PRO DUCTIVITY

Under alternative 1 the vast majority of thepark would be protected in a natural state andwould maintain its long-term productivity —only a small percentage of the park would beconverted to development. No new actions


240

would be taken to manage visitor use. Withincreasing visitor use expected, there would beminor impacts on natural resources in the park,with moderate impacts on soils and vegetationin some high use areas. Adverse impacts on the

park’s waters, soils, and vegetation, if notmitigated, could reduce the productivity of thepark’s natural resources in localized areas overtime.

241

ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE


Air Quality

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive, the preferred alternative would result in aminor long-term beneficial effect on air qual-ity. Both alternatives would have emissionsassociated with private motor vehicles; how-ever, the shuttle service and the use of newmanagement zones and a carrying capacityframework in this alternative would result infewer air emissions compared to alternative 1.

Alternative 2 would provide visitor shuttleservices at popular visitor areas such as Para-dise, along with actions to increase publiceducation and awareness of the air qualityissues in the park. These actions would de-crease the vehicle miles traveled within thepark slightly compared to alternative 1,resulting in a minor beneficial effect.

Several measures would be taken in thepreferred alternative to reduce air pollutantemission sources within the park, such asestablishing non-burn days and limitingcampfires. These actions would have amoderate, beneficial effect in localized areas,and a minor beneficial effect on the park’soverall air quality.

The application of the new management zonesand carrying capacity framework under thepreferred alternative would establish resourceprotection standards, including standards forair quality. These standards would serve asclearly defined triggers for implementingmanagement actions to reduce air emissionswhen standards were exceeded and wouldprovide a more systematic approach thanwould occur under the no-action alternative.This would produce a minor beneficial effect.

Temporary adverse effects on air qualitywould result from the preferred alternative’sin-park construction projects, including thenew visitor center at Paradise; and new parking,picnic, and camping facilit ies in various loca-tions; minor roadway improvements on West-side Road. Emissions would include increaseddust and particulate matter in the vicinity ofthe construction sites and exhaust emissionsfrom construction equipment and vehicles. Ifvisitor welcome centers need to be builtoutside the park, this activity would havesimilar effects. At all sites, constructionemissions would be localized and would bemitigated to the extent possible. As a result ,these adverse impacts on air quality would beshort-term and minor.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. When the effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park werecombined with the impacts of actions underthis alternative, all these actions would resultin a minor long-term adverse cumulativeimpact on air quality. The cumulative airquality impact on visibility would be adverseand minor to moderate.

This alternative’s contribution to these adversecumulative, impacts would be minor, and theregion would benefit incrementally from thelong-term beneficial effects on air quality fromimplementing shuttle services and a carryingcapacity framework to reduce pollutants fromvehicles and campfires.

Conclusion. Compared to alternative 1, thepreferred alternative would have a minor long-term beneficial effect on local air quality. As inalternative 1, long-term adverse impacts wouldresult from vehicular exhaust emissions andcarbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds,and other pollutants from campfires. In addi-


242

tion, localized, short-term adverse impactswould result from dust and vehicle emissionsgenerated by the preferred alternative’s con-struction activities. However, this alternativewould cause a minor beneficial effect on thepark’s air quality because of the shuttleservice, measures taken to manage campfiresand reduce other air pollution sources withinthe park, and the carrying capacity framework.

There would be minor adverse cumulativeimpacts on air quality, and minor to moderateadverse cumulative impacts on regionalvisibility. This alternative’s contribution tothese adverse cumulative impacts would belong term and minor.


Analysis. Compared to the no-actionalternative (continue current management), thepreferred alternative would have minor tomoderate beneficial effects on water resourcesand water quality. Although both alternativeswould result in similar small increases inpollutants associated with slight increases invisitation, alternative 2 would include manage-ment actions to reduce pollutant loadings andimprove the management of stormwater from avariety of sources in the park.

The application of the new management zonesand carrying capacity framework under alter-native 2 would establish resource protectionstandards, including standards for waterquality. These standards would serve as clearlydefined triggers for implementing managementaction to reduce or eliminate impacts, andwould provide a more systematic approachthan would occur under the no-actionalternative. For example, if a standard forturbidity was exceeded in a zone where fish-rearing was occurring, management actionsthat could be taken include more intensivevisitor education, increased ranger patrols, andbetter signs. Because implementing the carry-ing capacity framework would reduce or elimi-

nate the minor adverse impacts that wouldoccur under the no-action alternative,alternative 2 would have a minor beneficialeffect.

The proposed boundary adjustment near theCarbon River entrance would place about1,063 additional acres of forest land under theprotection of the National Park Service. Thiswould result in a moderate beneficial effectbecause it would eliminate the potential forlogging, which could cause additional pollu-tants to enter the Carbon River, as well ascausing vegetation removal and substantial soilerosion, which would cause a detectableincrease in sedimentation.

As in alternative 1, the increased use ofunpaved roads would make them moresusceptible to surface erosion and runoff, andvehicle use along roads and in parking lotswould continue to deposit petroleum productsthat would be washed into adjacent waters.However, establishing a shuttle service alongthe Mowich Lake road under alternative 2would reduce the number of vehicles on thisroad, producing a minor beneficial effectcompared to the no-action alternative.

Dust and sediment runoff entering MowichLake from traffic on Mowich Lake road wouldbe eliminated under alternative 2, which wouldban private motor vehicles from driving thelast 0.5 mile of the road to the lake and elimi-nate parking at the lake. Revegetating the ex-isting parking area, along with reconfiguringthe Mowich Lake campground, would reducethe amount of sediment entering the lake. Theresulting reduction in sediment and theimprovement in the lake’s clarity would be aminor beneficial effect.

Westside Road and Carbon River Road aresubject to flood inundation and repeatedlyneed repairs, which cause sedimentation ofadjacent water bodies. Under alternative 2, if alarge portion of either road was lost duringmajor flooding, that road might be closed to


243

vehicular traffic. This would produce a minorbeneficial effect by eliminating dust and sedi-mentation from vehicular traffic and roadrepairs.

Physical modifications designed to keep visi-tors on trails would be made in nonwildernessareas, and overflow parking would be elimi-nated. These changes would improve the waterquality in localized areas by reducing soildisturbance, the loss of vegetation, and thevolume and intensity of surface runoff. Theresult would be a minor beneficial effect.

Removing maintenance and employee housingfacilit ies from the Carbon River entrance andinstalling picnic sites could allow some of thisarea to be revegetated, which would decreasethe potential for surface erosion and runoff.This would produce a minor beneficial impacton water quality. The use of best managementpractices would ensure that the short-termadverse water quality impacts associated withrunoff during the removal process werenegligible.

All construction activities associated withalternative 2, including replacement of theHenry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center,would have short-term, minor to negligible,adverse impacts. There would be no netincrease in impervious area as a result of newconstruction in the park, and water qualityeffects during construction would be mitigatedby the use of best management practices.

Reconfigured facilit ies, including the parkingarea at Paradise, would be designed to mini-mize long-term effects on water qualitythrough the use of permeable surfaces andvegetated or natural filters or traps for filteringstormwater runoff. Other best managementpractices for runoff control, such as sedimentponds, oil/sediment separators, street sweep-ing, and infiltration beds (soil capture ofsurface pollutants) could also be used. Thesemeasures would decrease pollutant loading inrunoff and reduce the volume and intensity of

runoff compared to the no-action alternative.This would result in a minor long-termbeneficial effect on water resources and waterquality.

New visitor facilit ies, including facilit iesoutside the park and in the boundary adjust-ment area, would be constructed with the sametypes of surface water control features thatwere identified for the reconfigured facilit ies.In the boundary adjustment area, new facilit ieswould be constructed only in areas that hadalready been disturbed, and all other previ-ously disturbed areas would be revegetated.These measures, combined with the smallareas involved, would ensure that the long-term impacts were negligible.

Because winter visitor use in the park is lowand future increase in visitation would beslight, winter use under this alternative wouldhave few impacts compared to the no-actionalternative. However, the formally adoptedsnow-depth requirements for wildernesscamping would have a minor beneficial effectby ensuring that the snow depth was adequateto protect against soil disturbance and loss ofprotective vegetative cover.

Plowing Mowich Lake Road to the Paul Peaktrailhead and developing a sno-park at thetrailhead would increase vehicle-relatedpollution affecting water quality and waterquality problems associated with the improperdisposal of human waste. Although therewould be an adverse impact, it would benegligible to minor because of the low uselevels and visitor education strategies to reducethe impact.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. The effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park whencombined with impacts associated with thisalternative would result in moderate to majorlong-term adverse cumulative impacts on


244

water resources and water quality in theregion, primarily because of the effects oflogging and land development outside thepark.

This alternative’s contribution to the cumula-tive impacts would be minor because thisalternative would contribute very litt le topollutant loading of regional waterways. Underthis alternative, the carrying capacity frame-work and other actions, including the elimina-tion of potential logging in the proposedboundary adjustment area, would provide anincremental benefit to the region’s waterquality.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficial effects.Some of the contributing factors would be asfollows:

the reduction of sedimentation andpollutants resulting from implementingthe carrying capacity framework andnew management zones

reductions of sedimentation andpollutants associated with trafficthrough the establishment of shuttleservices

improved protection of Mowich Lake the removal of existing facilit ies at the

Carbon River entrance and revegetationof part of the area

long-term protection of the vegetationin the boundary adjustment area

the design of new and reconfiguredfacilit ies to control surface water flowsand pollutants

improved protection of nonwildernesstrails

elimination of overflow parking alongroadway shoulders

Minor short-term adverse impacts on localizedareas would result from construction projectsunder alternative 2. Preserving undisturbed

land in the boundary adjustment area wouldhave a moderate beneficial effect.

There would be major to moderate long-termadverse cumulative impacts primarily due topollutant loads in runoff associated with log-ging and land development outside the park.This alternative’s effects on these adversecumulative impacts would be short term andminor. In fact, this alternative would have along-term beneficial effect on regional waterquality by reducing pollutants andsedimentation in the park.

Floodplains

Analysis. The preferred alternative would havemoderate long-term beneficial effects onfloodplains. In all the following aspects,alternative 2 floodplain effects would beidentical to those of alternative 1.

• No new developments would occur inregulatory floodplains.

• Continued levee maintenance and stream-bank protection at Longmire and SunshinePoint campground, along with the opera-tion of the Ipsut Creek campground, wouldhave moderate to minor long-term adverseimpacts on floodplain values.

• Ongoing repair of minor flood damagealong Westside Road and Carbon RiverRoad would have moderate long-termadverse impacts on floodplain values.

Under alternative 2, if a large portion of eitherWestside Road or Carbon River Road wasdamaged by glacial outburst or precipitationflooding, the roads might be closed to personalmotor vehicles. Compared to alternative 1,closing either road to vehicular traffic wouldresult in moderate long-term beneficial effectsas natural river processes were restored. At theCarbon River entrance, the removal of housingand the ranger station would have a minor


245

beneficial effect because these facilit ies arewithin the 100-year regulatory floodplain.

Cumulative Impacts. When the effects ofactions by others and other actions in the parkwere combined with impacts associated withthis alternative, there would be moderate long-term adverse cumulative impacts on flood-plains in the region. These would be dueprimarily to the effects of maintaining loggingroads on private and public lands outside thepark. This alternative’s contribution to cumu-lative impacts would also be moderate andadverse, due to continued maintenance oflevees and manipulation of streambanks alongseveral sections of floodplains in the park.However, if the Carbon River or WestsideRoad was closed, there would be a moderatebeneficial contribution due to the restoration ofnatural floodplain processes in the park.

Conclusion. Alternative 2 could have moder-ate long-term beneficial effects on floodplainvalues in several sections of floodplains in thepark. These effects would result if, after majorflood damage occurred, either Westside Roador Carbon River was closed and natural riverprocesses were reestablished. Cumulative ef-fects would include moderate long-term ad-verse impacts on floodplains in the regionbecause of actions outside of the park. Thisalternative’s contribution to these cumulativeimpacts would also be moderate, although ifCarbon River or Westside Road was closed,the alternative’s contribution would bebeneficial and moderate.

Wetlands

Analysis. There would be no impacts onwetlands under this alternative. No actions areproposed under the alternative that woulddirectly affect wetlands, and existing practicesthat prevent indirect impacts on wetland areaswould continue.

Cumulative Impacts. Wetlands on both pub-lic and private lands in the vicinity of the parkhave been extensively modified by logging anddevelopments. Past NPS actions also havemodified wetlands within the park. Althoughlong-term effects on wetlands must be miti-gated through wetland restoration or the crea-tion of replacement wetlands under the CleanWater Act, there still has been a moderateadverse long-term cumulative impact on wet-lands in the region. Alternative 2 would notcontribute to this cumulative impact.

Conclusion. There would be no impact onwetlands under this alternative. Although therewould be a moderate, adverse, long-term,cumulative impact on wetlands in the region,the preferred alternative would not contributeto this impact.


Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive (continue current management), the pre-ferred alternative would have moderate tominor long-term beneficial effects on soils andvegetation. Although both alternatives wouldresult in similar small increases in adverseeffects associated with slight increases in visi-tation, alternative 2 would include severalmanagement actions to reduce or eliminatesome of the adverse effects that would occurunder alternative 1. In addition, it would ex-tend protection by the National Park Service toabout 1,063 more acres, an area that contains amosaic of mature and mid-successional forestand riparian habitat.

The application of the new management zonesand carrying capacity framework under alter-native 2 would establish resource protectionstandards, including standards for protection ofsoils and vegetation. These standards wouldserve as clearly defined triggers for imple-menting management actions to reduce oreliminate impacts, and would provide a moresystematic approach than would occur under


246

the no-action alternative. This approach wouldreduce or eliminate many of the effects onsoils and vegetation that were described foralternative 1 and would produce long-term,beneficial effects ranging from minor tomoderate.

The proposed boundary adjustment near theCarbon River entrance would place about1,063 additional acres of forested land underNational Park Service protection. This wouldresult in a minor to moderate long-termbeneficial effect because it would eliminate thepotential for logging, which could result invegetation removal and soil erosion on U.S.Forest Service and private lands if not includedas part of the boundary expansion. Vegetationremoval and soil compaction would occur onthat portion of the land that was developedwith a new campground and picnic area andwhere administrative facilit ies were relocatedfrom the Carbon River entrance. However, thisaction would be limited to previously disturbedareas and would represent a minor adverseimpact.

As in alternative 1, increased visitor use wouldresult in ongoing invasion by exotic (nonna-tive) species. Because alternative 2 would limitthe use of pack stock to just two trails, theintroduction of invasive plants from animalfeed, pack equipment, and the animalsthemselves would be eliminated along othertrails in the park. This would be a minor long-term beneficial effect.

Opening the Westside Road to shuttles couldresult in new exotic plant infestations. Pre-ventive measures such as keeping shuttles andadministrative vehicles clean of exotic speciesplant parts and seeds would reduce this impact.However, preventive management actionswould not eliminate the potential for theintroduction and spread of nonnative speciesalong the roadside, and there would likely be aminor adverse impact on native species.

Under alternative 2, most construction orrehabilitation projects would occur in areasalready disturbed by human use. New facilit ieswould be placed in minimally sensitive areas.Therefore, litt le additional loss of vegetationwould be occur. The new visitor center atParadise would not result in additional loss ofundisturbed vegetation, because the new centerwould be constructed within the existingdeveloped area (parking lot).

As was described in the “Alternatives” chapter,the new welcome centers outside the parkwould be housed in existing structures if pos-sible. However, if new buildings werenecessary, construction activities would haveshort-term minor adverse effects on soils andvegetation. Depending on whether or notfacilit ies were built on previously disturbedsites, the long-term adverse effects wouldrange from negligible to minor.

Beneficial effects on soils and vegetationwould result from all of the following actionsundertaken as part of alternative 2. Becausethese impacts would affect relatively smallareas within the park, their impacts would benegligible to minor.

• Removing maintenance and employeehousing facilit ies near the Carbon Riverentrance and installing picnic sites couldallow part of this area to be revegetatedand restored.

• The application of resource indicators andstandards would enable park staff to detectimpacts at earlier stages and would allowfor more efficient and economicalrestoration and mitigation actions.

• Reducing vehicle traffic through theintroduction of shuttle services wouldreduce the amount of dust and otherpollutants affecting vegetation.

• Eliminating overflow parking wouldreduce impacts on roadside vegetation.


247

• Restricting most winter activities to areaswhere the snow was deep enough to protectthe underlying vegetation would result inless loss of vegetation and less soil erosion.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative.

This alternative’s contribution to the adversecumulative impacts would be minor and pri-marily short term. However, preserving vege-tation and preventing soil erosion in the parkunder the carrying capacity framework, as wellas protecting forests in the boundary adjust-ment area, would produce an incrementalbenefit to the protection of soils and vegetationin the region.

When the cumulative effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park were com-bined with impacts associated with this alter-native, there would be minor to major, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on soils andvegetation in the region, primarily because ofthe edge effects of logging and land develop-ment on vegetation and soils.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficial effectson soils and vegetation. Some of the contribu-ting factors would include better protection ofresources through the implementation of thecarrying capacity framework and new manage-ment zones, the protection of about 1,063 addi-tional acres along the Carbon River as a newpart of the park, and the restoration of devel-oped areas near the Carbon River entrance.

Minor short-term adverse impacts on localizedareas would result from construction projectsunder alternative 2. Although there would beminor to major long-term adverse cumulativeimpacts on vegetation and soils in the region,primarily due to logging and land develop-ment, the alternative’s contribution to theseadverse cumulative impacts would be minor.

By preserving vegetation and preventing soilerosion in the park, the alternative would havean incremental beneficial impact.

Wildlife

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive (continue current management), the pre-ferred alternative would result in a minor tomoderate long-term beneficial effect onwildlife. Although both alternatives wouldhave similar small increases in adverse effectsassociated with slight increases in visitation,alternative 2 would include several manage-ment actions to improve conditions comparedto those that would occur under alternative 1.In addition, alternative 2 would extend pro-tection by the National Park Service to about1,063 additional acres of wildlife habitat.

The application of the new management zonesand carrying capacity framework under alter-native 2 would establish resource protectionstandards, including standards for preservationof wildlife habitat. These standards wouldserve as clearly defined triggers for imple-menting management action to reduce oreliminate impacts and would provide a moresystematic approach than would occur underthe no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement). For example, by minimizingdisturbance from human activity, the zones andcarrying capacity framework could helpmaintain local wildlife populations, therebyconstituting a moderate beneficial impact.

The proposed boundary adjustment near theCarbon River entrance would place about1,063 more acres of forested land under theprotection of the National Park Service. Thisaction would eliminate the potential for wild-life habitat loss due to the logging of privateand U.S. Forest Service lands in the area,resulting in a minor to moderate long-termbeneficial effect.


248

Construction activities under alternative 2could have minor short-term adverse effects onwildlife. In the park, these effects would beassociated with the construction of a newvisitor center at Paradise; additional parking,picnic, and camping facilit ies in various loca-tions; minor roadway improvements on West-side Road; and minor modifications to nonwil-derness trails. If welcome centers had to bebuilt outside the park, there would be similarminor short-term adverse effects on wildlife.

Most development would occur in areas al-ready disturbed by human use. Therefore, noadditional loss of habitat would be expected,and adverse effects would be limited to theshort-term construction impacts describedabove.

As in all the alternatives, with increased use ofthe park there would be a higher potential forroad kills, particularly in areas with short sightdistances and/or at dusk and dawn when lightconditions are poor. Wildlife such as deer andelk would be particularly susceptible to colli-sions. Although some animals would be in-jured or killed, the number of collisions wouldnot be expected to increase dramatically. Lowposted speeds also would help reduce mor-tality. Thus, road kills resulting from alterna-tive 2 would have a minor impact on wildlifepopulations in the park.

Opening Westside Road to motorized shuttlesand adding picnic sites under alternative 2would facilitate access and encourage morevisitors to use this area. Increased humanactivity could increase wildlife disturbances.However, these adverse impacts would benegligible to minor because the road is alreadyaccessible for hiking and biking.

Operating shuttles on the Westside Roadwould have the potential for several otherimpacts on wildlife. As noted above, therewould be the potential for vehicle-wildlifecollisions resulting in road kills. Depending onthe kind of shuttles used, noise from the ve-

hicles could disturb wildlife near the road,startling some animals, possibly causing someindividuals to move away from the road.However, shuttles would not be expected torun frequently on the road, and any impactswould likely be negligible to minor to thewildlife populations in the area.

If the Westside Road was closed after a majorwashout, local effects would return to currentlevels. Similarly, if the Carbon River Road wasclosed, there would be a minor beneficialeffect on wildlife from the reduction in vehicu-lar and human activity along the road.

The removal of housing and maintenancefacilit ies from the Carbon River entrance couldadversely affect bats if they use the buildingsfor roosting. Therefore, site surveys would beconducted prior to building removal. If batswere found to inhabit the buildings, mitigatingmeasures would include providing replacementroost areas, and the effects would benegligible. The restoration of vegetation inassociation with installing picnic sites afterbuilding removal could provide additionalwildlife habitat. This long-term beneficialeffect would be negligible to minor because ofthe small area involved and the continuedhuman activity in the area.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. When the effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park werecombined with impacts associated with thisalternative, there would be minor to majorlong-term adverse cumulative impacts onwildlife in the region, primarily because of theeffects of logging and land developmentoutside the park.

This alternative’s contribution to the adversecumulative impacts would be minor and pri-marily short term. However, preserving wild-life habitat in the park under the carryingcapacity framework and eliminating potential


249

impacts on habitat in the boundary adjustmentarea would result in an incremental benefit towildlife in the region.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficial effectson wildlife. Some of the contributing factorswould be protecting resources better throughimplementing the carrying capacity frameworkand new management zones, protecting about1,063 additional acres of wildlife habitat alongthe Carbon River as a new part of the park, andrestoring vegetation in the Carbon River en-trance area. Minor short-term adverse impactson localized areas would result from construc-tion projects and from opening Westside Roadto shuttles under alternative 2.

Cumulative effects would include minor tomajor long-term adverse impacts, primarilydue to habitat loss associated with logging andland development outside the park. Thisalternative’s contribution to these adversecumulative impacts would be minor, and bypreserving wildlife habitat in the park, thealternative would have an incrementalbeneficial effect.


Analysis. Alternative 2 would be not likely tohave adverse effects on any special statusspecies. However, some inconsequentialchanges to habitat or loss of individuals mightoccur, as described below.

The preferred alternative would include thesame survey, avoidance, and mitigation pro-visions that were described in the analysis forthe no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement). In addition, the carrying capacityframework and new management zones underthis alternative would include resource pro-tection standards to protect habitat for specialstatus species. These standards would clearlydefine triggers for implementing managementaction to reduce or eliminate effects on special-

status species habitat, and they would provide amore systematic approach than would occurunder alternative 1. Taking management ac-tions to avoid disturbance from human activitywould have a beneficial effect on the preserva-tion of habitat for special status species.

The impact analysis is arranged by groups ofspecies with similar habitat requirements. Formost species, the effects under the preferredalternative would be essentially the same as foralternative 1. The analysis presents only thoseeffects that would be different from the no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement).

The preferred alternative would not be likely toaffect any of the following special-status spe-cies. The bases for these conclusions would beidentical to those described under the no-actionalternative (continue current management):

bald eagleperegrine falconferruginous hawkLarch Mountain salamanderVan Dyke’s salamandervalley silverspotwhulge checkerspotFender’s soliperlan stoneflystate-listed sensitive plant species

Marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, andnorthern goshawk — The preferred alternativewould not be likely to adversely affect thesespecies. The carrying capacity framework andnew management zones associated with thisalternative would improve the protection habi-tat for these species by establishing triggers toensure that visitor uses and management actionsdid not adversely affect critical habitat. If moni-toring indicated potential concerns, managementactions such as closures would be implementedto protect these species.

The introduction of shuttle services alongMowich Lake road would increase summer


250

visitor use in these areas. However, human usewould be localized, and the potential area ofeffect would be small. Therefore, these actionswould not be likely to adversely affect thesespecies.

Offering shuttles along the Westside road wouldnot be likely to adversely affect northern spottedowls, marbled murrelets, or northern goshawks.Although shuttles would increase the number ofvisitors who would have easier access to areasalong the Westside Road, such use would occurover the broad area covered by the road, and theresulting effects (noise and disturbance) wouldbe localized and of short duration. Althoughnorthern spotted owls could be hit by vehicles,resulting in death or injury, the probability ofthis occurring would be small because the shut-tles would travel at slow speeds and intermit-tently, primarily during summer daylight hours(avoiding sensitive dawn and dusk periods).Thus, opening the Westside Road to shuttlesmight affect, but would not be likely to adverse-ly affect, these three species. Additional environ-mental analysis would be carried out when thepark’s transportation plan was developed andmore details of the shuttle operation were knownto confirm this finding and determine whetheradditional mitigation measures would be needed.

Minor construction would be carried out in areasof northern spotted owl or marbled murrelethabitat. This would include improvements toWestside Road for shuttle access, constructionof picnic areas at the Carbon River entrance, andthe modifications in the Mowich Lake area andalong Westside Road. To avoid disturbing nest-ing birds, construction near nest sites would berestricted during the breeding season. Duringother seasons, construction-related noises andactivities could displace or disturb individualbirds, but the effects would be temporary andlocalized.

Employee housing and maintenance facilities atthe Carbon River entrance would be removedand replaced with picnic sites for visitors. Theseactivities would not be likely to displace owls,

murrelets, or goshawks because the small,localized disturbance would be in a previouslyimpacted site.

The boundary adjustment area adjacent to theCarbon River entrance includes land designatedas critical habitat for marbled murrelets. Thisaction would protect marbled murrelets andother special-species inhabiting about 1,063acres from logging or other major developmenton U.S. Forest Service and private lands,resulting in a beneficial long-term effect. Allimprovements in this area, including administra-tion facilit ies and a new campground and picnicarea, would be placed within currently devel-oped lands and would not be likely to adverselyaffect murrelets.

In winter the Mowich Lake Road would beplowed to the Paul Peak trailhead, and a sno-park would be designated. Although this wouldincrease winter activity in the area, it would notbe likely to have additional effects on northernspotted owls because the road is already used forwinter activities, and no nesting is known tooccur in the area. In addition, species that aresensitive to human disturbance are already dis-couraged from using this area by an existing off-road vehicle area adjacent to the park boundary,which is heavily used during the winter.

Olive-sided flycatcher — The preferredalternative would not be likely to adverselyaffect this species. Most effects would be identi-cal to those described for the no-action alterna-tive (continue current management). However,the preferred alternative would include in-creased accessibility to some developedactivity areas due to road openings and shuttleservices and the construction of additionalpicnic and other visitor facilit ies. Althoughthese actions would result in higher levels oflocalized human noise and activity, mostchanges would occur close to existing devel-oped areas and would have litt le effect on themontane meadows and subalpine parklandsthat are the prime habitat for this species. Theprotection of these areas could be improved


251

under the alternative 2 prescriptive manage-ment zones.

Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Cali-fornia wolverine, and pacific fisher — Thepreferred alternative would be not likely toaffect any of these species. Most effects,including effects on the potential future reestab-lishment of these species, would be identical tothe no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement).

• Operating summer shuttles on WestsideRoad would not increase habitat fragmen-tation because the road already is used bypeople and has been open to vehicles formore than 50 years.

• Increased summer visitor use on CarbonRiver and Mowich Lake roads would notresult in increased fragmentation of habi-tat. Opening part of Mowich Lake road inwinter would not affect habitat continuitybecause winter use in this area wouldcontinue to be low.

Long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis andPacific Townsend’s big-eared bat — Thisalternative would not be likely to result in ad-verse effects on these species. The effectswould be the same as for alternative 1, exceptthat removal of the maintenance and housingfacilit ies at the Carbon River entrance and theconstruction of additional picnic facilit ies in thewestern part of the park could remove someroosting sites. These represent only a smallportion of the available roosting sites in the park,and their loss would be mitigated by surveys andother activities, potentially including theconstruction of new roosting sites.

Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, bull trout, andcoastal cutthroat trout — This alternativewould not be likely to cause adverse effects onany of these fish species. Under alternative 2, ifvisitors impacted riparian areas, indicators andstandards would result in management actionsthat would protect streambanks.

Construction activities (including the removal ofmaintenance and employee housing facilit iesfrom the Carbon River entrance), minor im-provements to Westside Road for shuttle service,and construction of new picnic areas in thewestern part of the park could cause construc-tion-related sedimentation. However, bestmanagement practices to control sedimentationwould be employed, and the construction wouldbe localized and temporary and would affectonly short lengths of streambank. Therefore,construction would produce only minor short-term adverse effects on special status fish.

Red-legged frog, tailed frog, cascades frog,western toad, and California floater — Alter-native 2 would not be likely to adversely affectthese species and would produce effects similarto those under alternative 1. The alternative 2management zones that would protect wilder-ness areas would result in a long-term beneficialeffect. Effects from construction would be simi-lar to those described above for the fish species;there would be produce only minor short-termadverse effects. Winter plowing of MowichLake Road could delay spring melt-out anddelay breeding for frogs along the roadside. Thedelays would be likely to be within the normalvariability of the breeding season and would notproduce adverse effects.

Cumulative Impacts. Effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park would beidentical to those described for the no-actionalternative. When the effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park were com-bined with impacts associated with this alter-native, the cumulative effect of all of theseactions would be likely to be adverse effectson special-status species in the region, withmajor long-term effects primarily caused bylogging and land development outside thepark. Alternative 2 would not contribute tothese adverse effects.

Conclusion. Continued human use, along withthe expected increases in visitor use in thepark, would cause disturbance to individuals of


252

special-status species. Opening the WestsideRoad to shuttles also might affect, but wouldnot be likely to adversely affect, northernspotted owls, marbled murrelets, and northerngoshawks. The survey, avoidance, and mitiga-tion actions that the National Park Servicewould take would ensure that alternative 2would not adversely affect any species offederal or state status.

When the effects of actions by others and otheractions in the park were combined with theeffects of this alternative, the cumulativeeffects of the actions would be likely toadversely affect special-status species in theregion. Alternative 2 would not contribute tothese adverse effects.


Analysis. As under alternative 1, the expectedslight, long-term increases in the number ofvisitors to the park would expose more visitorsto volcanic hazards. Short-term safety hazardswould range from major to minor, although thelikelihood that any event would occur withinfive years or less would be low. However, inthe long term (up to 100 years or more), majorto minor safety hazards would continue to existat these sites because of the potential for injuryor loss of life should a geologic event occur.

In comparison to alternative 1, park visitorsand employees would receive additional infor-mation about the threat of geologic hazardsand actions to take in case of specific events.These visitor and employee informationsources would increase knowledge about thegeologic hazards that exist in the park. Dis-seminating information would give visitorsvaluable facts that could reduce injury and lossof life associated with these risks, constitutinga minor beneficial impact.

Under alternative 2, shuttle service alongWestside Road would improve accessibility to

this area, which is subject to debris flows and,at the southern end, rockfalls. This would ex-pose more people to risks from these events,but the frequency of such events, and thereforethe level of impact, would not change. Theadverse impacts would remain major to mod-erate along the southern portion of the road.

Winter use, including skiing, snowshoeing,snowboarding, and overnight camping, wouldincrease slightly compared to alternative 1.The adverse impacts due to risk of avalanchestherefore would be slightly higher than wouldoccur with the no-action alternative. However,it would still be within the minor to moderaterange because the number of visitors andemployees in the winter would be lowcompared to summer use levels.

Impacts from flooding hazards and debrisflows would be reduced in comparison toalternative 1 due to the removal of adminis-trative and maintenance facilit ies from theCarbon River entrance. This would result in aminor beneficial impact.

Most new visitor facilit ies under this alterna-tive, including picnic areas in the westernportion of the park and the new visitor centerat Paradise, would not be located in debrisflow zones or areas subject to nonvolcanichazards. Therefore, there would be no impactfrom the construction of these facilit ies.However, there would be a minor adverseimpact due to the new picnic sites at theCarbon River entrance, which would exposevisitors to potential flooding hazards anddebris flows.

Cumulative Impacts. The impacts of alterna-tive 2 would not add to or decrease the impactsfrom hazards in other locations. Therefore, nocumulative impacts have been identified.

Conclusion. Major to negligible long-termimpacts due to volcanic and nonvolcanichazards would continue under alternative 2,presenting risks to visitor and employee safety.


253

However, compared to alternative 1, thepreferred alternative would result in a slightreduction of risk from volcanic hazards byproviding better information. Although bothalternatives would have similar increases inrisk associated with slight increases in visita-tion, alternative 2 would result in a minorbeneficial effect from the removal of theadministrative and maintenance facilit ies fromthe Carbon River entrance area, which issubject to debris flows.

On the other hand, alternative 2 would have aminor adverse impact due to the new picnicsites at the Carbon River entrance, whichwould expose visitors to potential floodinghazards and debris flows. The exposure ofvisitors to nonvolcanic hazards would increaseslightly compared to alternative 1 as measuresto increase winter visitation and the WestsideRoad shuttle would expose more visitors torisks of avalanches, debris flows, and rockfalls.Compared to the no-action alternative, im-proved information could reduce injury andloss of life when a geologic event occurred.

No cumulative impacts have been identified.Impacts related to geologic hazards resultingfrom this alternative would not increase ordecrease the impacts related to other actionsinside or outside the park.



Analysis. Like alternative 1, alternative 2would result in small increases in human-caused erosion of archeological resources dueto increases in visitation.

No direct impacts on known archeologicalresources would occur under alternative 2.However, undertakings involving grounddisturbance for new construction could affectunknown archeological resources. If suchresources were identified during ground-

disturbing activities, the park staff wouldimplement appropriate measures to avoid orotherwise mitigate resource impacts inaccordance with Section 106 (NationalHistoric Preservation Act) procedures andother applicable cultural resource guidelinesand regulations, such as the ArcheologicalResources Protection Act. If avoidance was notfeasible at a location, there could be an adverseeffect on archeological resources fromconstruction under alternative 2.

Erosion of archeological resources is oftenassociated with the creation and use of socialtrails. Compared to the no-action alternative,this situation would be improved under alter-native 2, which would include additionalmeasures to keep visitors on designated trails.The preferred alternative also would eliminateoverflow parking, which is a key contributor tosocial trail creation as visitors walk cross-country from where they parked to a developedarea. These measures would assist the NationalPark Service in meeting site protectionobjectives.

Cumulative Impacts. Other actions outsidethe park and other actions in the park would bethe same as those described for alternative 1.When these actions were considered alongwith this alternative, there would continue tobe a major long-term adverse cumulative effecton archeological resources in the region. Thiswould occur because of development outsidethe park that would impact sites withoutrecordation. The contribution of alternative 2to this adverse effect would be small, and be-cause mitigating measures adopted by the parkwould require the avoidance and protection ofthese resources, this alternative would beexpected to preserve archeological resourcesfor the region.

Conclusion. As with alternative 1, visitorincreases associated with the preferredalternative would have no adverse effectsbecause the park’s resource protection mea-sures would continue to be implemented.


254

Construction activities would be expected tohave minor to negligible impacts on archeo-logical resources, although there could be anadverse effect on unknown resources. Region-ally, there would continue to be a majorcumulative adverse effect on archeologicalresources. However, the contribution ofalternative 2 to this adverse effect would besmall in comparison to other actions.


Analysis. Alternative 2 would have the sameabsence of adverse effects on ethnographicresources that was described for alternative 1.Should ethnographic resources be identified,the National Park Service would ensure thatefforts were made to avoid or appropriatelymitigate impacts on such resources. Tribalpreferences regarding the confidentiality andtreatment of culturally sensitive resourceswould be respected.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts onethnographic resources are the same as thosedescribed for alternative 1. It is likely thatnumerous resource collection and traditionalcultural sites have been impacted, and wouldcontinue to be adversely affected, primarily byactions outside of the park. The contribution ofalternative 2 to these cumulative impactswould be negligible. Because efforts would bemade to avoid or appropriately mitigate im-pacts on ethnographic resources in the park,this alternative would be expected to preserveethnographic resources for the region.

Conclusion. Although the park’s ethnographicresources are largely unknown, alternative 2would not have any adverse effects on theability of Native Americans to procure plantswithin the park or on known traditional cul-tural properties. The preferred alternative alsowould not contribute to cumulative adverseeffects on known ethnographic resources thatare occur throughout the region.

Historic Resources, includingthe Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive, no adverse effects were identified as aresult of alternative 2. Although both alterna-tives would have the same effects from similar,small increases in visitation, the preferredalternative would have beneficial effects fromactions that would help reestablish the historicroadside character of the district and reduceeffects on visual character.

The replacement of the Sunrise Lodge with aranger/concession facility would be the samemitigated adverse impact as noted in alterna-tive 1.

Minor construction proposed under alternative2 within the National Historic LandmarkDistrict would include changing vehicularcirculation, eliminating overflow parking, newparking, and improved picnic areas and camp-grounds. Some of these construction projectswould include reconfiguring the upper Para-dise and Ohanapecosh parking areas andconstructing more picnic sites at MowichLake, Ricksecker Point, and Sunrise. Inassociation with each action, the park wouldcontinue to implement established resourceprotection measures for the treatment ofhistoric resources. Treatment measures forhistoric resources would conform to parkguidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards and Guidelines for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties (36 CFR 68).

Cultural landscape reports would also beprepared to guide the design compatibility ofthe proposed changes. As a result , the con-struction associated with alternative 2 wouldhave no adverse effect on historic resources,including the Mount Rainier National HistoricLandmark District.

Reversing the direction traffic drives on theParadise Valley Road on a trial basis would


255

have no adverse effects and would result in abeneficial effect on the National HistoricLandmark District. This traffic pattern wouldhelp restore the historic sense of arrival andspatial sequence that visitors originally experi-enced as they approached the area.

Eliminating overflow parking areas in theNational Historic Landmark District wouldhave a beneficial effect by reestablishing thehistoric roadside character of the district rela-tive to the contributing characteristics ofspatial organization and vegetation. Visitorstaking shuttles would be able to experienceareas via historic approach routes. Theseactions would have no adverse effect on theNational Historic Landmark District.

Prohibiting private vehicles on Westside Roadwould continue to affect historic circulationbecause the road was formerly accessible toprivate vehicles during the period of signifi-cance for the National Historic LandmarkDistrict. Opening the road to shuttle trafficwould provide a measure of continuity withhistoric use patterns, lessening the effect.Closing the last 0.5 mile of Mowich LakeRoad would affect historic circulation, whichwould have a minor effect but not constitute anadverse effect. It also should be noted that.both of these changes are reversible.

In the event of a major washout, both CarbonRiver Road and Westside Road might beclosed to motorized traffic. However, thehistoric road corridors would be maintained.Therefore, these actions would not have anadverse effect on the National HistoricLandmark District.

Prohibiting pack stock on historic trails such asthe Wonderland Trail and Northern Loop Trailwould be inconsistent with the period ofsignificance for the National Historic Land-mark District. The use of pack stock is a his-toric use of these trails, which give park staffand visitors better access to the park. Thischange affects only one aspect of the integrity

of the trail (land use), however, and it wouldnot cause an adverse effect. This change wouldalso be reversible.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. When the cumulative effectsof actions by others and other actions in thepark were combined with impacts associatedwith this alternative, the cumulative impactwould be major, long-term, and adverse, pri-marily because of the effects of logging andland development on historic resources outsidethe park. Alternative 2 would not contribute tothis cumulative adverse effect. In fact, becausethe preservation maintenance of buildings andstructures would continue and portions of thehistoric circulation pattern and roadside char-acter of the park would be restored, this alter-native would preserve historic resources forthe region.

Conclusion. No adverse effects from alterna-tive 2 were identified. Benefits to historicresources, including the Mount Rainier Na-tional Historic Landmark District, would resultfrom such actions as reversing the traffic flowon Paradise Valley Road and eliminatingoverflow parking within the district. Region-wide impacts would continue to have anadverse cumulative effect on historic re-sources, but the preferred alternative would notcontribute to the cumulative adverse effect.


Analysis. Under alternative 2, the existingHenry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Centerwould be demolished and replaced with a new,smaller visitor center designed to be compat-ible with the historic character of the NationalHistoric Landmark District. The existing visi-tor center is adjacent to but not within theNational Historic Landmark District. The new,smaller visitor center might be relocated to asite within the district.

The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter could be eligible for listing on the


256

National Register of Historic Places as a sig-nificant example of the Mission 66 program.Therefore, the National Park Service wouldrequest concurrence with its determination ofeligibility for the building by the state historicpreservation officer (SHPO).

If the visitor center was determined to be eli-gible for listing, the National Park Servicewould mitigate the adverse effect of the re-moval of the structure by developing a memo-randum of agreement with the SHPO to pro-vide documentation of the structure before itsremoval. Typically, this would include in-depth historic documentation in addition toappropriate photo documentation carried out inaccordance with the standards of the HistoricAmerican Buildings Survey. As a result , theadverse effect of building removal would bemitigated.

Cumulative Impacts. If the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center was found eligible forlisting, mitigation would be undertaken beforethe building was removed. No other actionswould affect the building. Therefore, no ad-verse effects and no cumulative impacts wouldoccur under this alternative.

Conclusion. Removing the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center under this alternativewould have no adverse effect, and no cumu-lative effect on the building because the effectsof removal would be mitigated.


The preferred alternative would have the sameslight increases in visitation that would occurunder the no-action alternative (continue cur-rent management). However, alternative 2would include several management actions toreduce or eliminate some of the adverse effectsthat would occur under alternative 1. Theeffects of these actions on visitor access, therange of activities available and how enjoyable

those activities were, the availability ofinformation, and the character of the wil-derness experience are described below.

Visitor Access

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive (continue current management), thepreferred alternative would have would havemoderate beneficial impacts on visitor accessat t imes of peak use. This would result pri-marily from decreased traffic congestion andless difficulty in finding convenient parking atmajor developed areas.

The preferred alternative would eliminate alloverflow parking, and parking would beallowed only in designated spaces at visitorcenters, trailheads, viewpoints, and othervisitor facilit ies. To minimize the potentialadverse effects on visitor access, elimination ofoverflow parking would be implemented inphases and would not occur until the shuttleservices were operational.

During the summer peak-use period, shuttleservice would be provided to Longmire,Paradise, Sunrise, White River campground,Mowich Lake, and the Westside and CarbonRiver Roads. Winter shuttle service also wouldbe provided to Longmire and Paradise. Coord-ination of shuttle services with the eliminationof overflow parking would ensure that an ef-fective visitor transportation system would beavailable and that visitors would have an alter-nate means of access to the park’s populardestinations.

The National Park Service would use mediaoutlets and its own education and informationresources to inform park users of the change.Visitors would have improved access to infor-mation for planning their visit to the park atnew visitor contact centers on major roadsleading to the park. Electronic signs or othercommunication technologies would providereal-time information on locations whereparking was available. Therefore, visitors


257

would be able to plan and schedule their activi-ties more effectively, and they would be ableto avoid areas where parking was filled tocapacity or use the shuttle service.

In spite of the above actions, during peak-useperiods some visitors would not be able to parkat popular locations outside the major devel-oped areas. These would include some trail-heads or smaller developed areas such asNarada Falls and T ipsoo Lake, where therewould be no alternate means of access.

As in the no-action alternative, at off-peaktimes during the summer, during the shoulderseason (May and November), and in winter,visitation under this alternative would continueto be low enough that a slight increase in visi-tors would not be likely to cause noticeablecongestion even in most popular visitorareas — visitors generally would be able tofind a parking space near their destination.However, if heavy snow delayed opening theroad to Paradise in winter peak periods, con-gestion would worsen in the Longmire areabecause of the elimination of overflow parkingand increases in visitation. There would be ashort-term moderate adverse impact on visitoraccess to the Longmire area at these times.

For visitors reluctant to use the shuttle, therecould be adverse effects on visitor access.These visitors could choose to visit areas in thepark with less use, take a scenic drive throughthe park, or travel to other destinations outsidethe park. Any adverse impacts would be minorand limited to times of peak use.

There could initially be short-term minor ad-verse impacts at peak-use periods from a lackof visitor familiarity with the new parkingregulations, shuttle services, and informationprograms. However, as visitors becamefamiliar with the management actions, fewervisitors would be inconvenienced.

Proposed actions in the Carbon River areawould have both positive and adverse impacts.

Providing shuttle service would enable somevisitors to visit this area who might not other-wise come, and it would help reduce conges-tion at the end of the road, a minor to moderatepositive effect. On the other hand, eliminatingoverflow parking at Ipsut Creek would have aminor adverse impact because some visitorswould not want to take a shuttle and could notfind a parking place; such visitors would bedisplaced to other areas. However, if the roadwas closed due to a major washout, this wouldresult in a moderate to major adverse impacton visitor access.

In the Mowich Lake area, requiring people towalk half a mile to the lake might reduce thenumber of visitors who would walk past thelake. The reduction in parking by eliminatingoverflow parking and the reluctance of somepeople to take shuttles would prevent access tothis area for some people. Some families withchildren, the elderly, people with disabilit ies,and picnickers also might not be able to reachthe lake. Thus, the alternative would have aminor adverse effect on an unknown numberof visitors. On the other hand, with no vehiclecongestion at the lake and fewer people usingthe area, people who did walk to the lakewould have a better experience than under theno-action alternative.

This alternative would include providing shut-tle service along Westside Road to KlapatchePoint, which would improve visitor access toareas north of the existing road closure. Thiswould result in a moderate beneficial effect onvisitor access by opening an area of the parknow available to relatively few people. Theshuttle would provide more convenient accessto trailheads and other recreational activities,including new picnic sites at Tahoma Vista,Round Pass/Marine memorial, and KlapatchePoint. However, if a major washout occurred,the operation of the shuttle service would bereexamined. Curtailment of the shuttle servicewould be an adverse impact which, dependingon the popularity for the shuttle, could beminor to major.


258

In the short term, visitor access would be dis-rupted during the construction of redesignedparking area and new visitor center at Paradise.This would be a minor short-term adverseimpact.

Alternative 2 would have litt le effect on visitoraccess during off-peak summer days, duringthe shoulder season (May and November), andin winter. During all these times, there wouldcontinue to be few problems associated withvisitor access.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 2,there would be long-term moderate beneficialeffects on visitor access in the park, as well asshort-term and long-term minor adverse im-pacts.

The effects of other actions in the vicinity ofthe park would be similar to alternative 1 inthat they could increase visitation in the park atpeak times while also diverting some use fromthe park and stabilizing visitor use in the longterm. Any increase in park visitation at peaktimes would have a negative impact on visitoraccess within the park because the increase invisitors would occur at t imes when the parkwould already be operating near capacity.

Other past and future projects in the park havehad, and would continue to have no effects onvisitor access, other than temporary minoradverse impacts during construction.

Overall, the currently planned developmentprojects could increase the number of visitorsduring peak periods of park visitation. How-ever, when combined with the generallybeneficial effects of alternative 2 on visitoraccess, the cumulative impacts on visitoraccess would be moderate and beneficial dueto reductions in congestion and inconvenienceat major visitor areas in the park.

In winter and in off-peak periods in summer,the impacts of the preferred alternative wouldbe negligible (with the exception of Longmire

when there were heavy snowfalls), and evenwith increased visitation generated by the otherprojects, the total visitation would be accom-modated by existing parking and circulationfacilit ies. Therefore, the cumulative impact onaccess would also be negligible.

Conclusion. Alternative 2 generally wouldresult in moderate beneficial effects on visitoraccess at t imes of peak use, which would bedue to decreases in traffic congestion and lessdifficulty in finding convenient parking atmajor developed areas.

Establishing a shuttle system for visitors andproviding improved information about accessand parking would largely mitigate any ad-verse effects from eliminating overflow park-ing. However, there could be minor short-termadverse effects from an initial lack of visitorfamiliarity with these measures, and therecould be long-term adverse effects becausesome visitors would still be inconvenienced byeliminating overflow parking.

Moderate long-term beneficial effects wouldresult from increased accessibility in the West-side Road area, and there would be minor tomoderate beneficial effects from providing ashuttle on the Carbon River Road. However,there also would be adverse impacts in theCarbon River area from eliminating overflowparking at the Ipsut Creek campground. If theCarbon River Road was closed by a futurewashout, the magnitude of the impact wouldincrease to a moderate to major long-term ad-verse impact.

Overall, actions outside the park would havethe potential to increase the number of visitorsduring peak periods of park visitation. How-ever, when these actions were combined withthe impacts of alternative 2 on visitor access,there would be moderate beneficial, cumula-tive impacts on visitor access due to reductionsin congestion and inconvenience at majorvisitor areas in the park.


259


Analysis. Implementing a carrying capacityframework based upon the new wilderness andnonwilderness management zones proposedunder this alternative, along with other actionsto improve the enjoyment of visitor activities,would result in major beneficial effects on thevisitor experience. Overall, park visitors’opportunities for high-quality recreationalactivities and experiences would be improvedas they drove park roads, hiked trails, pic-nicked, camped, and used other park facilit iesbecause the park would be managed to main-tain the quality of park resources and visitorexperience.

The new zones show how different areas of thepark could be managed to achieve desiredvisitor experiences and resource conditions,and they describe appropriate kinds of activi-ties and developments. These new zones alsoprovide a framework for managing overnightuse and day-use levels in a more systematicway than the zones currently used, based onvisitor experience and resource protectionindicators and standards. The indicators wouldbe monitored to determine the conditions ofresources and visitor experiences, providinginformation to implement management actionif visitor experience conditions were out ofstandard or deteriorating. For example, if inmonitoring indicators it was found that thequality of the visitor experience in the T ipsooLake area was declining, actions would betaken to improve the conditions, such asoffering visitors more information about howto protect fragile resources, improving thedefinition of trails, or redirecting visitors sothat these impacts could be mitigated or re-versed. Continued monitoring would enableadditional actions to be taken if necessary.

Removing the picnic area at Falls Creek wouldhave a minor adverse effect on visitors whowanted to use this area. However, visitorswould be able to find other opportunities topicnic in the Carbon River area.

Under this alternative, pack stock use would beprohibited (except along the Pacific Crest Trailand connecting trails at the eastern edge of thepark). There are few pack stock users, and thiswould have a minor adverse impact.

The proposed boundary adjustment wouldeliminate hunting in the acreage added to thepark, which result in a minor adverse impacton a few people who hunt on these lands.However, they still would be able to hunt inthe much larger expanse of Forest Service andPlum Creek lands.

If the Carbon River Road was closed to privatevehicles by a major washout, so that peoplecould no longer drive or take a shuttle to thispopular area, one of the few year-round hikingareas in the park would no longer be a desiredattraction for many people. Most visitorswould not be willing or be able to walk or ridehorses or bicycles to the end of the road andwould be displaced to other areas in or outsidethe park. This would be a moderate to majorlong-term adverse impact on visitors’opportunities to enjoy the park.

With the elimination of overflow parking,visitors parking at popular areas such asParadise and Sunrise would spend less time onpeak-use days walking to and from remoteparking areas or searching for a parking place,resulting in more time being available forprimary activities. Those taking shuttles wouldbe able to reach these areas without worryingabout finding a convenient parking place, andif some form of interpretation was provided onthe shuttles, they would be able to learn aboutthe park and its resources.

Eliminating overflow parking also would im-prove the views along park roadways andlessen the intrusion of vehicles, which nowadversely affects the enjoyment of activities atthe park.


260

Other actions that would contribute to thebeneficial effects of this alternative, are asfollows:

• Visitors would have an opportunity toenjoy the scenery along Westside Roadwhile riding the shuttle, and new picnicareas would be provided at Tahoma Vista,Round Pass/Marine Memorial and Kla-patche Point. The visitor experience wouldbe more social in nature, with more visi-tors in the area, and although a few hikersor bikers might be disturbed by the in-creased activity, most visitors would belikely to enjoy the experience.

• Similarly, visitors would have an oppor-tunity to enjoy the scenery along theCarbon River Road as they rode theshuttle. The experience would be moresocial in nature than at present.

• Replacing the Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center would enhance visitors’enjoyment and appreciation of the park.The new visitor center would be fullyaccessible for people with disabilit ies,meet all current building codes, and be amodel of energy efficiency. Integratedinterpretive exhibits would focus on Para-dise area vegetation and geologic pro-cesses, giving visitors an understandingand appreciation of the area. Replacing thevisitor center also would enable visitors tobetter appreciate the natural landscape andthe cultural resources of the NationalHistoric Landmark District

• Reversing the traffic flow on the ParadiseValley Road on a trial basis would givevisitors a dramatic and historic access toParadise with spectacular views of MountRainier apparent when entering theparking lot.

• A new drive-in campground and picnicarea would be constructed within the

boundary adjustment area west of theCarbon River entrance.

• New picnic sites would be constructed orsites added at several other locations, in-creasing the number of visitors who couldenjoy picnicking.

Most of the new developments or other actionswould not detract from scenic views under thisalternative. At peak periods, noise from peopleand their vehicles would continue to affectvisitors’ experiences, even outside the majoractivity centers, particularly at popular trail-heads and picnic areas with high visitor use.But natural sounds would still largely domi-nate the park as a whole.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 2,there would be major beneficial effects onvisitors’ enjoyment of activities.

As discussed in the above analysis of cumula-tive impacts on visitor access, developmentprojects in the vicinity of the park could bringmore visitors to the general area, which couldin turn increase visitation in the park at peaktimes. This would potentially have an adverseeffect on visitors’ enjoyment of activities in thepark. Although these development projectswould offer new visitor activities outside thepark, potentially redirecting some visitor useaway from the park at peak times, they wouldbe unlikely to offset the attraction of the park.

Other past and future projects in the park havehad, and would continue to have, minorbeneficial effects by improving visitorfacilit ies in the park.

Overall, the effects of other actions, combinedwith the impacts of alternative 2, would resultin major beneficial cumulative impacts onvisitors’ enjoyment of activities through theimplementation of a carrying capacity frame-work, the new management zones proposedunder this alternative, and other actions toimprove the quality of visitor facilit ies.


261

Conclusion. Under alternative 2, as underalternative 1, during off-peak periods visitorscould continue to enjoy a high-quality recre-ation experience with the existing range ofactivities. However, alternative 2 would havemajor beneficial effects not only by decreasingcongestion and the intrusion of vehicles duringpeak periods, but also by improving the qualityof facilit ies and, under the carrying capacityframework, maintaining the quality of thepark’s natural and cultural resource base forthe enjoyment of all visitors. On the otherhand, if the Carbon River Road was closed bya major washout, there would be a moderate tomajor long-term adverse impact on visitorexperiences in the park.

Overall, other projects outside the park couldincrease the number of visitors coming to thepark during peak periods with potential nega-tive effects on congestion and crowding in thepark. However, when combined with theimpacts of alternative 2, these projects wouldresult in major beneficial long-term cumulativeeffects on visitors’ enjoyment of activities dueto the proposed actions under this alternative.


Analysis. Under alternative 2, current oppor-tunities for information, orientation, and inter-pretation would be continued at existing loca-tions. In addition, new information programsand facilit ies would be available. Interpretiveprograms at park visitor centers and museumswould provide more in-depth and focusedinterpretation (e.g., interpreting topics relevantto a site). For example, cultural history andriver ecology could be emphasized at Long-mire, volcanoes and geology at Sunrise, andsubalpine and alpine ecology at Paradise. Amajor rehabilitation or replacement of theaudiovisual programs and exhibits would occurin visitor centers and ranger stations within thepark and some limited form of interpretationwould be provided on shuttles serving visitors.

Several staffed summer visitor welcomecenters would be established on corridorsleading to the park to provide visitor services,orientation information, and interpretivematerials. In addition, media messages, theInternet, and electronic signboards at keylocations along the roads would be used toprovide visitors with information on parkingavailability and activities before they arrived atthe park.

In the short term, the new programs andfacilit ies would be likely to have a moderatebeneficial impact on the visitor experience. Inthe long term, as the programs becomeestablished and visitors become familiar withthe locations and services of the new facilit ies,there would be a major positive impact,particularly because increased visitation,elimination of overflow parking, andimplementation of a carrying capacityframework could make access to some popularlocations difficult for some visitors.

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative 2 wouldresult in long-term beneficial effects.

As discussed in the above analysis of cumu-lative impacts on visitor access, developmentprojects in the vicinity of the park could bringmore visitors to the general area, which couldalso increase visitation in the park. To someextent, these projects could also provide ex-panded information about the region and,potentially, the park. With the expanded parkinformation programs under this alternative, itwould be possible to better coordinate theoverall regional availability of information.Improved access to visitor information wouldhave beneficial effects, particularly if theywere incorporated as part of a broader programof information for the park.

When these effects were combined with themajor beneficial impacts of alternative 2, therewould be major beneficial long-term cumu-lative effects on convenience and accessibilityof information. This impact would be due to


262

improved park information programs, whichwould be part of a broader effort to provideexpanded information about the region.

Conclusion. The quality and availability ofinformation is one of the most importantcontributors to visitors’ satisfaction with theirpark experiences. Alternative 2 would result inmajor beneficial effects because visitors couldobtain information more easily under this alter-native from the greatly expanded informationprograms and visitor contact facilit ies.

There would be major beneficial long-termcumulative effects on the convenience andaccessibility of information through improvedpark information programs that would be partof an effort to provide expanded informationabout the region.


Analysis. Under alternative 2, the currentmanagement zones would be replaced by newmanagement zones, and a new carryingcapacity framework would be implemented.Current trailside camps and camping andclimbing restrictions (e.g., different party sizelimits and campsite locations), generally wouldcontinue within the new zones.

Opportunities for Solitude — Under thisalternative seven distinct wilderness zoneswould be applied to the Mount RainierWilderness, as opposed to the four zones nowin use. The new zones would be expected tohave a positive overall effect, ensuring that theexisting range of opportunities for solitudewould continue into the future. Hikers, back-packers, and climbers would continue to findopportunities for solitude, with few or noencounters with other people, in the pristineand primitive zones (about 92% of thewilderness area). Fewer opportunities forsolitude would be encountered in the otherwilderness zones (about 8% of the wildernessarea), particularly in the high use climbing and

transition zones on weekends. However,encounter levels generally would not changefrom what they are at present. Existing highuse areas generally would continue to be highuse areas in the new zones. (And on weekdaysand on weekends when the weather was unfav-orable, hikers and backpackers also could findopportunities for solitude, even in high useareas, because many people would decide notto go into the wilderness area.) Thus, overall,the application of the new zones should ensurethat outstanding opportunities for solitude forboth small groups and large groups would con-tinue to be available into the foreseeablefuture.

In some cases, as the carrying capacity frame-work was implemented, visitor use might ex-ceed the capacity, resulting in actions todecrease use levels, such as informing visitorsabout other destinations or instituting reserva-tion systems or lotteries. These actions wouldthus increase opportunities for solitude in thesummer, and from the perspective of users inwilderness area, there would be a positiveeffect. Use levels also could increase in areasthat would be belo w their carrying capacity,which could decrease the opportunities forsolitude in these areas. However, in most casesthe permitted increase in use levels would notbe expected to substantially increase overcurrent use levels, and people would be spreadout on the trails over a given day. In addition,some of these areas are lowland forests, whichdo not receive much use now and probablywould not be popular destinations for mosthikers and backpackers. Thus, although uselevels might increase, in most areas opportuni-ties for solitude should not change very muchfrom the current situation, and in popular areasopportunities for solitude would improve.

Opening Westside Road to shuttle buses wouldhave both positive and negative effects onsolitude. On the one hand, many more peoplecould take a shuttle into this part of the parkand hike in the wilderness area, obtaining a


263

wilderness experience that now is not easilyavailable. On the other hand, with more day-use visitors and overnight backpackers in thisarea, opportunities for solitude would declinecompared to what they are today, particularlywithin a few of miles of the road.

Under alternative 2 shuttles as well as privatevehicles would be permitted on the CarbonRiver Road. This would result in some peoplehiking into the wilderness area who might nototherwise do so, at least until there was amajor washout and the road was closed. Therewould be a “pulse effect” when the shuttle’spassengers disembarked at the end of the road,which would adversely affect the opportunitiesfor solitude opportunities along the trail and atthe Carbon River Glacier. However, opportuni-ties for solitude would be low along the popu-lar Carbon Glacier trail, regardless of whetheror not there were shuttles. The shuttles wouldnot be likely to run frequently or to result in asubstantial increase in the number of peoplegoing into the wilderness area. Except onweekends and holidays, most of the time therewould be relatively few people walking intothe wilderness area; therefore, the alternativewould have a minor adverse effect on oppor-tunities for solitude in the Carbon River area.

Overall, this alternative would result in abeneficial effect on opportunities for solituderanging from negligible to minor effects in lesspopular areas to moderately beneficial impactsin more frequently used areas.

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Rec-reation — The application of the new zoneswould have a positive effect, ensuring thatvisitors would continue to find many oppor-tunities in the wilderness. In most of thewilderness area visitors could walk for mileson trails or cross-country (or ski or snowshoein winter) and not be hindered. In addition, theWestside Road shuttle would increase people’sopportunities for primitive, unconfinedrecreation.

However, the application of the zones andcarrying capacity framework could increaserestrictions on day hikers, backpackers, andclimbers going into the wilderness area,affecting their destinations, camping locations,and party sizes.

Current estimated use levels indicate that mostwilderness trails may have capacity for addi-tional use, particularly the trails in the West-side Road, Mowich Lake, and Sunrise areas.On the other hand, trails with existing highlevels of use, such as those in the FryingpanCreek, Comet Falls, Reflection Lakes, Snow/Bench Lakes, White River, and upper SprayPark areas, would be much less likely to haveadditional capacity.

If use levels continued to increase, visitorsmight be required to attend educational pro-grams or to get permits or reservations. In afew high use areas, if resources were adverselyimpacted, day-use visitors also might need toobtain permits or might even be redirectedfrom these areas at certain times. Althoughmost visitors would understand the benefits(more opportunities for solitude, fewer signs ofpeople and apparent resource impacts), somemight feel that their opportunities for primi-tive, unconfined recreation had declinedcompared to the current situation.

If use limits were instituted, this could bemitigated through the expanded informationprograms and facilit ies so that visitors wouldhave advance information about high-useareas, be given other options on where to go,and understand the benefits. Some visitors stillwould be likely to perceive the action nega-tively, but overall most visitors would gain apositive experience from the quality of oppor-tunities for primitive recreation. Over the longterm, as the expanded information programsand facilit ies became well established andvisitors became accustomed to using them, thisalternative would be expected to have a moder-ate to major beneficial effect.


264

Naturalness — The application of the zonesand carrying capacities would have a positiveeffect, ensuring that signs of human impacts(bare ground, trampled vegetation and socialtrails) would not substantially increase in thefuture, and in fact would decline in areas.Some high use areas (such as Spray Park, forexample) probably still would show signs ofhuman use for many years, but these impactswould be expected to decline in number aspark staff restored these areas.

Actions to manage trail use under this alter-native, such as more intensive visitor educa-tion, increased ranger patrols, signs, or finesfor going off-trail, would have a positive effecton maintaining naturalness in the wilderness.In addition, other actions that could be taken toimplement the new framework, such as main-taining or restoring natural screening betweencampsites in the wilderness area, would in-crease the sense of naturalness. Overall, thisalternative would have a long-term moderatebeneficial effect on naturalness in thewilderness.

Cumulative Impacts. Moderate to majorbeneficial effects on wilderness values in thepark would result from increased opportunitiesfor solitude and primitive recreation and thepreservation of naturalness under alternative 2.

As discussed in the above analysis of cumu-lative impacts on visitor access, developmentprojects in the vicinity of the park could bringadditional visitors to the general area. Thiswould be likely to increase day and overnightuse in the wilderness, which would have anadverse effect on opportunities for solitude andprimitive and unconfined recreation.

If national forest wilderness areas and othernational parks in the region started proactivevisitor management programs (such as insti-tuting reservation systems or use limits),visitors could be redirected or turned awayfrom a number of wilderness areas in theregion at peak times and when more overnight

visitors also were being redirected frompopular wilderness areas in the park. Thiswould have minor effects in the short term butwould have greater effects in the long term.

As discussed under alternative 1, developmentalong the eastern boundary of the park wouldadversely affect the naturalness of the park’swilderness landscape by increasing noise andthe views of people, ski lifts, and other facili-ties on ridgetops. On the west side of the park,planned timber sales could affect the natural-ness of the wilderness in the park throughnoise from timber operations in the short term,and in the long term because the timber cutswould continue to be visible from the park. Inaddition, the increased popularity of the Ta-homa Trails system in winter could result in adecrease in solitude, although probably only asmall number of users would be affected.

Other actions in the park, such as natural andcultural resource studies and resource manage-ment actions, would be expected to have anegligible to minor beneficial effect on wilder-ness values by improving the opportunities forprimitive recreation and maintaining the natur-alness of the wilderness.

In summary, when all the potential actionsoutside of the park were considered togetherwith the other actions in the park and the im-pacts of the preferred alternative, there wouldbe major to moderate beneficial effects onopportunities for solitude and primitive recre-ation in the wilderness area due to the effectsof the proposed carrying capacity frameworkand management zones under this alternative.

There also would be minor to major long-termadverse cumulative impacts on the naturalnessof the park’s wilderness areas, but this alterna-tive’s contribution to these impacts would benegligible.

Conclusion. Overall, the preferred alternativewould have a long-term moderate beneficialimpact on wilderness values, with some major


265

beneficial effects along with some moderatenegative impacts due to increased restrictionson wilderness recreation opportunities.

In both summer and winter, opportunities forsolitude would be retained in most wildernessareas and improved in some. The alternativewould have a positive effect in maintainingopportunities for primitive, unconfinedrecreation in winter and summer in most of thewilderness area. These opportunities wouldincrease in a few areas, where access wasbeing improved. However, increased restric-tions could affect wilderness users, some ofwhom might feel their freedom was beingadversely affected. There would be a positiveeffect from maintaining the perceivednaturalness of the wilderness, with reducedsigns of human impacts.

When all of the potential actions outside of thepark were considered together with the otheractions in the park and the impacts of thepreferred alternative, there would be major tomoderate beneficial impacts on opportunitiesfor solitude and primitive recreation in thewilderness area due to the effects of theproposed carrying capacity framework andmanagement zones under this alternative.


Regional Context

Analysis. The preferred alternative wouldincrease employment at the park by 22 em-ployees. Construction activities would havetotal gross costs of approximately $47.1million and would be likely to increase em-ployment, earnings, and taxable sales at theregional level. This represents a relativelymodest dollar figure, given the magnitude ofthe four-county regional economy.

The park would continue to draw tourists tothe region, although (as for alternative 1) the

overall effect on the nearly $6 billion regionaltourism expenditure would be small. Underalternative 2, some management and actionscould result in modest changes in use patternsfor tourism/recreation activities at variouslocations in and near the park. Establishing acarrying capacity framework and prohibitingoverflow parking in the park could result in theredirection of a small number of visitors fromthe park, particularly in summer. On the otherhand, major rehabilitation or replacement ofpark visitor centers, museums, and other facili-ties (both inside and outside the park) as wellas the provision of new audiovisual programsand exhibits, could attract more people into theregion and the park. However, even if redi-rected from the park, visitors would be likelyto stay in the region; therefore, there would belitt le effect on the overall regional economy.

Overall, in a regional context, the socioeco-nomic impacts of the preferred alternativeprobably would be minor but beneficial due tothe effects of increases in park employmentand construction and the continuing attractionof the park for tourists to the region.

Cumulative Impacts. As in alternative 1, thisalternative would result in major beneficial andadverse cumulative socioeconomic effects onthe region. However, although alternative 2would have a small beneficial effect on region-al tourism and expenditures, it would beunlikely to cause major changes in the trendsof regional population or economic growth;therefore, the overall cumulative impactswould be small.

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would result in aminor beneficial economic effect from theincreases in park employment and construc-tion, as well as the continuing attraction of thepark for tourists to the region. However, alter-native 2 would have only a small effect on theoverall cumulative impacts of regionaleconomic growth.


266

Gateway Communities

Analysis. As a result of this alternative, visitoruse levels would reach capacity in some areasof the park during periods of peak visitor use(due to the elimination of overflow parking);however, the public would be encouraged tovisit less crowded parts of the park during thepeak-use times or to visit at less crowded times(weekdays or early morning or late afternoon)or use shuttle services. At the same time, de-veloping new facilit ies outside the park wouldbetter serve visitors, particularly if measureswere employed (for example, media messages,Internet, and electronic signs along roads to thepark) to inform visitors outside the park aboutwhether park activity areas are open or closed.

The prospect of less crowding during off-peaktimes could encourage visitors to spend moretime both in the park and within the gatewaycommunities, which might encourage moretourism expenditures within gateway com-munities. Nonetheless, some visitors might bediscouraged from visiting the park duringpeak-use days or choose to use other regionalrecreation resources.

The gateway communities could benefit fromnew welcome centers and outreach servicesprovided to inform and orient visitors to thepark and nearby recreation areas and facilit ies,such as the Crystal Mountain Ski Area andResort. It is also possible that new shuttleservices would be provided from a site or sitesnear these communities. The communitieswould likely experience increases in tourism-related expenditures because more touristswould stop at these locations and nearby areasfor information and orientation.

As discussed above in the section on regionalcontext, alternative 2 would result in the ex-penditure of additional NPS funds within theregional economy. These disbursements wouldbe tied to the development schedules for thevarious projects and their effect on the gatewaycommunities would depend on where and

when the expenditures occurred. In addition toinitial construction outlays, there would be on-going, long-term expenditures by the park foroperational and maintenance costs. Theseexpenditures would contribute to the econo-mies of the gateway communities, as well as tothe region’s economy. Some local businessesor individuals might receive positive long-termbenefits from these expenditures.

Overall, alternative 2 would be expected tohave a moderate beneficial impact on thesocioeconomic environment of the gatewaycommunities.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impactsunder alternative 2 would be similar to those ofalternative 1. As a result of increased visitationto the park over the years, business and resi-dential development has grown along theaccess corridors. This has had a moderatebeneficial effect on the local economy, whichis expected to continue. Other NPS actions inthe park have had and would continue to havea minor indirect beneficial effect on gatewaycommunities by supporting increasedvisitation.

Other actions outside the park, such as theMount Rainier Resort at Park Junction, wouldalso be likely to have minor to moderate bene-ficial effects by leading to increases in busi-ness in the gateway communities. Recentregional planning initiatives, particularly byPierce County, could lead to better protectionagainst haphazard development, helping toensure long-term economic health and con-tinuing to benefit from increased parkvisitation. The impacts of the alternative, whencombined with the other actions, would resultin a moderate, beneficial, cumulative impactwith respect to the gateway communities.Alternative 2 would contribute substantially tothis beneficial impact.

Conclusion. Under this alternative, the visitorwelcome centers, shuttle staging areas, parkconstruction activities, and increased park


267

visitation would have a moderate beneficialimpact on the socioeconomic environment ofthe gateway communities. When combinedwith other planning and development actionsin the area, this alternative would also result ina moderately beneficial cumulative impactwith respect to the gateway communities.


Analysis. In most cases the preferred alter-native would not be expected to cause sub-stantial changes in the recreational use patternsof people in the region during either summeror winter seasons. Replacing the Jackson Visi-tor Center and providing new audiovisual pro-grams and exhibits in other visitor centers andmuseums could attract more people to thepark. However, implementing a carryingcapacity framework at popular activity areasand trails in the park and eliminating overflowparking could result in the redirection of smallnumbers of visitors, particularly in summer, toother areas outside the park boundary, such asCrystal Mountain. In addition, if the CarbonRiver Road was closed, visitors would be dis-placed to other areas in the region, some ofwhich are already heavily used. This wouldhave a minor long-term adverse impact,particularly in winter, because this part of thepark is one of the few year-round hiking areasin the region.

On the other hand, even with the additionalrecreation opportunities at the park, peoplewould continue to make their selections ofoutdoor recreation based upon their owndesires, perceptions, and availability of timeand other personal resources. Therefore, it isexpected that this alternative would have aminor beneficial impact on regionalrecreational opportunities.

Cumulative Impact. Neither alternative 2 norother NPS actions in the park would add anymajor new recreational opportunities in theregion, but alternative 2 would result in minor

beneficial effects from improvements in theexisting recreational opportunities. Completingseveral proposed recreation projects, includingthe Train to the Mountain and the expansion ofthe Crystal Mountain ski area and resort,would result in an increase in the local job baseand increase the number of recreation visitorsto the region. Together with the improvementsin national forest recreation areas in the region,as well as the additional facilit ies and activitiesproposed in the park under this alternative,there would be moderate beneficial cumulativeeffects on regional recreation opportunities.However, the alternative’s contribution tothese effects would be minor.

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would improverecreation opportunities in the park, but couldalso result in redirection of visitors to otherareas at peak times as the capacity of popularareas is reached. Overall, the alternative wouldhave a minor, beneficial impact. There wouldbe moderate beneficial cumulative impacts, butalternative 2 would not be expected to causeany substantial change in regional recreationalopportunities and therefore would have aminor effect.

Concessions

Analysis. Under this alternative, eliminatingoverflow parking and establishing a carryingcapacity framework would result in a smalldecrease in the number of visitors in parts ofthe park, potentially affecting the business ofconcessioners that provide lodging, food, orother services. However, this would be offset ifvisitors either extend their stays in the park orvisit the park at off-peak times, and it is likelythat there would be a slight increase in theoverall number of visitors.

There could be an adverse impact on the busi-ness of firewood concessioners if campfirerestrictions had to be instituted to protect airquality. However, these restrictions probablywould be instituted for short periods or in spe-


268

cific areas; thus, they should have a minor tomoderate long-term impact on concessioners.

This alternative would be unlikely to have ad-verse impacts on the concessioners or othercommercial businesses that provide mountain-eering related services such as guiding. Indeed,the impact might be slightly positive for suchoperations, because there would be lesscrowding of facilit ies, including trails, whichwould enhance the visitor experience andenjoyment. Overall, the alternative would beexpected to have a minor beneficial effect onthese businesses.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of alter-native 2 on concessions would be similar tothose of alternative 1, and the cumulativeimpacts would also be similar. Other actions inthe park would have beneficial but negligibleeffects, while recreation-related developmentin the vicinity of the park, such as CrystalMountain and Mount Rainier Resort at ParkJunction, would cause minor beneficial effects.Overall, there would be minor beneficialcumulative effects, to which alternative 2would contribute.

Conclusion. Overall, the socioeconomicimpacts on concessioners and other com-mercial businesses operating within the parkwould be minor, but beneficial, underalternative 2. The cumulative impacts, con-sidering the positive effect on visitation ofother recreation developments in the vicinityof the park, would also be minor andbeneficial.


There probably would be a gradual reductionin visitor, commuter employee, and conces-sioner gasoline consumption because ofvehicles achieving better fuel economy asnewer model vehicles replaced older models

over time. Establishing shuttle services forvisitors and employees on Westside, CarbonRiver, and Mowich Roads and to Paradise andSunrise should result in a decrease in fuel con-sumption throughout the park. In addition,visitors would consume less fuel because theywould know in advance when parking was atcapacity and would not burn fuel circling andwaiting for a parking space. However, theexpected increase in overall visitation couldincrease energy requirements in general,considering that some visitors might travellong distances to visit the park.

Replacing of the Henry M. Jackson MemorialVisitor Center with a new facility would de-crease fuel consumption because the buildingwould be designed to be a model of energyefficiency.


This alternative would result i minor adverseimpacts on natural resources in some areasthroughout the park from human use and theconstruction of new facilit ies in the park.

The minor to major adverse impacts identifiedunder alternative 1 from exposing visitors andemployees to volcanic and nonvolcanic haz-ards would continue under this alternative.

This alternative would involve the use ofshuttles and the elimination of overflowparking at a number of popular nonwildernessareas in summer. As a result, visitor use atthese areas could be reduced below currentlevels, depending upon the time of week andmonth of the year. By limiting use, somevisitors during the peak summer season mightnot be able to access the park where theywanted to, when they wanted to, or in themanner they desired. Some visitors might bediscouraged from visiting the park or be dis-placed to less crowded places or times. Visi-tors who altered their visitation plans would beimpacted to a minor to major degree.


269

Similarly, in the wilderness area, if wildernessuse continued to increase, increased manage-ment could be required to protect naturalresource conditions and the experience ofwilderness users. Increased management couldresult in a loss of freedom for some visitors tovisit some wilderness areas during peak-usetimes.


The additional energy requirements identifiedabove would result in an irreversible commit-ment of resources. In addition there would becommitment of material used for constructionof new visitor facilit ies, such as picnic sites,the replacement for the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center, and possiblywelcome centers outside the park.


Under this alternative the vast majority of thepark would be protected in a natural state andwould maintain its long-term productivity.

Only a small percentage of the park would beconverted to development. In addition, morethan 800 acres of forest land included in theproposed 1,063-acre boundary adjustment areawest of the Carbon River entrance would beremoved from potential future timber produc-tion. There would be no other actions thatwould jeopardize the long-term productivity ofthe environment. Short-term impacts associ-ated with construction and restoration mightoccur, such as localized air and water pollution(see analysis of specific impact topics fordetail). Noise and human activity associatedwith construction and restoration also mightdisplace some wildlife from the immediatearea. However, these activities would notjeopardize the long-term productivity of theenvironment.

270

ALTERNATIVE 3: ADDITIONAL VISITOR USE OPPORTUNITIES


Air Quality

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alter-native (continue current management), al-ternative 3, the additional visitor use oppor-tunities alternative, would have a minorbeneficial effect on air quality. Both alterna-tives would have emissions associated withprivate motor vehicles. However, the shuttleservice, the measures to manage campfiresand reduce other air pollutant emissionsources within the park, and the use of newmanagement zones and a carrying capacityframework would decrease air emissionscompared to alternative 1.

Implementing alternative 3 would producetemporary adverse effects on air quality inassociation with in-park construction projects,similar to those described for alternative 2.However, these effects would be localized andwould be mitigated to the extent possible. Asa result , these adverse impacts on air qualitywould be short-term and minor.

Cumulative Impacts. Effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park would beidentical to those described for the no-actionalternative. When the effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park are com-bined with the impacts of actions under thisalternative, the effect of all of these actionswould be a minor long-term adverse cumu-lative impact on air quality. The cumulativeair quality impact on visibility would beadverse and minor to moderate.

This alternative’s contribution to these ad-verse cumulative impacts would be minor,and the region would benefit incrementallyfrom the long-term beneficial effects on airquality brought about by the National ParkService’s implementing shuttle service and a

carrying capacity framework to reduce pol-lutants from vehicles and campfires.

Conclusion. Compared to alternative 1, al-ternative 3 would have a minor, long-term,beneficial effect on local air quality. As inalternative 1, long-term adverse impactswould result from vehicular exhaust emissionsand particulates, carbon monoxide, and otherpollutants from campfires. In addition,localized short-term adverse impacts wouldresult from dust and vehicle emissiongenerated by alternative 3’s constructionactivities. However, a minor beneficial effecton the park’s air quality would result from thevisitor shuttle services, the measures taken toreduce air pollution sources in the park, andthe carrying capacity framework of alternative3.

There would be minor adverse cumulativeimpacts on air quality and minor to moderateadverse cumulative impacts on regionalvisibility. This alternative’s contribution tothese adverse cumulative impacts would beshort-term and minor.


Analysis. Compared to the no-actionalternative (continue current management),alternative 3 would have a minor beneficialimpact on water resources and water quality.Although both alternatives would have similarsmall increases in pollutants associated withslight increases in visitation, alternative 3would include management actions to reducepollutant loadings and improve managementof storm water from a variety of sources in thepark.

Alternative 3 would produce temporaryadverse effects on water quality in associationwith construction projects both within andoutside of the park, similar to those described


271

for alternative 2. However, these effectswould be localized and would be mitigated tothe extent possible. As a result , these adverseimpacts on water resources and water qualitywould be short-term and minor.

Alternative 3 includes numerous provisionsthat would improve water resources and waterquality, compared to the no-action alternative.These provisions, which were described morefully in the alternative 2 impact analysis, arelisted below. Except as noted, all thesemeasures would result in long-term minorbeneficial effects.

• new management zones and a carryingcapacity framework

• improved protection of the lands in theboundary adjustment area (would have along-term moderate beneficial effect)

• the introduction of shuttle services, whichwould decrease pollutant loadings fromroads

• the option of closing rather than repairingWestside Road and/or Carbon River Roadafter a major washout (could have a long-term minor beneficial effect)

• improved trail designs and the eliminationof overflow parking

• the removal of some facilit ies from theCarbon River entrance and the restorationof this area, in conjunction with installingpicnic sites

• the design of reconfigured facilit ies toimprove runoff control and pollutantremoval

The Henry M. Jackson Memorial VisitorCenter would be rehabilitated under thisalternative, and the parking lot would beredesigned to increase the number ofdesignated parking spaces. There would be no

net increase in impervious coverage, andadverse water quality impacts during con-struction would be mitigated to a negligiblelevel. Improved storm water management andpollutant control measures that would beincorporated into the redesign of the areawould result in a long-term minor beneficialeffect.

To protect the Mowich Lake watershed, thelast 0.75 mile of the Mowich Lake road wouldbe paved and the campground would bereconfigured. These actions would have aminor beneficial effect by reducing sedi-mentation and would improve the clarity ofthe lake.

Winter use of the park would increase underthis alternative, but would still be low com-pared to summer use. Because of low uselevels, winter use under this alternative wouldhave few impacts compared to the no-actionalternative. However, the formally adoptedsnow-depth requirements for wildernesscamping would have a negligible beneficialeffect by ensuring that the snow depth wasadequate to protect against soil disturbanceand loss of protective vegetative cover.

Plowing of portions of State Routes 410 and123 and developing sno-parks would increasevehicle-related pollution affecting waterquality and water quality problems associatedwith the improper disposal of human waste.Although there would be an adverse impact, itwould be negligible to minor because of thelow use levels, the presence of vault toilets,and visitor education strategies to reduce theimpact.

Allowing the use of high-clearance privatevehicles on Westside Road in winter couldincrease surface runoff and sedimentationduring spring runoff. This could produceminor localized adverse impacts.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park would


272

be identical to those described for the no-action alternative. The effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park, whencombined with impacts associated with thisalternative, would result in moderate to majorlong-term adverse cumulative impacts onwater resources and water quality in theregion, primarily because of the effects oflogging and land development outside thepark.

This alternative’s contribution to the cumu-lative impacts would be minor because thisalternative would contribute very litt le topollutant loading of regional waterways.Under this alternative, the carrying capacityframework and other actions, including theelimination of potential logging in the pro-posed boundary adjustment area, wouldprovide an incremental benefit to the region’swater quality.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficialeffects on water quality. Some of thecontributing factors would be

reductions in sedimentation andpollutants resulting from implementingthe carrying capacity framework andnew management zones

reductions of sedimentation andpollutants associated with trafficthrough the establishment of shuttleservices

improved protection of Mowich Lake the removal of existing facilit ies at the

Carbon River entrance and revegeta-tion of part of the area

long-term protection of the vegetationin the boundary adjustment area

the design of new and reconfiguredfacilit ies to control surface water flowsand pollutants

improved protection of nonwildernesstrails

elimination of overflow parking alongroadway shoulders

Minor short-term adverse impacts onlocalized areas would result from constructionprojects under alternative 3.

There would be major to moderate long-termadverse cumulative impacts, primarilybecause of pollutant loads in runoff associatedwith logging and land development outsidethe park. This alternative’s effects on theseadverse cumulative impacts would be short-term and minor. In fact, this alternative wouldhave a long-term beneficial effect on regionalwater quality by reducing pollutants andsedimentation in the park.

Floodplains

Analysis. Compared to the no-actionalternative (continue current management),alternative 3 would have moderate, long-term,beneficial effects on floodplains. However, inall of the following aspects, alternative 3floodplain effects would be identical to thoseof alternative 1.

• No new developments would occur inregulatory floodplains.

• Continued levee maintenance and stream-bank protection at Longmire and Sun-shine Point campground, along with theoperation of the Ipsut Creek campground,would have moderate to minor long-termadverse impacts on floodplain values.

• Ongoing repair of minor flood damagealong Westside Road and Carbon RiverRoad would have moderate long-termadverse impacts on floodplain values.

• Continued levee maintenance and stream-bank protection at Longmire and the Sun-shine Point campground, and operation of


273

the Ipsut Creek campground would havemoderate to minor long-term adverseimpacts on floodplain values.

Under alternative 3, if a large portion of eitherWestside Road or Carbon River Road wasdamaged by a glacial outburst or precipitationflooding, the roads might be closed to per-sonal motor vehicles. Compared to alternative1, closing either road to vehicular trafficwould result in moderate long-term beneficialeffects as natural river processes wererestored. At the Carbon River entrance,removing housing and the ranger stationwould have a minor beneficial effect becausethese facilit ies are within the 100-yearregulatory floodplain.

Cumulative Impacts. When the effects ofactions by others and other actions in the parkwere combined with impacts associated withthis alternative, there would be moderatelong-term adverse cumulative impacts onfloodplains in the region, primarily because ofthe effects of maintaining logging roads onprivate and public lands outside the park. Thisalternative’s effect on cumulative impacts,would also be moderate and adverse due tocontinued maintenance of levees and manipu-lation of streambanks along several sectionsof floodplains in the park. However, closingCarbon River or Westside Road would resultin a moderate beneficial effect through therestoration of natural floodplain processes inthe park.

Conclusion. Moderate long-term beneficialeffects on floodplain values in several sec-tions of floodplains in the park could resultfrom this alternative. These effects wouldoccur if, after major flood damage occurred,either Westside Road or Carbon River wasclosed and natural river processes werereestablished. Cumulative effects wouldinclude moderate long-term adverse impactson floodplains in the region because of actionsoutside the park. This alternative’s effect onthese cumulative impacts would also be mod-

erate, although if Carbon River or WestsideRoad was closed, the alternative’s con-tribution would be beneficial and moderate.

Wetlands

Analysis. There would be no long-term im-pacts on wetlands under this alternative.Construction-related runoff associated withpaving the last 0.75 mile of Mowich LakeRoad could have short-term minor adverseeffects on some wetlands around the lake.However, after construction was completed,the National Park Service would ensure thatall wetland areas, functions, and values werefully restored.

No other actions are proposed under alternative3 that would directly affect wetlands. Thisalternative would include the continuation ofexisting practices that prevent indirect impactson wetland areas.

Cumulative Impacts. Wetlands on bothpublic and private lands in the vicinity of thepark have been extensively modified due tologging and developments. Past NPS actionsalso have modified wetlands within the park.Although long-term effects on wetlands mustbe mitigated through wetland restoration orthe creation of replacement wetlands underthe Clean Water Act, there has still been amoderate, adverse, long-term, cumulativeimpact on wetlands in the region. Alternative3 would provide a negligible contribution tothis cumulative impact.

Conclusion. There would be no impact onwetlands under this alternative. Althoughthere would be a moderate adverse long-term,cumulative impact on wetlands in the region,alternative 3 would provide a negligiblecontribution to this impact.


Analysis. Compared to the no-action alterna-tive (continue current management), alter-


274

native 3 would have moderate to minor long-term beneficial impacts on soils and vegeta-tion. Although both alternatives would havesimilar small increases in adverse effectsassociated with slight increases in visitation,alternative 3 would include several manage-ment actions to reduce some of the adverseeffects that would occur under alternative 1.In addition, it would extend National ParkService protection to about 1,063 additionalacres, which contain a mosaic of mature andmid-successional forest and riparian habitat.

Implementing alternative 3 would result intemporary adverse effects on soils and vegeta-tion in association with construction projectsboth within and outside of the park, similar tothose described for alternative 2. These effectswould be localized and would be mitigated tothe extent possible. As a result , these adverseimpacts on soils and vegetation would beshort-term and minor.

Alternative 3 would include numerous pro-visions that would improve the protection ofsoils and vegetation, compared to the no-action alternative. Except as noted, all thesemeasures would have long-term, negligible orminor, beneficial impacts.

• the addition of the new managementzones and carrying capacity framework(minor to moderate impact)

• improved protection of the lands in theboundary adjustment area (minor tomoderate impact)

• the revegetation of lands near the CarbonRiver entrance after the removal ofmaintenance and employee housingfacilit ies and the installation of picnicsites

• a reduction in dust and other pollutantsfrom vehicle traffic through theintroduction of shuttle services

• a reduction of impacts on roadsidevegetation through the elimination ofoverflow parking

• improved protection of soils and vegetationfrom winter activities

Because alternative 3 would limit the use ofpack stock to just six trails and roads, theintroduction of invasive plants from animalfeed, pack equipment, and the animalsthemselves would be eliminated along othertrails in the park (albeit not as much asalternative 2). This action would have aminor, long-term, beneficial effect on thepark’s vegetation and soils.

Opening the Westside Road to high-clearanceprivate vehicles would have a higher potentialto result in new exotic plant infestationscompared to the previous alternatives. Asidefrom educating visitors, litt le if anythingcould be done to prevent the introduction ofnonnative plants in the area from privatevehicles. As a result, there could be a minor tomoderate adverse impact on native speciesalong the roadside in this part of the park.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. This alternative’s contribu-tion to the adverse cumulative impacts wouldbe minor and primarily short-term. However,preserving vegetation and preventing soil ero-sion in the park under the carrying capacityframework, along with protecting forests inthe boundary adjustment area, would providean incremental benefit to the protection ofsoils and vegetation in the region.

When the cumulative effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park werecombined with impacts associated with thisalternative, there would be minor to majorlong-term adverse cumulative impacts on soilsand vegetation in the region, primarily from


275

the edge effects of logging and land devel-opment on vegetation and soils.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficialeffects on soils and vegetation. Somecontributing factors be the better protection ofresources through implementing the carryingcapacity framework and new managementzones, protecting about 1,063 more acresalong the Carbon River as a new part of thepark, and restoring developed areas near theCarbon River entrance. Minor short-termadverse impacts on localized areas wouldresult from construction projects underalternative 3. Minor to moderate long-termadverse impacts could occur from the spreadof nonnative plants along the Westside Road.Although there probably would be minor tomajor long-term adverse cumulative impactson vegetation and soils in the region, pri-marily due to logging and land development,the alternative’s contribution to these adversecumulative impacts would be minor. By pre-serving vegetation and preventing soil erosionin the park, this alternative would result in anincremental beneficial effect.

Wildlife

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alter-native, alternative 3 would have a minor tomoderate long-term beneficial effect onwildlife. Although both alternatives wouldhave similar, small increases in adverseeffects associated with slight increase invisitation, alternative 3 would include severalmanagement actions to improve conditionscompared to those that would occur underalternative 1. In addition, it would extendNational Park Service protection to about1,063 more acres of wildlife habitat.

Alternative 3 would result in temporaryadverse effects on wildlife habitat from con-struction projects both within and outside thepark, similar to those described for alternative

2. These effects would be localized and wouldbe mitigated to the extent possible. As a re-sult , adverse impacts from construction activi-ties on wildlife would be short term andminor.

As in the other alternatives, with increaseduse of the park there would be a higher poten-tial for wildlife mortality due to wildlife beinghit by vehicles, particularly in areas with shortsight distances and/or at dusk and dawn whenlight conditions were poor. Wildlife such asdeer and elk would be particularly susceptibleto collisions. Although some animals wouldbe injured or killed, it is not expected that thenumber of collisions would dramaticallyincrease. Low posted speeds also would helpreduce mortality. Thus, roadkills resultingfrom alternative 3 would have a minor impacton wildlife populations in the park.

Opening the Westside Road to private high-clearance vehicles would have the potentialfor several impacts on wildlife. Increasedhuman use along Westside Road would causenegligible to minor adverse effects becausethis road is already accessible for hiking andbiking. There would be a higher potential inthis alternative for vehicle-wildlife collisionscompared to the other alternatives. Noise fromvehicles also would be more likely to disturbwildlife near the road, startling some animals,probably causing some individuals to moveaway from the road. Frequent loud noisecould affect communication between indi-vidual animals, affecting breeding andpredator-prey relationships. There might besome minor changes in the behavior anddistribution of bird and mammal populationsin the vicinity of the road.

In addition, depending on the volume oftraffic, vehicles could fragment the habitats ofsome species. However, the existing wildlifecommunity probably already has beenaffected to an unknown degree by the roadand associated human activities. Thus,operating vehicles on the road would not


276

substantially alter wildlife populations in thearea. Any impacts on the wildlife populationsin the area would be minor to moderate.

If the Westside Road was closed after a majorwashout, local effects would return to currentlevels. Similarly, if Carbon River Road wasclosed, there would be a minor beneficialeffect on wildlife from the reduction in ve-hicular and human activity along the road.

Removing housing and maintenance facilit iesfrom the Carbon River entrance could ad-versely affect bats, if they used the buildingsfor roosting. Therefore, site surveys would beconducted before building removal. If batswere found to inhabit the buildings, mitigatingmeasures would be carried out to providereplacement roost areas; therefore, the effectswould be negligible.

Alternative 3 would include several provi-sions that would improve the protection ofwildlife and habitat, compared to the no-action alternative. Except as noted, all thesemeasures would have long-term beneficialeffects.

• application of the new management zonesand carrying capacity framework(moderate effect)

• improved protection of the lands in theboundary adjustment area (minor tomoderate effect)

• revegetation of lands near the CarbonRiver entrance following the removal ofmaintenance and employee housingfacilit ies and installation of picnic sites(negligible to minor effect)

Alternative 3 would encourage more winteruse in the park. Increased activity alongWestside Road, State Routes 410 and 123,and areas that could be accessed from theseroads could adversely affect wildlife speciesthat are active in the winter, which is a vul-

nerable time. For example, improved humanaccess could provide additional stress tomountain goats in the White River Valleyarea. Under the carrying capacity framework,the National Park Service would monitorvisitor use and wildlife populations. If triggerswere exceeded, the National Park Servicewould take management actions, such as re-stricting off-trail travel, closing areas, orlimiting party sizes. As a result , these long-term, adverse impacts would be minor. Al-though adverse effects would occur toindividual animals, the use of monitoring, inconjunction with the relatively small numbersof animals involved, would ensure that neitherlocal nor regional populations would be ad-versely affected.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. When the effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park werecombined with impacts associated with thisalternative there would be major long-termadverse cumulative impacts on wildlife in theregion, primarily because of the effects oflogging and land development outside thepark.

This alternative’s contribution to the adversecumulative impacts would be minor andprimarily short-term. However, preservingwildlife habitat in the park under the carryingcapacity framework and eliminating potentialimpacts on habitat in the boundary adjustmentarea would provide an incremental benefit forwildlife in the region.

Conclusion. This alternative would result inlong-term minor to moderate beneficialeffects on wildlife. Some contributing factorswould be better protection of resourcesthrough implementing the carrying capacityframework and new management zones, theprotection of about 1, 063 more acres ofwildlife habitat along the Carbon River as anew part of the park, and the restoration of


277

vegetation in the Carbon River entrance area.Minor short-term adverse impacts on local-ized areas would result from constructionprojects. Minor to moderate adverse long-term impacts would result from increasedvisitor use along Westside Road. Increasedhuman presence in the winter would have aminor long-term adverse effect on therelatively small numbers of animals thatinhabit the improved winter use areas.

Cumulative effects would include major long-term adverse impacts, primarily due to habitatloss associated with logging and land devel-opment outside the park. This alternative’seffects on these adverse cumulative impactswould be minor, and by preserving wildlifehabitat in the park, the alternative would havean incremental beneficial effect.


Analysis. Alternative 3 would be likely toadversely affect the northern spotted owlbecause of the effects of winter plowing ofState Route 410 in the northeastern part of thepark. This alternative would be not be likelyto adversely affect any other special-statusspecies. However, some inconsequentialchanges to habitat or loss of individuals mightoccur, as described below.

This alternative would include the same sur-vey, avoidance, and mitigation provisions thatwere described in the analysis for the no-action alternative (continue current manage-ment). In addition, this alternative and thepreferred alternative would employ the samemanagement zones and triggers for definingwhen management actions were required.Taking management actions to avoid dis-turbance from human activity would have abeneficial effect on preservation of habitat forspecial-status species.

Alternative 3 would not be likely to affect anyof the following special-status species. The

bases for these conclusions would be identicalto those described under the no-actionalternative.

bald eagleperegrine falconferruginous hawkLarch Mountain salamanderVan Dyke’s salamandervalley silverspotwhulge checkerspotFender’s soliperlan stoneflystate-listed sensitive plant species

The impact analysis is arranged by groups ofspecies with similar habitat requirements. Formost species, the impacts under alternative 3would be essentially the same as foralternative 1. The analysis presents only thoseeffects that would be different from the no-action alternative (continue currentmanagement).

Marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, andnorthern goshawk — Alternative 3 would notbe likely to adversely affect the marbledmurrelet or northern goshawk. As discussedbelow, the effects of winter plowing of StateRoute 410 would be likely to adversely affectthe northern spotted owl.

Alternative 3 would include winter plowing ofState Route 410 and an additional segment ofState Route 123. Sno-parks would be developedat the end of the plowed segments of these twostate routes. The effects from winter plowingand related activity would not be likely to ad-versely affect northern goshawks or marbledmurrelets, because they are not known to nest inthese areas, nor would the plowing of StateRoute 123 be likely to adversely affect northernspotted owls because they are not known to nestalong the stretch of road that would be plowed.However, snow plowing could adversely affectnorthern spotted owls, which nest in areas alongState Route 410. Compared to the no-actionalternative, the plowing and increased visitor


278

use could disturb owls during their early nestingseason, and particularly could disrupt nest-siteselection. Plowing under the no-action alterna-tive would be less likely to disrupt nestingbecause it would occur primarily in the spring,rather than regularly throughout the winter.

Permitting high-clearance private vehicles onthe Westside Road would not be likely to ad-versely affect northern spotted owls, marbledmurrelets, or northern goshawks. Althoughprivate vehicle use would increase the numberof visitors, who would have easier access toareas along the Westside Road, such use wouldoccur over the broad area covered by the road,and the resulting effects (noise and disturbance)would be localized and of short duration. As inalternative 2, there would be the potential fornorthern spotted owls to be hit by vehicles, re-sulting in resulting in death or injury. Theprobability of this occurrence would be small(although greater than in alternative 2) becausevehicles on the Westside Road would travel atslow speeds and would primarily use the roadduring daylight hours in the peak summerseason. If this alternative was implemented,subsequent environmental analysis would bedone when the park’s detailed transportationplan was developed to determine if there wouldbe a need to restrict use of the road to minimizeor avoid impacts on these species. With appro-priate mitigation, opening the Westside Road toprivate vehicles might affect, but would not belikely to adversely affect, the three species.

As in alternative 2, minor construction wouldbe carried out in areas of northern spotted owlor marbled murrelet habitat. Restricting con-struction activities near nest sites during thebreeding season should avert disturbance tothese birds. Temporary localized disturbanceof individual birds could occur during otherseasons. Removing employee housing andmaintenance facilit ies at the Carbon Riverentrance and installing picnic sites would beunlikely to displace owls, murrelets, or gos-

hawks because this activity would occur in apreviously disturbed site.

Compared to alternative 1, the carryingcapacity framework associated with thisalternative would improve the protection ofhabitat for special status species by estab-lishing triggers to ensure that visitor uses andmanagement actions did not adversely affectthe habitats. If monitoring indicated potentialconcerns, management actions such asclosures could be implemented to protectthese species.

As in alternative 2, the proposed CarbonRiver boundary adjustment would protectmarbled murrelet critical habitat and otherspecial species, which would have a beneficiallong-term effect. The proposedimprovements, which would take place onpreviously disturbed areas, would be unlikelyto adversely affect murrelets.

Olive-sided flycatcher — Implementingalternative 3 would not be likely to adverselyaffect this species. Most effects would beidentical to those described for the no-actionalternative (continue current management).Alternative 3 would include increased accessto some areas through road openings andshuttle services. It also would include theconstruction of additional picnic and othervisitor facilit ies. However, most of the changeswould be carried out near existing developedareas, so they would have litt le effect on themontane meadows and subalpine parklandsthat are the prime habitat for this species.Protection of these areas could be improvedunder the alternative 3 prescriptive manage-ment zones.

Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear,California wolverine, and pacific fisher —Alternative 3 would not be likely to affect anyof these species. Most effects, including thoseon the potential future reestablishment of thesespecies, would be identical to the no-actionalternative (continue current management).


279

Plowing portions of State Routes 410 and 123would have only minimal effects on theamount of suitable habitat for these species inthe park, because there is already non-vehicular use of these roads in winter, andthere are high levels of activity at the CrystalMountain ski resort, a short distance to theeast. Potential winter habitat for these specieswest of these roads would remain intact. Simi-larly, plowing of Westside Road would notfragment potential habitat for these species.

Long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis andPacific Townsend’s big-eared bat — Thisalternative would not be likely to adverselyaffect these species. The impacts would be thesame as for alternative 1, except that removingthe maintenance and housing facilit ies at theCarbon River entrance and building additionalpicnic facilit ies in the Westside Road, MowichLake, and Carbon River areas potentially couldremove some roosting sites. These representonly a small portion of the available roostingsites in the park, and their loss would be miti-gated by surveys and other actions, potentiallyincluding the construction of new roosting sites.

Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, bull trout, andcoastal cutthroat trout — This alternativewould not be likely to adversely affect any ofthese fish species. If visitors impact riparianareas, under alternative 3 indicators andstandards would result in management actionsthat would protect streambanks.

Paving a short portion of Mowich Lake Roadcould reduce the amount of sedimentationaffecting the Mowich River, but runoff from thepaved surface could carry other pollutants. Anyeffects would be slight and localized in relationto stream loadings in the entire Mowich Riverdrainage.

Opening Westside Road in winter would notaffect these species because, based on surveys,Tahoma Creek is not considered primaryhabitat for these species. Construction activi-ties, including the removal of maintenance and

employee housing facilit ies from the CarbonRiver entrance, minor improvements to roads,and construction of new picnic areas, couldresult in construction-related sedimentation.However, best management practices to controlsedimentation would be employed, and theconstruction would be localized and temporary,and would affect only short lengths of stream-bank. Therefore, construction would produceonly minor short-term adverse effects.

Red-legged frog, tailed frog, cascades frog,western toad and California floater —Alternative 3 would not be likely to adverselyaffect these species and would produce effectssimilar to those under alternative 1. The alter-native 3 management zones that would protectwilderness areas would provide a long-termbeneficial effect. Impacts from the paving of ashort portion of Mowich Lake Road and fromconstruction would be similar to thosedescribed above for the fish.

Opening Westside Road to Tahoma Vista inwinter could result in some minimal increase insedimentation. These would be localized andnegligible in comparison to natural sources ofsediment.

Winter plowing of roads could delay melt-outin the spring and delay breeding for frogs alongthe roadside. The delays are likely to be withinthe normal variability of the breeding seasonand would not produce adverse effects.

Cumulative Impacts. The effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park wouldbe identical to those described for the no-action alternative. When the effects of actionsby others and other actions in the park werecombined with impacts associated with thisalternative, the cumulative effect of all ofthese actions would be likely to adverselyaffect special-status species in the region, withmajor, long-term, effects primarily because ofthe effects of logging and land developmentoutside the park. Alternative 3 would con-tribute to these adverse effects, because of the


280

adverse effects on northern spotted owlresulting from the winter plowing of StateRoute 410.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would be likely toadversely affect the northern spotted owlthrough the winter plowing of State Route 410in the eastern part of the park. Continuedhuman use, along with the expected increasesin visitor use in the park, would cause dis-turbance to individuals of this and otherspecial-status species. Opening the WestsideRoad to private motor vehicles also mightaffect, but would not be likely to adverselyaffect, northern spotted owls, marbled murre-lets, and northern goshawks. The survey,avoidance, and mitigation actions that theNational Park Service would take wouldensure that, except for effects of snow plow-ing on the northern spotted owl, alternative 3would not adversely affect any species offederal or state status.

When the effects of actions by others andother actions in the park were combined withthe effects of this alternative, the cumulativeeffects of the actions would be adverse effectson special-status species in the region. Alter-native 3 would make a minor contribution tothese adverse effects due to the adverseeffects of winter plowing of State Route 410on nesting spotted owls.


Analysis. As under alternative 1, the expectedslight long-term increases in the number ofvisitors to the park would expose more visi-tors to volcanic and nonvolcanic hazards. Inaddition, alternative 3 would have thefollowing effects.

In comparison to alternative 1, park visitorsand employees would receive additionalinformation about the threat of geologic haz-ards and actions to take in case of specific

events. These visitor and employee informa-tion sources would increase knowledge aboutthe geologic hazards that exist in the park.The dissemination of information wouldprovide valuable facts that could reduce theinjury and loss of life associated with theserisks, constituting a minor beneficial effect.

Allowing high-clearance vehicles to useWestside Road would improve accessibility tothis area, which is subject to debris flows and,at the southern end, rockfalls. Compared tothe no-action alternative, this would result inthe exposure of more people to risks fromthese events, although the frequency of suchevents, and therefore the level of impact,would not change. The adverse impacts wouldremain major to moderate along the southernportion of the road.

Winter use, including skiing, snowshoeing,snowboarding, and overnight camping wouldincrease in several areas of the park comparedto alternative 1. The adverse impacts from therisk of avalanches therefore would increase.In particular, a portion of State Route 410 thatis subject to avalanches would expose visitorsand employees to additional risk compared tothe no-action alternative. This risk would rep-resent a moderate to major long-term adverseimpact.

Impacts from flooding hazards and debrisflows would be reduced in comparison toalternative 1 through the removal of admin-istrative and maintenance facilit ies from theCarbon River entrance. This would result in aminor beneficial effect.

Most new visitor facilit ies under thisalternative would not be located in debris flowzones or areas subject to nonvolcanic hazards.Therefore, there would be no impact from theconstruction of these facilit ies. However,there would be a minor adverse impact fromthe new picnic sites at the Carbon Riverentrance, which would expose visitors toflooding hazards and debris flows.


281

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impactshave been identified because the impacts ofalternative 3 would not add to or decrease theimpacts from hazards in other locations.

Conclusion. Like the other alternatives,alternative 3 would result in major to negli-gible impacts from volcanic and nonvolcanichazards, presenting risks to visitor and em-ployee safety. However, compared to alter-native 1, alternative 3 would result in a slightreduction of risk to volcanic geologic hazardsby providing better information. Althoughboth alternatives would have similar increasesin risk associated with increased visitation,alternative 3 would include a minor beneficialeffect from the removal of administrative andmaintenance facilit ies from the Carbon Riverentrance area, which is subject to debris flowsand floods. Alternative 3 also would cause aminor adverse impact due to the new picnicsites at the Carbon River entrance, whichwould expose visitors to the risk of a debrisflow.

Exposing visitors to nonvolcanic hazardswould increase compared to alternative 1because increased winter visitation and theuse of high-clearance private vehicles onWestside Road would expose more visitors torisks of avalanches, debris flows, and rock-falls. In particular, opening a part of StateRoute 410 that is subject to avalanches wouldhave a moderate to major adverse impact.Compared to the no-action alternative, im-proved information could reduce injury andloss of life when a geologic event occurred.No cumulative impacts have been identified.



Analysis. Like alternative 1, alternative 3would result in small increases in human-caused erosion of archeological resources dueto increase in visitation. New constructionunder alternative 3 could affect currently

unknown archeological resources if avoidancewas not feasible at a location.

No direct impacts on known archeologicalresources would occur under alternative 3.However, undertakings involving grounddisturbance for new construction could affectunknown archeological resources. If suchresources were identified during grounddisturbing activities, the park staff wouldimplement appropriate measures to avoid orotherwise mitigate resource impacts inaccordance with Section 106 (NationalHistoric Preservation Act) procedures andother applicable cultural resource guidelinesand regulations, such as the ArcheologicalResources Protection Act. If avoidance wasnot feasible at a location, there could be anadverse effect on archeological resourcesfrom construction under alternative 3.

Erosion of archeological resources is oftenassociated with the creation and use of socialtrails. Compared to the no-action alternative,this situation would be improved under alter-native 3, which would include additionalmeasures to keep visitors on designated trails.Alternative 3 would also eliminate overflowparking, which is a key contributor to socialtrail creation as visitors walk cross-countryfrom where they parked to a developed area.These measures would assist the NationalPark Service in meeting site protectionobjectives.

Cumulative Impacts. Other actions outsidethe park and other actions in the park wouldbe the same as those described for alternative1. When these actions were considered alongwith this alternative, there would continue tobe a major, long-term, adverse, cumulativeeffect on archeological resources in theregion. This would occur because of devel-opment outside of the park that would impactsites without recordation. The contribution ofalternative 3 to this adverse effect would besmall and, because mitigating measuresadopted by the park require avoidance and


282

protection of these resources, this alternativewould be expected to preserve archeologicalresources for the region.

Conclusion. As with alternative 1, a slightincrease in visitor numbers associated withalternative 3 would have no adverse effectsbecause the park’s resource protection mea-sures would continue to be implemented.Construction activities would be expected tohave minor to negligible impacts on archeo-logical resources, although there could be anadverse effect on unknown resources. Region-ally, there would continue to be a majorcumulative adverse effect on archeologicalresources. However, the contribution ofalternative 3 to this adverse effect would besmall in comparison to other actions.


Analysis. Alternative 3 would have the sameabsence of adverse effects on known ethno-graphic resources that was described foralternative 1. Should ethnographic resourcesbe identified, the National Park Service wouldensure that efforts were made to avoid orappropriately mitigate impacts on suchresources. Tribal preferences regarding theconfidentiality and treatment of culturallysensitive resources would be respected.

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulativeimpacts on ethnographic resources would bethe same as those described for alternative 1.It is likely that numerous resource collectionand traditional cultural sites have been im-pacted and would continue to be adverselyaffected, primarily by actions outside of thepark. The contribution of alternative 3 to thesecumulative impacts would be negligible.Because efforts would be made to avoid orappropriately mitigate impacts on ethno-graphic resources in the park, this alternativewould be expected to preserve ethnographicresources for the region.

Conclusion. Although the park’s ethno-graphic resources are largely unknown,alternative 3 would not have any adverseeffects on the ability of Native Americans toprocure plants within the park or on knowntraditional cultural properties. The alternativealso would not contribute to cumulativeadverse effects on known ethnographicresources that occur throughout the region.

Historic Resources, Includingthe Mount Rainier NationalHistoric Landmark District

Analysis. Compared to the no-action alter-native, no adverse effects were identified as aresult of implementing alternative 3. Althoughboth alternatives would have the same effectsfrom similar small increases in visitation,alternative 3 would have beneficial effectsfrom actions that would help reestablish thehistoric roadside character of the district andreduce effects on visual character. Theseactions, which were described in the impactanalysis for alternative 2, would be asfollows:

• Reversing the flow of traffic on theParadise Valley Road on a trial basiswould help restore the historic sense ofarrival and spatial sequence that visitorsoriginally experienced as they approachedthe area.

• Eliminating overflow parking alongroadsides would benefit the district byreestablishing the historic roadsidecharacter.

The replacement of the Sunrise Lodge with aranger/concession facility would be the samemitigated adverse impact as noted inalternative 1.

Cumulative Impacts. Effects of actions byothers and other actions in the park would beidentical to those described for the no-action


283

alternative. When the cumulative effects ofactions by others and other actions in the parkwere combined with impacts associated withthis alternative, the cumulative impact wouldbe major, long-term, and adverse, primarilybecause of the effects of logging and landdevelopment on historic resources outside thepark. Alternative 3 would not contribute tothis cumulative adverse effect. In fact, be-cause preservation maintenance of buildingsand structures would continue and portions ofthe historic circulation pattern and roadsidecharacter of the park would be restored, thisalternative would preserve historic resourcesfor the region.

Conclusion. No adverse effects from alter-native 3 were identified. Benefits to historicresources, including the Mount RainierNational Historic Landmark District, wouldresult from such actions as eliminating over-flow parking within the district. Regionwideimpacts would continue to have cumulative,adverse effect on historic resources, butalternative 3 would not contribute to thecumulative adverse effect.


Analysis. Rehabilitating the Henry M. Jack-son Memorial Visitor Center under thisalternative would have no adverse effectbecause the rehabilitation would be carriedout in accordance with the Secretary of theInterior’s Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties (36 CFR 68) to ensurethat defining architectural elements werepreserved in the process of upgrading andmodifying the building for continued visitorservice.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impactswould not occur because there would be noadverse effect on the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center under this alterna-tive, and it would not be affected by otheractions.

Conclusion. Rehabilitating the Henry M.Jackson Memorial Visitor Center under thisalternative would have no adverse effect, andno cumulative effect, on the building becausethe defining architectural elements would bepreserved.


As under alternatives 1 and 2, and based upona continuation of existing trends in visitation,the number of visitors to the park is expectedto increase slightly over the long-term, withsubstantial fluctuations from year to year. Italso is expected that as much as 50% of thetotal visitation would occur in July andAugust and as much as 75% would occurduring the peak-use period (June–October).

This increase in annual visitation would belikely to result in more visitors during peak-use days within the peak period (sunnyweekends and holidays), and it is likely thatmany, or most, of these additional visitorswould want to go to the major activity areas(Longmire, Paradise, Ohanapecosh andSunrise) or the popular, accessible wildernessareas (such as Spray Park, Reflection Lakeand Fryingpan Creek). However, increases inannual visitation could also result in moresummer visitor use on weekdays or on dayswith cloudy weather (off-peak days), as wellas in the spring and fall shoulder seasons.

The visitor experience would be affected bychanges in the access to or within the park forvisitors; the range of activities available andhow enjoyable these activities are; the availa-bility of information; or the character of thewilderness experience. Impacts on the visitorexperience for each of these four measures arepresented in the following sections.


284

Visitor Access

Analysis. Under alternative 3, the operationand location of the visitor entrances to thepark would be unchanged. No changes wouldbe made to the major roadways currently usedby visitors to travel within the park. Roadaccess to other trailheads and minor devel-oped areas throughout the park would notchange in most areas.

However, this alternative would open West-side Road (to Klapatche Point) for privatehigh-clearance vehicles (rather than for shuttleservice as under alternative 2). This wouldimprove visitor access to areas north of theexisting road closure. Opening an area of thepark that is now available to relatively fewpeople would result in a moderate beneficialeffect on visitor access.

Visitors could also hike or bike along theroad, and they would have more convenientaccess to trailheads and other recreationalactivities, including new picnic sites along theroad. However, if a major washout occurred,the future use of the road would need to bereexamined. Closing the road would be anadverse impact, and depending upon theextent of the closure, the impact could beminor to major.

To improve the quality of the visitor experi-ence and reduce resource impacts, alternative3 would eliminate all overflow parking, andparking would be allowed only in designatedspaces at visitor centers, trailheads, view-points, and other visitor facilit ies. To mini-mize the potential adverse effects on visitoraccess, elimination of overflow parking wouldbe implemented in phases and would notoccur until alternative shuttle service wasoperational.

Under this alternative, during the summerpeak-use period, shuttle service would beprovided to Longmire, Paradise, Sunrise andWhite River campground, and Ipsut Creek

campground. Winter shuttle service wouldalso be provided to Longmire and Paradise.Coordination of these two actions wouldensure that an effective visitor transportationsystem would be available and that visitorswould have an alternate means of access tothe park’s popular destinations.

In addition, the National Park Service woulduse media outlets and its own education andinformation resources to inform park users ofthe change. Visitors would have improvedaccess to information for planning their visitto the park at new visitor contact centers onmajor roads leading to the park. Electronicsigns or other communication technologieswould provide real-time information on theaccess to locations where parking was avail-able Therefore, visitors would be able to planand schedule their activities more effectively,and they would be able to avoid areas whereparking was filled to capacity or use theshuttle service.

Under this alternative, additional designatedparking would be provided in some locationsto improve access for visitors. A major expan-sion of designated parking at Paradise wouldprovide an additional 500 spaces. A total of120 more spaces would be added at MowichLake, and a small number of additional park-ing spaces would be designated at Sunrise andOhanapecosh.

The combination of shuttle service, increaseddesignated parking and expanded visitorinformation would improve visitor access toall the major developed areas except Sunriseand the White River campground. Eliminatingoverflow parking at Sunrise and the WhiteRiver campground, together with a lowerlevel of shuttle service (compared to alterna-tive 2), might prevent some people fromvisiting this area. The displacement of thesevisitors would be a minor to moderate adverseimpact, depending on how many people weredisplaced to other locations in the park.


285

In addition, during peak-use periods somevisitors would not be able to park at popularlocations outside the major developed areas,including some trailheads or minor developedareas such as Narada Falls and T ipsoo Lake,where there would be no alternate means ofaccess.

Some visitors could be reluctant to use theshuttle service. These visitors could choose tovisit less-used areas in the park (such as West-side Road), travel through the park for scenicdriving, or travel to other destinations outsidethe park, depending on the recreational activi-ties that they were seeking. Any adverse im-pacts would be minor and limited to times ofpeak use.

There could also initially be short-term minoradverse impacts during peak-use periods dueto lack of visitor familiarity with the newparking regulations, shuttle services, andinformation programs. However, as theadditional actions to provide shuttle serviceand improve information for visitors becameestablished and repeat visitors became accus-tomed to the new regulations and were able toplan accordingly, fewer visitors would beinconvenienced. Overall, therefore, therewould be a long-term moderate beneficialimpact, with some localized and temporaryareas of adverse impacts.

In the short term, visitor access could bedisrupted during the construction of theredesigned parking area at Paradise and therehabilitation of the visitor center. Somevisitors might be redirected to remote parkingsites, depending on the temporary measuresthat were implemented during construction.However, this would be a minor adverseimpact.

As is also true for the no-action alternative, atoff-peak times during the summer, during theshoulder season (May and November), and inwinter, visitation is low enough that a slightincrease in visitors would not be likely to

cause noticeable congestion even in mostpopular visitor areas, and visitors generallywould be able to find parking spaces neartheir destinations. However, when heavysnow delayed opening the road to Paradise inwinter peak periods, congestion in the Long-mire area would worsen because of the elimi-nation of overflow parking and increases invisitation. There would be a short-termmoderate adverse impact on visitor access tothe Longmire area during these times.

Alternative 3 would result in the same impactsin the Carbon River area as described foralternative 2. There would be minor to mod-erate beneficial effects from the addition of ashuttle service, which would help reduce con-gestion at the end of the road. Eliminatingoverflow parking at the Ipsut Creek camp-ground would adversely affect some visitorswho wanted to drive to this area. If the roadwas closed by a major washout, there wouldbe a moderate to major long-term adverseimpact on visitor access due to the closure ofa popular area to vehicular access.

In the Mowich Lake area, paving the end ofthe road would improve the visitor experiencein this area; removing the dust and ruts fromthe end of the road would have a minor bene-ficial effect. However, because most of theroad would continue to be gravel, it would notlikely affect the overall number of peoplevisiting the area.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 3,there would be long-term moderate beneficialeffects on visitor access within the park, aswell as short-term and long-term minor ad-verse impacts, and a major adverse impact inthe Sunrise area.

The effects of other actions in the vicinity ofthe park would be similar to alternative 1, inthat they could increase visitation in the parkat peak times while also diverting some usefrom the park and stabilizing visitor use in thelong term. Any increase in park visitation at


286

peak times would have a negative impact onvisitor access within the park because theincrease in visitors would occur at t imes whenthe park would already be operating nearcapacity.

Other past and future projects in the park havehad, and would continue to have, no effectson visitor access, other than temporary minoradverse impacts during construction.

Overall, the currently planned developmentprojects could increase the number of visitorsduring peak periods of park visitation, How-ever, when combined with the generallybeneficial impacts of alternative 3 on visitoraccess the cumulative effects on visitor accesswould be moderate and beneficial due toreductions in congestion and inconvenience atmajor visitor areas in the park.

In winter and in off-peak periods in summer,the impacts of alternative 3 would be negli-gible, and even with increased visitationgenerated by the other projects, the totalvisitation would be accommodated by existingparking and circulation facilit ies. Therefore,the cumulative impact would also benegligible.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result inmoderate beneficial effects on visitor accessat t imes of peak use through decreased trafficcongestion and less difficulty in finding con-venient parking at major developed areas.

Providing a shuttle system for visitors, alongwith improved information about access andparking, would largely mitigate any adverseeffects from eliminating overflow parking.However, there could be minor short-termadverse effects from an initial lack of visitorfamiliarity with these measures and long-termadverse effects because some visitors wouldstill be inconvenienced by the elimination ofoverflow parking.

There would be moderate long-term beneficialeffects from increased accessibility in theWestside Road area, but minor to moderateadverse impacts at Sunrise and the WhiteRiver campground area due to eliminatingoverflow parking. If the Carbon River Roadwas closed by a major washout, there wouldbe a moderate to major long-term adverseimpact on visitor access due to closure of apopular area to vehicular access.

Overall, actions outside the park have thepotential to increase the number of visitorsduring peak periods of park visitation. How-ever, when these actions were combined withalternative 3 there would moderate beneficialcumulative impacts on visitor access due toreductions in congestion and inconvenience atmajor visitor areas in the park.


Analysis. The implementation of a carryingcapacity framework, based upon the newwilderness and nonwilderness managementzones proposed under this alternative, alongwith other actions to improve visitors’ enjoy-ment of activities, would result in majorbeneficial effects on the visitor experience.Overall, park visitors’ opportunities for highquality recreation activities and experienceswould improve they drove park roads, hikedtrails, picnicked, camped, and used other parkfacilit ies, because the park would be managedto maintain the quality of park resources andvisitor experience.

The new zones show how different areas ofthe park could be managed to achieve desiredvisitor experiences and resource conditions,and they describe appropriate kinds of activi-ties and developments. These new zones alsoprovide a framework for managing overnightuse and day-use levels in a more systematicway than the zones currently used, based onvisitor experience and resource protectionindicators and standards. Monitoring would


287

determine the conditions of resources andvisitor experiences, providing information toimplement management action if an out ofstandard condition or downward trend in theresources or visitor experience was indicated.

For example, if in monitoring indicators itwas found that the quality of the visitor ex-perience in the Grove of the Patriarchs wasdeclining, actions would be taken to improvethe conditions. A range of actions could beconsidered, such as giving visitors more in-formation about how to protect fragile re-sources, improving the definition of trails, orredirecting visitors so that these impacts couldbe mitigated or reversed. Continued monitor-ing would enable additional actions to betaken if necessary.

With the elimination of overflow parking,visitors parking at popular areas such as Para-dise and Sunrise would spend less time onpeak-use days walking to and from remoteparking areas or searching for a parking place,resulting in more time being available for pri-mary activities. Those taking shuttles wouldbe able to reach their destinations withoutworrying about finding a convenient parkingplace, and if some form of interpretation wasprovided on the shuttles, they could learnabout the park and its resources.

Eliminating overflow parking would alsoimprove the views along park roadways andlessen the intrusion of vehicles, which nowadversely affects the enjoyment of activities atthe park.

Other actions (like those of alternative 2) thatwould contribute to the beneficial effect onvisitor activities under this alternative are asfollows:

• reversing the flow of traffic on theParadise Valley Road on a trial basis(would improve views of Mount Rainier)

• constructing a new drive-in campgroundand picnic area in the boundary adjust-ment area west of the Carbon Riverentrance

• constructing new picnic sites or addingsites at several other locations

Under alternative 3, plowing sections of StateRoute 123 (from Ohanapecosh to Grove of thePatriarchs) and State Route 410 (from thenorthern park boundary to the White River en-trance) would give visitors more opportunitiesfor winter activities (skiing, snowshoeing andsnowboarding) in less-used areas of the park.

If Carbon River Road was closed to privatevehicles by a major washout, so that peoplecould no longer drive or take a shuttle to thispopular area, there would be a moderate tomajor long-term adverse impact on visitors’opportunities to enjoy the park. Most visitorswould not be willing or able to walk or ridehorses or bikes to the end of the road andwould be displaced to other areas in or outsidethe park.

Under this alternative, pack stock use wouldbe prohibited on many trails. However, sometrails in the northwest part of the park, as wellas the Pacific Crest Trail (and connectingtrails from the park), would be available forpack stock use. Because few people use packstock in Mount Rainier, the alternative wouldnot affect most visitors. Pack stock users stillwould have opportunities to use pack stock inthe park. Thus, the alternative would have aminor adverse impact on visitors’ opportuni-ties for enjoyment of the park.

As in the preferred alternative, a few huntersmight be adversely affected by the proposedboundary adjustment, which would eliminatehunting in this area. But this action wouldresult in only a minor adverse impact, becausehunting still would be available in the muchlarger expanse of Forest Service and PlumCreek lands.


288

Most of the new developments or otheractions of this alternative would not detractfrom scenic views. At peak periods, noisefrom people and their vehicles would continueto affect visitors even outside the majoractivity centers, particularly at popular trail-heads and picnic areas with high visitor use.But natural sounds would still largely domi-nate the park as a whole.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 3,there would be major beneficial effects on theenjoyment of visitor activities, along withsome minor to moderate adverse impacts inlocalized areas.

As discussed in the analysis of cumulativeimpacts on visitor access, above, developmentprojects in the vicinity of the park could bringmore visitors to the general area, which inturn could increase visitation in the park atpeak times. This potentially would have anadverse effect on visitors’ enjoyment ofactivities in the park. Although these devel-opment projects would provide new visitoractivities outside the park, potentially redi-recting some visitor use away from the park atpeak times, they would be unlikely to offsetthe attraction of the park.

Other past and future projects in the park havehad, and would continue to have, minorbeneficial effects by improving visitorfacilit ies in the park.

Overall, the effects of other actions, combinedwith impacts of alternative 3, would result inmajor beneficial cumulative impacts onvisitors’ enjoyment of activities through theimplementation of a carrying capacity frame-work and the new management zones pro-posed under this alternative, and through otheractions to improve the quality of visitor facili-ties and recreation opportunities.

Conclusion. Under alternative 3, as underalternatives 1 and 2, visitors during off-peakperiods would continue to enjoy a high-

quality recreation experience with the existingrange of activities. However, alternative 3would have major beneficial effects not onlyby decreasing congestion and intrusion ofvehicles during peak periods, but also by im-proving the quality of facilit ies and, under thecarrying capacity framework, maintaining thequality of the park’s natural and cultural re-source base for the enjoyment of all visitors.On the other hand, if the Carbon River Roadwas closed due to a major washout, therewould be a moderate to major long-term ad-verse impact on visitor experiences in thepark.

Overall, other projects have the potential toincrease the number of visitors to the parkduring peak periods of visitation with poten-tial negative effects on congestion and crowd-ing in the park. However, when combinedwith the impacts of alternative 3, there wouldbe major beneficial long-term cumulativeimpacts on visitors’ enjoyment of activitiesfrom the actions of this alternative.


Analysis. Under alternative 3, current oppor-tunities for information, orientation and inter-pretation would be continued at existing loca-tions. In addition, new information programsand facilit ies would be provided. Interpretiveprograms at park visitor centers and museumswould offer more in-depth and focused inter-pretation (e.g., interpreting topics relevant to asite). For example, cultural history and riverecology could be emphasized at Longmire,volcanoes and geology at Sunrise, and subal-pine and alpine ecology at Paradise. A majorrehabilitation or replacement of the audio-visual programs and exhibits would be imple-mented in visitor centers and ranger stationsin the park, and some limited form ofinterpretation would be offered on shuttlesserving visitors.


289

New information programs and facilit ieswould be the same as those offered under al-ternative 2, including several staffed summervisitor welcome centers on corridors leadingto the park. Media messages, the Internet, andelectronic signboards would give visitorsinformation on parking availability andactivities before they arrived at the park.

In the short-term, the new programs andfacilit ies would be likely to have a moderatebeneficial effect on the visitor experience. Inthe long-term, as the programs became estab-lished and visitors became familiar with thelocations and services of the new facilit ies,there would be a major positive impact,particularly since increased visitation, theelimination of overflow parking, and theimplementation of a carrying capacity frame-work could make access to some popularlocations difficult for some visitors.

Cumulative Impacts. Under alternative 3,there would be long-term beneficial effects.As was discussed above in the analysis ofcumulative impacts on visitor access, de-velopment projects in the vicinity of the parkcould bring more visitors to the general area,which could also increase visitation in thepark. To some extent, these projects couldalso provide expanded information about theregion and potentially the park, and with theexpanded park information programs underthis alternative, it would be possible to bettercoordinate the overall regional availability ofinformation. Implementing these opportuni-ties to improve access to visitor informationwould have beneficial effects, particularly ifthey were incorporated as part of a broaderprogram of information for the park.

When these effects were combined with themajor beneficial effects of alternative 3, therewould be major beneficial long-term, cumu-lative effects on the convenience andaccessibility of information. This impactwould result from implementing improvedpark information programs that would be part

of a broader effort to provide expandedinformation about the region.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result inmajor beneficial effects because it wouldallow visitors to obtain information moreeasily from the greatly expanded informationprograms and visitor contact facilit ies.

There would be major beneficial long-term,cumulative impacts on the convenience andaccessibility of information due to imple-menting improved park information programsas part of a broader effort to provide expandedinformation about the region.

Wilderness Values and Experiences

Analysis. Under alternative 3, as underalternative 2, the current management zoneswould be replaced by new management zones,and a new carrying capacity framework wouldbe implemented. Current trailside camps,camping and climbing restrictions (differentparty size limits and campsite locations),generally would continue in the new zones.

Opportunities for Solitude — The applicationof new zones and the carrying capacity frame-work would have the same effects as thosedescribed for the preferred alternative. Out-standing opportunities for solitude would bemaintained through the foreseeable future inthe pristine and primitive zones, whichaccount for most (about 92%) of the wilder-ness area. Both small and large groups couldfind solitude.

In some popular areas, such as the Spray Park,Fryingpan Creek, and Reflection Lake areas,the application of carrying capacities in thenew zones could result in actions such asinforming visitors about other destinations orinstituting reservation systems or lotteries.These actions would decrease existing uselevels and thus increase opportunities forsolitude in the summer. From the perspective


290

of users in the wilderness area, the alternativewould have a positive effect.

Elsewhere in the wilderness area, away fromthe high-use nonwilderness areas, use levelscould increase in many areas that now havelow levels of use. If use levels increased, therewould be decreased opportunities for solitude.However, over the life of the plan the magni-tude of the increase would not be expected tosubstantially affect the opportunities forsolitude on most wilderness trails.

Alternative 3 differs from alternative 2 in themanagement of Westside Road in that theroad would be open to private high-clearancevehicles. Thus, with more use on the road, thisalternative would have both a positive andnegative effect on solitude in the adjacentwilderness area: more people could go intothe wilderness area in this part of the park andfind opportunities for solitude, but with moreusers there also would be a decrease insolitude in the wilderness area near the road.

In addition, under alternative 3 private ve-hicles would not be allowed on Carbon RiverRoad. However, with shuttles providing analternate means of access, the number ofpeople going into the wilderness area wouldnot substantially change from current levels.Therefore, there would be no effect on theopportunities for solitude.

Overall, this alternative, like alternative 2,would have a beneficial effect on opportuni-ties for solitude ranging from negligible tominor impacts in less popular areas to mod-erately beneficial effects in more frequentlyused areas.

Opportunities for Primitive, UnconfinedRecreation — Overall, alternative 3 wouldhave the same effects on this wilderness valueas those described for alternative 2. Theapplication of the new zones and carryingcapacity framework would have a positiveeffect, ensuring that in most of the wilderness

area people would not be impeded in theirtrips. Reopening Westside Road to high-clearance vehicles also would increase theopportunities for unconfined primitiverecreation in the adjacent wilderness area.

On the other hand, the zones also wouldincrease restrictions on where and when dayhikers, backpackers, and climbers could go inthe wilderness area. In a few popular areassuch as Spray Park, Fryingpan Creek, CometFalls, and Reflection Lakes, visitors poten-tially could find that additional managementactions under the carrying capacity framework(listening to education programs, getting per-mits or reservations, or even finding them-selves being turned away at certain times)would affect their opportunities. Thus, com-pared to today, visitors probably would haveless freedom to hike when and where theywanted to in the wilderness area.

If use limits had to be instituted, varyingnumbers of users would be redirected to otherdestinations. From the perspective of visitorswho could not hike where they wanted to, thenew zones and carrying capacities could beviewed negatively, particularly if the visitorswere displaced and could not find an accept-able substitute area to visit in the park or adja-cent areas. However, this could be mitigatedthrough the expanded information programsand facilit ies, so that visitors were providedwith advanced information about high useareas, were given other options on where togo, and could understand the benefits.

Some visitors still would be likely to perceivethe action negatively, but overall most visitorswould gain a positive experience from thequality of opportunities for primitive recre-ation. Over the long term, as the expandedinformation programs and facilit ies becamewell established and visitors became accus-tomed to using them, this alternative, likealternative 2, would be expected to result in amoderate to major beneficial effect.


291

Naturalness — The application of the zonesand carrying capacities would have a positiveeffect, ensuring that signs of human impacts(bare ground, trampled vegetation, socialtrails) would not substantially increase in thefuture, and in fact would decline in someareas. Some high use areas such as Spray Parkprobably would still show signs of human usefor many years, but this would be expected toimprove as park staff restored these areas.

Opening part of Westside Road to privatevehicles should not affect most visitors’perception of the wilderness area’s naturalquality. In a few places, people would be ableto see additional activity and vehicles on theroad from the wilderness area, but mostvisitors would not see this as negativelyaffecting the perception of naturalness.

Actions to manage trail use under this alter-native, such as more intensive visitor educa-tion, increased ranger patrols, signs, or finesfor going off-trail, would have a positiveeffect on maintaining naturalness in thewilderness. In addition, other actions thatcould be taken to implement the new frame-work, such as maintaining or restoring naturalscreening between campsites in the wildernessarea, would increase the sense of naturalness.

Overall, this alternative, like alternative 2,would result in a long-term moderatebeneficial effect on naturalness in thewilderness.

Cumulative Impacts. There would be mod-erate to major beneficial effects on wildernessvalues in the park due to increased oppor-tunities for solitude and primitive recreationand the preservation of naturalness.

As was discussed above in the analysis ofcumulative impacts on visitor access, devel-opment projects in the vicinity of the parkcould bring more visitors to the general area.This would be likely to increase day and over-night use in the wilderness slightly, which

would have an adverse effect on opportunitiesfor solitude and primitive, unconfinedrecreation.

If national forest wilderness areas and othernational parks in the region began proactivevisitor management programs (e.g., institutingreservation systems or use limits), visitorscould be redirected or turned away from anumber of wilderness areas in the region atpeak times when more visitors also werebeing redirected from popular wildernessareas in the park. This would have minoreffects in the short term but would result ingreater effects in the long term.

As discussed under alternative 1, developmentalong the eastern boundary of the park wouldadversely affect the naturalness of the park’swilderness landscape by increasing noise andviews of people, ski lifts, and other activitiesfrom within the park. On the west side of thepark, planned timber sales could affect thenaturalness of the wilderness in the parkthrough noise from the timber operations inthe short term and in the long term becausethe timber cuts would continue to be visiblefrom the park. In addition, increased popular-ity of the Tahoma Trails system in wintercould result in a decrease in solitude, althoughprobably only a small number of users wouldbe affected.

Other actions in the park, such as natural andcultural resource studies and resource man-agement actions, would be expected to have anegligible to minor beneficial effect on wil-derness values by improving the opportunitiesfor primitive recreation and maintaining thenaturalness of the wilderness.

In summary, when all the potential actionsoutside of the park were considered togetherwith the other actions in the park and theimpacts of this alternative, there would bemajor to moderate beneficial effects onopportunities for solitude and primitiverecreation in the wilderness area due to the


292

effects of the proposed carrying capacityframework and management zones under thisalternative.

There would also be minor to major long-termadverse cumulative impacts on the naturalnessof the park’s wilderness areas, although thepark’s contribution to these impacts would benegligible.

Conclusion. Overall, alternative 3 wouldresult in a long-term moderate beneficialeffect on wilderness values, with some majorbeneficial effects along with some moderatenegative impacts due to increased restrictionson wilderness recreation opportunities.

In both summer and winter, opportunities forsolitude would be maintained in most wilder-ness areas and improved in some. The alterna-tive would have a positive effect in maintain-ing opportunities for primitive, unconfinedrecreation in winter and summer in most ofthe wilderness area. These opportunitieswould increase in a few areas where accesswould be improved. However, increased re-strictions could affect wilderness users, someof whom might feel their freedom was beingadversely affected. There would be a positiveeffect from maintaining the perceived natural-ness of the wilderness, with reduced signs ofhuman impacts.

When all the potential actions outside of thepark were considered together with the otheractions in the park and the impacts of thepreferred alternative, there would be major tomoderate beneficial effects on opportunitiesfor solitude and primitive recreation in thewilderness area due to the effects of theproposed carrying capacity framework andmanagement zones under this alternative.


Regional Context

Analysis. The impacts on the regional socio-economic environment under this alternativewould be similar to alternative 2. The alterna-tive would increase employment at the parkby 21 employees. Construction activitieswould have total estimated gross costs ofapproximately $42.8 million and would belikely to increase employment, earnings, andtaxable sales at the regional level. This stillrepresents a relatively modest dollar figure,given the magnitude of the four-countyregional economy.

The park would continue to be an attraction indrawing tourists to the region, although theoverall effect on the nearly $6 billion regionaltourism expenditure would be small. As underalternative 2, some of the management andactions could result in redirecting visitorsfrom the park, particularly in summer. On theother hand, new or improved facilit ies andopportunities could attract more people to theregion and the park. However, even if redi-rected from the park, visitors would be likelyto stay in the region; therefore, there would belitt le effect on the overall regional economy.

Overall, in a regional context, the socioeco-nomic impacts of alternative 3 probablywould be minor but beneficial, due to theeffects of increases in park employment andconstruction as well as the continuing attrac-tion of the park for tourists to the region.

Cumulative Impacts. As for alternatives 1and 2, there would be major beneficial andadverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts onthe region. However, although alternative 3would have a small beneficial effect onregional tourism and expenditures, it would beunlikely to cause major changes in the trendsof regional population or economic growth;


293

therefore, its overall cumulative impactswould be small.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in aminor beneficial effect from the increases inpark employment and construction and thecontinuing attraction of the park for tourists tothe region. However, alternative 3 would haveonly a small effect on the overall cumulativeimpacts of regional economic growth.

Gateway Communities

Analysis. The impacts of this alternative ongateway communities would be the same asthose of alternative 2. Visitor use levels wouldreach capacity maximums in some areas ofthe park during periods of peak visitor use(due to the elimination of overflow parking);however, the public would be encouraged tovisit less crowded parts of the park during thepeak-use times or to visit at less crowdedtimes (weekdays or early morning or lateafternoon). The new developments and effortsto redirect visitors spatially and temporallywould be in place and would enable the parkto better serve visitors.

The effects on tourism, including visitationpatterns and visitor expenditure levels, fromestablishing a carrying capacity frameworkand prohibiting overflow parking, while at thesame time developing new facilit ies outsidethe park to better serve visitors, would beminor and mostly beneficial, particularly ifmeasures were employed to inform visitorsoutside of the park on whether park activityareas are open or closed. Such measures couldinclude media messages, the Internet, andelectronic signs along roads to the park.

The prospect of less crowding during off-peaktimes could encourage visitors to spend moretime both in the park and within the gatewaycommunities, which might encourage moretourism expenditures in gateway communi-ties. Nonetheless, some visitors might be

discouraged from visiting the park duringpeak-use days or might choose to use otherregional recreation resources.

The gateway communities would benefit fromthe new welcome centers and outreach ser-vices provided to inform and orient visitors tothe park and nearby nonpark recreation areasand facilit ies such as Crystal Mountain SkiArea and Resort. It is also possible that newshuttle service would be provided from a siteor sites near these communities. The com-munities would be likely to experienceincreases in tourism-related expendituresbecause more tourists would stop at theselocations and nearby areas for informationand orientation.

This alternative would result in the expendi-ture of additional NPS funds within theregional economy, which would contribute tothe economies of the gateway communities aswell as the region’s economy.

Overall, alternative 3 would be expected tohave a minor to moderate beneficial effect onthe socioeconomic environment of thegateway communities.

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative im-pacts of alternative 3 would be similar tothose for alternatives 1 and 2. As a result ofincreased visitation to the park over the years,business and residential development hasgrown along the access corridors. This hashad a moderate beneficial impact on the localeconomy, which is expected to continue.Other NPS actions in the park have and wouldcontinue to have a minor indirect beneficialeffect on gateway communities by supportingincreased visitation.

Other actions outside the park would also belikely to have minor to moderate beneficialimpacts by leading to increases in business inthe gateway communities. Recent regionalplanning initiatives, particularly by PierceCounty, could help to ensure long-term eco-


294

nomic health and continued benefits fromincreased park visitation. The impacts of thealternative, when combined with the otheractions, would result in a moderate beneficialcumulative effect with respect to the gatewaycommunities. Alternative 3 would contributesubstantially to this beneficial effect.

Conclusion. Under this alternative the visitorwelcome centers, shuttle staging areas, parkconstruction activities, and increased parkvisitation would have a moderate beneficialimpact, on the socioeconomic environment ofthe gateway communities. When combinedwith other planning and development actionsin the area, this alternative would also resultin a moderately beneficial cumulative impactwith respect to the gateway communities.


Analysis. Like alternative 2, in most casesthis alternative would not be expected tocause substantial changes in the recreationaluse patterns of the people in the region duringeither summer or winter seasons. The alterna-tive probably would result in attracting morepeople to the park but also would redirectsome visitors to other areas. If the CarbonRiver Road were closed there could beadditional minor long-term adverse impactson regional recreational opportunities.

Overall, even with the additional recreationopportunities at the park, people would con-tinue to make their selections of outdoorrecreation based upon their own desires, per-ceptions, and availability of time and otherpersonal resources. Therefore, it is expectedthat, this alternative, like alternative 2, wouldhave a beneficial, minor impact on regionalrecreational opportunities.

Cumulative Impact. The cumulative impactswould be similar to alternative 2. Neitheralternative 3 nor other NPS actions in the parkwould add any major new recreational

opportunities in the region. Like alternative 2,alternative 3 would have minor beneficialimpacts due to improvements in the existingrecreational opportunities. The completion ofseveral proposed recreation projects, includ-ing the Train to the Mountain and the expan-sion of the Crystal Mountain ski area andresort, would result in an increase in the localjob base as well as an increase in the numberof recreation visitors to the region. Togetherwith the improvements in national forestrecreation areas in the region, as well as theadditional facilit ies and activities proposed inthe park under this alternative, there would bemoderate beneficial cumulative effects onregional recreation opportunities. However,the alternative’s contribution to these effectswould be minor.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would improverecreation opportunities in the park, but couldalso result in redirection of visitors to otherareas at peak times as the capacity of popularareas is reached. Overall, the alternativewould have a minor, beneficial impact. Therewould be moderate, beneficial cumulativeimpacts, but alternative 3 would not beexpected to cause any substantial change inregional recreational opportunities andtherefore would have a minor effect.

Concessions

Analysis. Impacts under this alternativewould be the same as for alternative 2. Elim-inating overflow parking, and establishing acarrying capacity framework would result in asmall decrease in the number of visitors inparts of the park, potentially affecting thebusiness of concessioners that providelodging, food or other services. However, thiswould be offset if visitors either extend theirstays in the park or visit the park at off-peaktimes, and it is likely that there would be aslight increase in the overall number ofvisitors.


295

Like alternative 2, alternative 3 could result inan adverse impact on the business of firewoodconcessioners if campfire restrictions had tobe instituted to protect air quality. However,these restrictions would be likely to be insti-tuted for short periods and in specific areasand thus should have a minor to moderate,long-term impact on concessioners.

There would likely be no adverse impacts onthe concessioners or other commercial busi-nesses that provide mountaineering-relatedservices such as guiding. Indeed, the impactmay be slightly positive for such operations,as there would be less crowding of facilit ies,including trails, and thereby enhancing visitorexperience and enjoyment. Overall, the alter-native would be expected to have a minorbeneficial impact on these businesses.

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative 3 wouldhave similar impacts as alternatives 1 and 2,and the cumulative impacts would also besimilar. Other actions in the park would havebeneficial negligible effects, and recreationrelated development in the vicinity of thepark, such as Crystal Mountain and MountRainier Resort at Park Junction, would haveminor beneficial effects. Overall, there wouldbe minor, beneficial cumulative effects towhich alternative 3 would contribute.

Conclusion. Overall, the socioeconomicimpacts on concessioners and other com-mercial businesses operating within the parkwould be minor, but likely beneficial, underalternative 3. The cumulative impacts, consid-ering the positive effect on visitation of otherrecreation developments in the vicinity of thepark, would be also be minor and beneficial.


A gradual reduction in visitor, commuteremployee, and concessioner gasoline con-

sumption would be expected due to vehiclesachieving better fuel economy as newermodel vehicles replaced older models overtime. Providing visitor and employee shuttleservices on Carbon River Road and to Para-dise should result in a decrease in fuel con-sumption throughout the park. In addition,less fuel would be consumed by visitorsbecause they would know in advance whenparking was at capacity and would not burnfuel circling and waiting for a parking space.However, the expected increase in overallvisitation could increase energy requirementsin general, considering that some visitorsmight travel long distances to visit the park.

Fuel requirements at the rehabilitated HenryM. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center would besomewhat less than for the visitor center in itscurrent condition under alternative 1 becausethe heating and ventilating systems would beupgraded as part of the rehabilitation of thebuilding, although the roof snow-meltingsystem would not be modified.


Plowing State Route 410 to provide additionalwinter recreation opportunities in the easternpart of the park would be likely to adverselyaffect nesting northern spotted owls (a specialstatus species), but no other special status spe-cies would be likely to be adversely affected.Minor adverse impacts on other natural re-sources would occur in some areas throughoutthe park from human use and construction ofnew facilit ies in the park under thisalternative.

The minor to major adverse impacts identifiedunder alternative 1 due to exposure to visitorsand employees to volcanic and nonvolcanichazards would continue under this alternative,and additional visitors and employees wouldbe exposed to risks from avalanches becauseplowing State Route 410 would allow winteraccess.


296

Alternative 3 would include the use of shuttlesand the elimination of overflow parking at anumber of popular nonwilderness areas duringthe summer season. As a result , visitor use atthese areas could be reduced below currentlevels, depending upon the time of week andmonth of the year. By limiting use, some visi-tors in the peak summer season might not beable to access the park where they wanted to,when they wanted to, or in the manner theydesired. Some visitors might be discouragedfrom visiting the park or displaced to lesscrowded places or times. Visitors who alteredtheir visitation plans would be impacted to aminor to major degree.

Similarly, in the wilderness area, if wildernessuse continued to increase, increased manage-ment could be required to protect naturalresource conditions and the experience ofwilderness users. Increased managementcould result in a loss of freedom for somevisitors to visit some wilderness areas duringpeak-use times.


The additional energy requirements identifiedabove would result in an irreversiblecommitment of resources. In addition therewould be commitment of material used toconstruct new visitor facilit ies such as picnic

sites, to rehabilitate the Henry M. JacksonMemorial Visitor Center, to pave a portion ofMowich Lake Road, and possibly to buildwelcome centers outside the park.


Like all of the alternatives, under alternative 3the vast majority of the park be protected in anatural state and would maintain its long-termproductivity — only a small percentage of thepark would be converted to development. Inaddition, under this alternative more than 800acres of forest land included in the proposed1,063-acre boundary adjustment area west ofthe Carbon River entrance would be removedfrom potential future timber production. Therewould be no other actions that wouldjeopardize the long-term productivity of theenvironment. Short-term impacts associatedwith construction and restoration might occursuch as localized air and water pollution (seeanalysis of specific impact topics for detail).Noise and human activity associated withconstruction and restoration also mightdisplace some wildlife from the immediatearea. However, these activities would notjeopardize the long-term productivity of theenvironment.

297

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES AND VALUES

During the planning process for the MountRainier General Management Plan, theNational Park Service revised its nationalmanagement policies. Both the NPS Man-agement Policies (NPS 2001b) and NPSDirector’s Order 12 (NPS 2001c) requiredecision-makers to consider whether or notNPS actions would impair park resources orvalues. This policy change occurred after thedraft Mount Rainier plan was published.Thus, although the draft document did notconsider impairment, the final MountRainier General Management Plan / Envi-ronmental Impact Statement addresses theimpairment requirement.

Under the NPS Management Policies(2001b), the National Park Service may notallow the impairment of park resources andvalues unless directly and specifically pro-vided for by legislation or proclamationestablishing the park. Impairment that isprohibited by the NPS Organic Act and theGeneral Authorities Act is an impact that, inthe professional judgment of the responsibleNPS manager, would harm the integrity ofpark resources or values, including theopportunities that otherwise would be pres-ent for the enjoyment of those resources orvalues. In determining whether an impair-ment would occur, park managers examinethe duration, severity, and magnitude of theimpact; the resources and values affected;and direct, indirect, and cumulative effectsof the action. According to NPS policy, “Animpact would be more likely to constitute animpairment to the extent that it affects aresource or value whose conservation is: a)Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identi-fied in the establishing legislation or procla-mation of the park; b) Key to the natural orcultural integrity of the park or to opportuni-ties for enjoyment of the park; or c) Identi-fied as a goal in the park’s general man-

agement plan or other relevant NPS planningdocuments.”

This policy does not prohibit all impacts to parkresources and values. The National Park Ser-vice has the discretion to allow impacts on parkresources and values when necessary andappropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, solong as the impacts do not constitute an impair-ment. Moreover, an impact is less likely toconstitute an impairment if it is an unavoidableresult , which cannot be further mitigated, of anaction necessary to preserve or restore theintegrity of park resources or values.

After analyzing the environmental impactsdescribed in the alternatives and public com-ments received, the National Pak Service hasdetermined that none of the actions in the alter-natives being considered would result in animpairment to Mount Rainier National Park’sresources and values.

The no-action alternative would result inseveral minor to moderate adverse impacts onthe park’s natural resources (e.g., air, water,soil), but none of these impacts would harm theoverall integrity of these resources. There alsocould be major, long-term impacts on visitoraccess and enjoyment due to crowding andcongestion during peak times. The quality ofthe visitor experience could decline for manyvisitors. However, these impacts would notprevent people from using the park or eliminateopportunities for people to enjoy the park dur-ing off-peak periods.

The actions in alternative 2 are intended toprotect and enhance the park’s natural andcultural resources and provide for high-qualityvisitor experiences. Overall, the alternativewould have beneficial effects on such resourcesas air and water quality, wildlife, and historicresources. The alternative would have positive


298

effects on most visitors’ experiences byreducing crowding and congestion.

The actions in alternative 3 would be similarto those of alternative 2 but would providesome additional visitor use opportunities.Alternative 3 would have beneficial effectsthat would be similar to alternative 2 withregard to air and water quality, wildlife, andvisitor experiences. Winter plowing of StateRoute 410 in alternative 3 would have thepotential to adversely affect northern spottedowl nesting near the road. However, even ifnesting was affected, this would not consti-tute an impairment because the action wouldnot jeopardize the continued existence of theowl in the park. This action would affectonly a small portion of the 68,000 acres ofsuitable northern spotted owl habitat in thepark. Thus, although a few owls might be

affected by plowing the road, most owls in thepark would not be affected and would continueto breed and use Mount Rainier.

From an overall, parkwide perspective, nomajor adverse impacts on the park’s resourcesor the range of visitor experiences and noirreversible commitments of park resourceswould be expected in any of the three alter-natives. Although the alternatives would havesome adverse effects on park resources andvisitor experiences, most of these impactswould be site-specific, minor to moderate,short-term impacts. None of the impacts in thealternatives would adversely affect resources orvalues to a degree that would prevent theNational Park Service from fulfilling the pur-poses of the park, threaten the natural integrityof the park, or eliminate opportunities forpeople to enjoy the park.

Consultation and Coordination

300

(blank back)

301

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public input was sought throughout this generalmanagement planning process for MountRainier. The input was used to help define theplanning process to be followed, to identify theissues to be addressed in the plan and environ-mental impact statement, and to identify andhelp shape the desired future conditions and thealternatives.

The scoping process for this plan was initiatedon September 27, 1994, when the Federal Regis-ter published a “notice of intent” to prepare anenvironmental impact statement. Public meet-ings were held November 14–19, 1994, inEnumclaw, Morton, Eatonville, Tacoma, Seattle,and Yakima to provide opportunities for inter-ested citizens to identify issues and concerns forthe plan. (The results of these public meetingswere summarized in a newsletter published inthe winter of 1995.)

The planning team distributed a number ofnewsletters and held meetings throughout theplanning process. The newsletters and meetingsoffered opportunities for people at the local andthe national levels to provide input into the plan.These forums were designed to allow for publicexpression and to foster dialogue between theplanning team and the public and other agencies.A brief summary of the more formal of theseactivities follows in chronological order:

NEWSLETTERS AND WO RKBOO KS

During the planning process the team compiled amailing list of over 1,200 names. The list includ-ed officials from state and other federal govern-ment agencies, state and federal legislators,Indian tribal governments, local and regionalgovernments, businesses and organizations, andinterested citizens. All the newsletters were alsoplaced on the Mount Rainier Internet Web site(http://www.nps.gov/mora/home.htm).

Newsletter 1, published in the winter of 1995,introduced the planning process, identified thepark’s purposes and significance, provided a“vision statement” for Olympic and MountRainier National Parks, and summarized issuesand concerns raised by the public at the scopingmeetings. The newsletter included a responseform for people to express their thoughts andconcerns about the material in the newsletter.

Newsletter 2, published in January of 1997, wasa progress report, including maps and text on thepark’s existing conditions and trends. The news-letter also described summer wilderness andnonwilderness management zones. Three man-agement scenarios were presented for summerand for winter.. Each scenario included anoverview of a management concept, a map thatzoned the park, and a brief summary of potentialimpacts. A response form asked readers whatthey liked about the scenarios, what, if anything,they would change, and why they thoughtchanges should be made.

A supplement to the progress report was pub-lished in winter 1997–1998. This supplementgave full descriptions of the prescriptive man-agement zones. It also introduced the concept ofindicators and standards as they relate to thezones, described several preliminary indicatorsand standards, and discussed what these mightmean for park management.

Newsletter 3, which was distributed in fall 1997,briefly discussed desired future conditions forthe park and noted changes to the managementzones. It also identified summer and winterissues facing Mount Rainier and listed possibleoptions for addressing these issues.

An update letter mailed by the park superinten-dent on October 27, 1997, summarized thecomments the planning team had received fromseveral public meetings and identified some newideas for addressing specific issues facing the

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

302

park. The letter also described the generalmanagement planning process.

Newsletter 4 was published in the summer of1998. This newsletter, an update from thesuperintendent, described the status of theplanning effort and the progress made to date.The newsletter also noted what would happennext in the planning process.

PUBLIC AND AGENCY MEETINGS

The planning team held many meetings duringthe course of the planning process. In addition tothe November 14–19, 1994, scoping meetings,the team also met with organizations and othergovernmental agencies to identify their issuesand concerns. Planning team members met withrepresentatives from the following groups:

• U.S. Forest Service (Mount Baker–Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, andWenatchee National Forests) on September27, 1994

• Pierce County Planning Office onSeptember 28, 1994

• Washington Department of NaturalResources on September 29, 1994

During the course of the planning process, thepark staff met with the following various groupsto brief them about the general management planand its status:

• the staff of Congressman Norm Dicks andCongresswoman Jennifer Dunn

• the neighboring national forests

• U.S. Geological Survey, Cascade VolcanoObservatory

• Washington State Department of NaturalResources

• Lewis County Commissioners

• Upper Nisqually Community AdvisoryBoard/Pierce County Planning

• Wilkeson Town Council, PlanningCommission and local citizens

• Nisqually River Council

• Tacoma and Seattle branches of TheMountaineers

• Crystal Mountain Ski Resort

• South Cascade Tourism Council

• Washington State Tourism Council

• Friends of Upper White River ValleyAssociation

• Mount Rainier Business Association

• Mount Rainier National Park Associates

• National Parks and ConservationAssociation, Northwest Chapter

In addition, the planning team contacted theWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife inAugust 1994 to identify state threatened and en-dangered species. This list was subsequentlyupdated in 1999 through the Internet(http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/wlm/diversity/soc/endanger.htm).

CONSULTATIO N WITH TH E STATEHISTO RIC PRESERVATIO N O FFICER

Members of the planning team had informalconsultations with the state historic preservationofficer early in the planning process.

CONSULTATIO N WITH TH E NATIVEAMERICAN TRIB ES

Early in the planning process numerous contactswere made with officials from four federallyrecognized Native American tribes with known

Summary of Public Involvement

303

associations with park land (Nisqually, Puyallup,Muckleshoot, and Yakama). Newsletters weremailed to the tribes. After the draft plan waspublished, planning team members met with thePuyallup, Muckleshoot, Yakama, Nisqually, andCowlitz tribes to discuss their concerns (seebelow).

CONSULTATIO N WITH U.S. FISH ANDWILDLIFE SERVICE AND NATIO NALMARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

In March 1994 the planning team initiatedinformal consultation with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service to determine the presence offederally listed threatened and endangeredspecies in Mount Rainier National Park. Therewere several telephone conversations with theWestern Washington Office of the Fish andWildlife Service in 1999 to discuss the projectand get input from the agency on the alternativesand their potential impacts.

In September 1999, May 2000, and January2001, the planning team requested an updatedlist of listed and proposed threatened and

endangered species, candidate species, andspecies of concern that may be present in thepark. A copy of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s October 1999 response to thisconsultation is included in appendix F. (Nochanges in the federal list of species for MountRainier have occurred since June 2000,according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.)

The planning team also informally consultedwith the National Marine Fisheries Service inFebruary 2000 to determine if any listed salmonpopulations inhabit the park. A summary of thetelephone conversation is included in appendixF. The National Marine Fisheries Service did notprovide a formal response letter on the draftplan. In a February 8, 2001, electronic message(NMFS 2001), the National Marine FisheriesService stated that the draft plan did not havespecific actions that the agency could consult onpursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the EndangeredSpecies Act. The agency noted that it wouldwork with the park when there is a proposedaction needing Endangered Species Actconsultation.

304

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICHCOPIES OF THE FINAL PLAN WERE SENT

The National Park Service is circulating theFinal General Management Plan / Environ-mental Impact Statement to the agencies andorganizations listed below. Those whoresponded to the Draft General ManagementPlan / Environmental Impact Statement arenoted with an asterisk. Copies of the documentwere also sent to individuals who commented onthe draft plan (see table 17). A complete list ofindividuals who received copies of the final planis on file at park headquarters. A limited numberof copies of the final plan are available uponrequest from interested individuals. Copies ofthe final plan are also available for review at thepark, at libraries, and on the Internet.

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIO N

Congressman Brian BairdCongressman Norm DicksCongresswoman Jennifer DunnCongressman Richard (Doc) HastingsCongressman Jay InsleeCongressman Jim McDermottCongressman Jack MetcalfCongressman George NethercuttCongressman Adam SmithSenator Maria CantwellFormer Senator Slade GortonSenator Patty Murray

STATE AND LOCALELECTED O FFICIALS

Governor Gary LockeRepresentative Gary AlexanderRepresentative Richard DeBoltRepresentative Christopher HurstRepresentative Michael StensenSenator Harold HochstatterSenator Pam RoachSenator Dan SweckerWashington Secretary of State

King County Executive Ron SimmsLewis County CommissionersPierce County Councilwoman Jan SharbroPierce County Executive Doug SoutherlandPierce County Planning CommissionerYakima County CommissionersMayor of BuckleyMayor of EatonvilleMayor of Enumclaw*Mayor of GreenwaterMayor of OlympiaMayor of PackwoodMayor of SeattleMayor of TacomaMayor of WilkesonMayor of Yakima

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Western Office of ReviewU.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Olympic National Forest Wenatchee National Forest*U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs National Park Service Cascades System Support Office, Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Pacific West Region Regional Director Deputy DirectorSuperintendents Golden Gate National Recreation Area North Cascade National Park Olympic National Park

Public Officials, Agencies, and Organizations to which Copies of the Final Plan W ere Sent

305

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Olympia Field Office, Ecological Services* U.S. Geological Survey Biological Research Division, Cascadia Field Station Cascade Volcanic ObservatoryU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10*Federal Emergency Management Agency

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

Cowlitz TribeMuckelshoot Tribe*Nisqually TribePuyallup Tribe*Yakama Nation

STATE AND LOCALGO VERNMENT AG ENCIES

Interagency Committee for OutdoorRecreation*

Washington Department of EcologyWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeWashington Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound RegionWashington Department of Transportation*Washington State Conservation CommissionWashington State Office of Archeology and Historic PreservationWashington State Parks and Recreation CommissionNisqually River CouncilPierce County Planning and Land ServicesPierce County Public WorksPierce County Trails CoordinatorPuget Sound Regional CouncilPuyallup River CouncilThurston County CommissionWilkeson Planning Commission

UNIVERSITIES

University of Washington

College of Forest ResourcesUniversity of Washington

Pack Forest StationWashington State University Energy ProgramWestern Washington University

O RGANIZATIO NS AND BUSINESSES

Adopt-A-BeachAdopt-A-Stream FoundationAlpine Ascents InternationalAlta Crystal ResortAmerican Alpine Club*American Alpine InstituteAmerican RiversBike-to-NatureBluewater Network*Boeing Employees Alpine SocietyCascade Alpine GuidesRainier T imber Company, LLCClean Prairie AssociationCowlitz River LodgeCrystal Conservation Coalition*Crystal Mountain ResortEarthjustice Legal Defense FundEnumclaw Chamber of CommerceEnumclaw 2000Enumclaw Trail Riders*Friends of the EarthFriends of Upper White River ValleyGlacier Water Company, LLC*Greater Ecosystem AllianceGreater Greenwater Gateway Community

CommitteeMazamasMount Rainier Alpine GuidesMount Rainier Guest Services, Inc.Mount Rainier National Park Associates*The Mountaineers,

Tacoma and Seattle Branches*Climbing Committee*

Naches Valley Chamber of CommerceNational Outdoor Leadership School,

Pacific Northwest BranchNational Parks and Conservation AssociationThe Nature ConservancyPacific Northwest Regional Office


306

Nisqually River Education ProjectNorth Cascade Conservation Council*Northwest Ecosystem Alliance*NW Conservation Act CoalitionPacific Crest Trail AssociationParkland Sports CenterPaul Allen GroupPlum Creek T imber CompanyRainier Mount Business AssociationRainier Mountaineering Inc.Rainier ShuttleREIRiver Council of AmericaSierra Club

Cascade Chapter*Northwest Region

South Cascade Tourism CouncilStudent Conservation AssociationTacoma Eastern Railroad CompanyTacoma Public Utilit iesTacoma Wheelmen*Tahoma Audubon Society*Trailblazers, Inc.Trust for Public LandsVolunteers for Outdoor WashingtonWapati Woolies*Washington Environmental CouncilWashington Native Plant Association

South Sound Chapter*Washington Recreation and Parks AssociationWashington State History MuseumWashington Trail AssociationWashington Wilderness CoalitionWashington Wildlife FederationWashington Wildlife and Recreation CoalitionWashington’s National Park FundWeyerhaeuser/Cascade North DivisionThe Wilderness SocietyWilderness WatchYakama Valley MuseumYakima Chamber of Commerce

LIBRARIES

Eatonville Public LibraryEnumclaw Public LibraryKing County LibraryPierce County LibraryPuyallup Public LibrarySeattle Public LibraryTacoma Public LibraryTimberland Library,

Olympia BranchPackwood Branch

University of WashingtonPublic Documents Library

Washington State LibraryWashington State University LibraryYakima Valley Regional Library

NEWS MEDIA

C89.5 FMEatonville DispatchKCPQKCTSKing 5 TVKIROKOMO TVKSTWNorthwest Interpretive AssociationOutside Magazine, Northwest ManagerPuget Sound Business JournalSeattle Post-IntelligencerSeattle TimesSeattle WeeklyTahoma News Tribune

307

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN, WITHRESPONSES

PUBLIC MEETINGS

The planning team arranged and conductedseven public meetings on the Draft GeneralManagement Plan / Environmental ImpactStatement from December 3 through December8, 2000. The meetings were in Seattle, Olympia,Tacoma , Enumclaw , Packwood , Yakima , andEatonville. A total of 173 people attended themeetings, with the largest number attending theOlympia meeting (38), followed by Tacoma(36), Enumclaw (30), Seattle (28), Eatonville(25), Yakima (13) and Packwood (3). Severalorganizations were represented at the meetings,including the Mountaineers, BackcountryHorsemen of Washington (Enumclaw TrailridersChapter), Washington Department of Ecology,Washington State Office of Archaeology andHistoric Preservation, city of Enumclaw, andCascadians, as well as members of the media.

At all the meetings, members of the planningteam informally mingled with the attendees,listened to concerns, answered questions, andclarified points regarding the plan. Commentswere recorded on flip charts and response forms.At most of the meetings the planning team gavea short overview of the plan. A question andanswer period then followed in which thesuperintendent and planning team answeredquestions from the audience.

Only a few people who commented indicatedwhich alternative they favored. The most com-mon comments expressed at the meetings con-cerned the shuttles and the openings or closureof park roads. In general, there was support at allthe meetings for operating shuttles in the park,including Paradise, Sunrise, and the WestsideRoad, although many concerns were expressedabout the operation of the shuttles (how oftenthey would run, their cost, where they wouldstop, etc.). Yakima residents were concerned

about the plan’s lack of shuttles on the east sideof the park and how they could use the shuttles.

Most people who commented supported openingthe Westside Road to limited motor vehicle use(that is, shuttles). However, there were opposingviews about the future closure of the CarbonRiver Road (if there should be a major washout)and whether or not Washington Highway 410should be open in the winter. Many people (par-ticularly in Enumclaw) were concerned aboutthe closure of the Carbon River Road, sayingsuch closure would eliminate a unique visitorexperience, and some questioned whether otheroptions might be available. A few supportedclosing the road because of the high cost ofmaintaining it . Similarly, some people favoredplowing State Route 410 in winter, providinganother winter visitor experience in the park,while others were opposed, citing concernsregarding resource impacts and avalanchepotentials.

A variety of other comments and concerns wereexpressed at the public meetings, includingprotecting the air quality, livestock use in thepark (some wanted more opportunities; otherssupported the preferred alternative), the pro-posed boundary adjustment (several peoplewanted a larger boundary adjustment in theCarbon River valley), the proposed new Jacksonvisitor center, a desire for more opportunities touse bicycles in the park, proposed road andparking changes at Mowich Lake, and theanalysis in the draft document.

Many comments were of a detailed operationalnature, beyond the scope of the General Man-agement Plan; for example, fees or a lack offunding for the park, park housing, operating agate system at Paradise, the possibility of notallowing motor homes in certain areas or atcertain times, and requiring payment for over-night parking at Paradise. Others commented


308

that the NPS fee structure does not encourageshuttles to bring people to the park, and otherssuggested emphasizing more education andinterpretation programs.

MEETINGS WITH TRIBES,O RGANIZATIO NS, AND AGENCIES

Members of the planning team met with the fivefederally recognized Native American tribes andwith several other organizations that requestedmeetings to discuss the draft plan. Meetingswere held with the Yakama Nation and theMuckleshoot Tribe in December 2000 and withthe Nisqually Tribe and the Puyallup Tribe inJanuary 2001. Planning team members also metin January with the Tacoma chapter of theMountaineers and with the U.S. Forest Service,as well as with the Cowlitz Tribe. In Februaryplanning team members met with representativesof Pierce County.

Yakama Nation

Planning team members met with the YakamaNation tribal council to listen to their concernsregarding the management of the park. Membersof the council expressed concerns about beingable to use ancestral sites and gather parkresources such as huckleberries for traditionalpurposes. They said tribal members want to havea good working relationship with park staff, asthey have with the Gifford Pinchot NationalForest. It was noted that there is a need forcommunication between park staff and tribalmembers. Interest was also expressed in a lodgehouse being built for religious purposes in ornear the park.

Muckleshoot Tribe

The planning team met with the cultural resour-ces group of the Muckleshoot tribe. Tribalmembers expressed concern about parking im-pacts on stream and salmon, not being able toget to Sunrise in a private vehicle, and continued

closure of the Carbon River Road. They saidthey thought the operation of the shuttles wouldincrease visitor numbers, and they were con-cerned about the impacts of increasing numbersof visitors on park resources and tribal practicesand the potential for sacred areas being overrunby people.

Tribal members suggested that the plan includeeducating the public regarding tribal rights, thatspecific contemporary issues pertinent to NativeAmericans be recognized, that specific infor-mation regarding treaties be part of the docu-ment, and that parking spaces be provided fortribal vehicles. The concept of a “special man-agement area” came up as applicable to thetribes regarding general locations for spiritualobservation.

Nisqually Tribe

Planning team members met with the NisquallyTribal Council and Historical Committee. Thetribe views the park as a spiritual place andconducts ceremonies there during certain timesof the year. Tribal members expressed concernabout whether tribal interests would be seriouslyconsidered in the planning process. Three keyconcerns were (a) that the tribe have access tothe park without having to use shuttles, (b) thatthe tribe (primarily the historical committee) beinvolved in planning any new interpretive cen-ters so that the Nisqually voice and history couldbe included from their perspective, and (c) thatthe draft should specifically refer to the Nis-qually memorandum of understanding, the firstof its kind for the park and tribe, and that thedraft also should mention the treaties and thesignificance of the mountain from the Nisquallyperspective.

The tribal members expressed support for themajor parts of the plan. They requested that thepark (a) provide funds for a tribal monitor forconstruction work, (b) fund a project to docu-ment and evaluate the cultural resources fromthe native point of view, involving elders and

Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Plan, with Responses

309

spiritual people, (c) develop a clear under-standing of the significance of cultural re-sources, and (d) display a commitment to respectand support the tribe’s cultural survival.

Puyallup Tribe

Planning team members met with representa-tives of the Puyallup Tribe to hear their concernsabout the draft plan and other park issues. Tribalrepresentatives asked if the planning team haddocumented the historical use of park by thePuyallup tribe. Planning team members re-sponded that the National Park Service is com-mitted to developing a good working relation-ship with the tribe to document tribal use of thepark. The tribe might become more engagedwith the park by helping train park employeesand providing programs for park visitors.

A major concern of the tribe is the preservationof the wildlife and their habitat, particularly thecritical winter range for deer and elk.

Tribal representatives also questioned therationale for the Carbon River Road and theproposed boundary expansion. It was noted thatthe washouts are not safe and that the last repairwas costly and lasted only a month. The re-sponse was that the proposed boundary expan-sion is to provide a place for recreationalfacilit ies when vehicular access to the IpsutCreek area can no longer be maintained withinthe active floodplain.

Planning team members explained the carryingcapacity framework model, including the needfor standards and indicators for each zone tomonitor use, stressed the agency’s new policiestoward resource preservation over visitor use,and outlined the park’s five-year goal to have allthe indicators determined.

The tribal representatives were asked if the tribehad any sensitive areas or special use areasinside the park. One member responded that hedid not know of any specific sites and added

that, for the Puyallup, it may be a case ofregaining lost opportunities.

Other topics discussed at the meeting includedelk management, bull trout, the tribe’s involve-ment with wildlife studies, and the managementand ownership of lands adjacent to the park.

Cowlitz Tribe

The planning team shared the basic principles ofthe draft plan with the tribal chairman of theCowlitz Tribe, stressing hydrology and the needto improve NPS information and educationefforts. The tribal chairman noted that the tribe’sprimary concern is ecological, that all of theEarth Mother is sacred. He added that the tribe’swatershed lands need to stay in as near an abor-iginal condition as possible. He also expressedconcern about the preservation of cultural sitesand interests.

Mount Rainier is important to the tribe and isincluded in various versions of their creationmythology.

Tacoma Chapter of the Mountaineers

About 90 members of the Tacoma Chapter ofthe Mountaineers met with planning teamrepresentatives to discuss the plan. Althoughthey generally expressed support for the majorelements of the plan, they said they were con-cerned about the details of the shuttles systems.Some people asked why climbers and back-packers had been “singled out” as mandatoryshuttle riders during peak use times. It was notedthat the schedules of climbers and backpackerscan vary greatly because of unforeseencircumstances, so that meeting shuttle schedulescould be difficult . Some people said theythought it would be better to shuttle day-users.

Members of the Mountaineers also suggestedthat a “hospitality” room be made available withlockers for visitors to use while waiting forshuttles. A question was asked bout the


310

possibility of using incentives and disincentivesto encourage shuttle use during peak times. Itwas suggested that the current van fee policy ($5per person in vans that hold more than 7passengers; $10 for smaller family size vehicles)be changed to encourage multipassenger vanpool use.

Members also suggested that shuttles bescheduled to go around the mountain toaccommodate cross-park hiking or climbingtraverses, that shuttles be made available inwinter that hikers or climbers could voluntarilyuse to get to Paradise, and that the National ParkService explore using the Buck Creek area tostage shuttles for both Sunrise and CrystalMountain Resort (although some securityconcerns about the staging area werementioned).

Some Mountaineers members said theysupported the proposed boundary adjustment forthe Carbon River/Copley Lake area. Somesuggested that replacing the Copley Lake bridgeand the proposed Foothills Trail expansionwould help to reduce pressure on the park byredistributing visitors, as would the possiblerecreational development of Pierce County’sFairfax section. Members also asked if theMountaineers’ Irish Cabin property would bepurchased and wanted to know about PlumCreek’s logging activities in the area.

Some asked about the current road corridor“visioning” process on the major access roads(State Routes 410, 7, and 706 and route 161) andthe welcome center concept. People expressedconcern that the gateway communities such asCrystal Mountain Resort, and Mount RainierResort at Park Junction, might overmarket thepark and contribute to more negative impacts.Some asked how the general public (in additionto corridor stakeholders) could get involved andeducated about the corridor planning process.

U.S. Forest Service

Planning team members met with representa-tives of Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, GiffordPinchot, Wenatchee, and Olympic NationalForests to discuss the draft plan. The main issuesdiscussed were the proposed Carbon Riverboundary adjustment, the proposed CrystalMountain master development plan, RainierT imber Co., LLC / Plum Creek lands west ofpark, and possible land exchanges or purchases.

The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie staff indicatedthat the forest will pursue purchasing landbetween the park and the Clearwater WildernessArea that is now owned by Plum Creek. Thestaff suggested that section 33, just north of theCarbon River entrance, could be incorporatedinto the park’s boundary adjustment. They alsomentioned that an access easement agreementcould be written for the roads and a new replace-ment bridge (scheduled to get underway nextsummer). They said that the Forest Service willsupport either NPS acquisition or managementof Forest Service lands within the boundaryadjustment (with an access agreement) or aboundary adjustment that would allow the ForestService to retain ownership of the land and workjointly with the Park Service to protect thecorridor.

The park staff asked if enough visitors use theCopley Lake-Clearwater Wilderness area tosupport a shuttle staging out of the proposedCarbon River administrative/campground hubserving Ipsut Creek and Mowich Lake. Theforest staff replied that the current use levelswould not support a shuttle but that use couldincrease in the future.

Both agencies agreed that there are opportunitiesto work together in the Crystal Mountain area tocomplement mission goals. Concern wasexpressed that zoning the area adjacent to theCrystal Mountain special use permit area aspristine could result in problems, and it wassuggested that this area instead be changed to aprimitive prescriptive management zone. This


311

zoning might be more compatible with resourceconditions and visitor expectations in an areaadjacent to lands in the Crystal Mountain areamanaged by the Forest Service. A land exchangealso might be possible, exchanging NPS lands inthe Crystal Mountain area for Forest Servicelands within the proposed Carbon River areaboundary adjustment.

The park’s visitor carrying capacity was dis-cussed, as were potential conflicts with adjacentForest Service wilderness areas. The park staffand forest staff agreed to collaborate indeveloping and monitoring indicators andstandards to ensure resource protection and highquality visitor experiences.

Also discussed were the ownership of landadjacent to and west of the park and the possiblefuture development of these lands, support of theOutdoor Recreation Information Center inSeattle, and pressure to provide year-round useof the Skate Creek Road south of the park.

Pierce County

In meeting with Pierce County, the park super-intendent described the draft plan. One councilmember asked for further explanation of theneed to replace the Henry M. Jackson visitorcenter. The superintendent gave a brief summaryof the facility’s history and discussed the cost ofreplacement versus the cost to bring the facilityup to code and to meet the accessibility require-ments of the Americans with Disabilit ies Act.He also discussed operations and maintenancecosts and the failing roof snow-melt system.

The roadway corridors leading to the park alsowere discussed. The superintendent noted theneed to work closely with Pierce County andother counties that are closely linked to the parkregarding the road corridors leading to the park.He explained that Mount Rainier’s transporta-tion strategy is twofold: (a) explore alternativeopportunities for a multimodal shuttle system inpartnership with other agencies and interests and

(b) explore opportunities to enhance existing orcreate new visitor opportunities in the largerregion to disperse visitation and avoid conges-tion in any one area.

Pierce County Council members expressed theirlove for Mount Rainier National Park, confirmedthat it is very important to the county and theregion, and expressed their appreciation that thesuperintendent shares with them the futuremanagement direction for the park.

LETTERS AND E-MAIL CO MMENTS

A total of 143 separate written comments werereceived during the comment period, includingletters, comment forms that were filled out andeither mailed or given to park staff, and e-mailcomments. (This does not include individualswho wrote more than one letter.) Of the 143items, 27 were from agencies and organizations:3 federal agencies, 2 tribes, 3 state agencies, 1regional government, 16 nongovernmentalorganizations, and 2 businesses. The other 116written comments were from individuals.

Most individual comments came from Wash-ington, with the Puget Sound area, includingSeattle-Tacoma, accounting for the largestnumber of responses. Comments were receivedfrom individuals in two other states, Oregon andWest Virginia. The written comments fromindividuals included a much larger range ofopinions than the oral comments. Most of thecommenters did not say which alternative theyfavored. Of those who did, 17 people andorganizations favored the preferred alternative, 8favored alternative 3, and three favored alterna-tive 1. Thirty individuals and organizations sup-ported the preferred alternative with changes.

Table 16 summarizes how individuals andorganizations commented on several topics andissues. The table indicates who and how manysupported a particular issue/topic in the pre-ferred alternative in the draft document, whowas opposed, and who suggested variations of


312

actions in the preferred alternative (labeled as“other” in the table heading). The topic mostcommonly mentioned was establishing a shuttlesystem in the park. The following other topicsand issues were commonly mentioned incomments by individuals and organizations:

• providing shuttles on the Westside Road

• closing the Carbon River road to vehicles

• replacing the Henry M. Jackson visitorcenter

• proposed Carbon River boundary adjustment

• changes to the Mowich Lake area

• visitor carrying capacity

There was general support for the concept ofoperating shuttles to reduce congested roads andparking areas. Commenters said shuttles wouldimprove access, reduce environmental impacts,and improve the quality of the visitor experi-ence. However, many commenters said theywanted more details on the shuttles, how theywould operate, where they would go and howoften, and who would be required to use them.Many said they were concerned about the impactthe shuttles would have on their experience inthe park.

Climbers and backpackers in particular said theythought they had been unfairly “singled out,”and many of them objected to the idea thatclimbers or hikers would be required to takeshuttles. They said the shuttles might not be ableto accommodate their gear, and they expressedconcern about early starts, climbers returninglate, and problems of safety for returningclimbers. They also asked questions aboutobtaining permits and where climbers comingfrom the east side of the park could park whenrequired to ride the shuttle.

Some people favored requiring that day visitorsuse the shuttles; others said using the shuttles

should be voluntary. Many commenters hadsuggestions about the operation of the shuttles;some suggested offering incentives to useshuttles, and some made suggestions about whenand where the shuttles should operate, wherestaging areas should be located, and the use of areservation system. A few individuals wereopposed to the shuttles because of the high costor making them mandatory, which they saidwould adversely affect visitor experiences.

Commenters were about evenly dividedregarding providing shuttles on the WestsideRoad. Those who supported this action said theythought it would allow more day hiking andwould let families use a part of the park theycannot enjoy now. They said it would dispersevisitors and relieve pressure at other developedareas.

People who opposed having shuttles on theWestside Road said they were concerned that theincreased use of this area would result in moreresource damage in this part of the park and saidthat the shuttles would adversely affect thewilderness experience. Some said they wereconcerned that there would be a high cost tomaintain the road and operate the shuttles andthat the road would be likely to wash out again.Some commenters said they wanted the road tobe made accessible for personal vehicles. Onenonprofit group called for studies to evaluate theimpacts on wildlife before the road could beopened to shuttles.

People who commented also were about evenlydivided on the subject of eventually closing theCarbon River Road to personal vehicles. Thosewho supported the closing recognized that theriver eventually would reclaim the roadbed, andthey said they favored being able to walkthrough the rainforest. Some said they thoughttoo much had been spent on maintaining theroad and that closing the road would positivelyaffect wildlife.

Those who opposed closing the road noted thatmany people, including families and people with


313

disabilit ies, no longer could have the specialexperience of seeing the Carbon Glacier — thisaction would make one of the park’s most popu-lar trails inaccessible to 95% of park visitors,according to some who opposed it. Closing theroad would eliminate a day use destination,which helps disperse use in the park. Manycommenters said the Park Service has not fullyinvestigated possible options to repair the roador find an alternative route around the washout.Some argued that at a minimum shuttles shouldbe provided if the road was to be closed topersonal vehicles.

Most commenters also supported the CarbonRiver boundary adjustment, seeing that it wouldhelp preserve resources and provide additionalrecreational opportunities. A few individualssaid they were opposed to the acquisition ofmore land by the National Park Service, butmany individuals and organizations said theywanted the Park Service to expand the boundarymuch farther, providing greater protection forthe ecosystem.

Most people and groups commenting on thechanges proposed for the Mowich Lake areasupported these actions. Those favoring thechanges said that providing a shuttle, closing theend of the road, and reconfiguring the camp-ground would protect the environment and im-prove the quality of the visitor experience. Afew people questioned the expense of operatinga shuttle, said that the road should be paved, oropposed closing part of the road to vehicles.

Many commenters supported the need to addressthe park’s visitor carrying capacity, but concernswere expressed about the details and how thisaction would be implemented. Some peoplerequested more information about how thecarrying capacity would be determined, how theinformation would be used, and how the publiccould get involved in determining the carryingcapacities. People asked what indicators andstandards would be selected.

TABLE 16: WRITTEN PUBLIC PREFERENCES ON SELECTED ISSUES AND TOPICS

Topic/Issue Support Oppose OtherEliminating overflowparking

Sierra Club, Cascade ChapterWashington Trails AssociationNorthwest Ecosystem Alliance3 individuals

2 individuals None

Providing shuttles Washington InteragencyCommittee on Outdoor Recr.Sierra Club, Cascade ChapterNorthwest Ecosystem Alliance31 individuals

The Mountaineers, ClimbingCommittee4 individuals

Bluewater NetworkWashington Trails Assoc.The MountaineersMount Rainier NationalPark AssociatesAmerican Alpine Club26 individuals

Shuttles on WestsideRoad

Washington Native Plant Soc.,South Sound ChapterThe Mountaineers17 individuals

Washington InteragencyComm. on Outdoor Recr.Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter.N. Cascades Conserv. CouncilNat. Parks Conserv. Asso.16 individuals

Tahoma Audubon Society8 individuals


314

Topic/Issue Support Oppose OtherClosing Carbon RiverRoad to vehicles

Washington InteragencyCommittee on Outdoor RecreationSierra Club, Cascade Chapter14 individuals

Washington Native Plant Soc.,South Sound ChapterThe Mountaineers15 individuals

3 individuals

Mowich Lakeproposal re shuttles,road changes,campground

Tahoma Audubon SocietyNorthwest Ecosystem AllianceMount Rainier Nat. Pk. AssociatesNational Parks Conserv. Asso.12 individuals

4 individuals Washington InteragencyComm. on Outdoor Recr.6 individuals

Plowing State Route410

Wapiti Woolies4 individuals

Crystal Conserv. Coalition6 individuals

2 individuals

Limiting stock use Northwest Ecosystem Alliance5 individuals

Enumclaw Trail Riders1 individual

Tacoma Wheelmen2 individuals

Prohibitingsnowmobiles

Bluewater NetworkNorth Cascades Conserv. CouncilThe MountaineersAmerican Alpine ClubNat. Parks Conserv. Association9 individuals

1 individual None

Replacing Jacksonvisitor center

Sierra Club, Cascade ChapterN. Cascades Conservation CouncilThe MountaineersMount Rainier Nat. Park Asso.23 individuals

9 individuals Tahoma Audubon SocietyNat. Parks ConservationAssociation5 individuals

Changes at Sunrise 1 individual None NoneCarbon Riverboundary adjustment

Washington Interagency Comm.on Outdoor RecreationN. Cascades Conservation CouncilNorthwest Ecosystem AllianceNat. Parks Conserv. Association12 individuals

3 individuals Washington Native PlantSoc., South Sound ChapterSierra Club, Cascade Chapt.Mount Rainier Nat. PkAsso.6 individuals


315

Commenters often expressed their opinions onoperational matters such as making changes togroup sizes, and some asked what actions mightbe taken at specific areas like T ipsoo Lake.Some were concerned about limits that might beimposed on their access to various areas. Somepeople said the plan does not adequately addressday use in heavily used areas, saying that dayusers need to be managed like climbers andbackpackers, particularly in sensitive areas likealpine and subalpine areas. Several people saidthey were concerned about solitude in the wil-derness zones and argued that social interactionsshould not be a deciding factor on whether ornot to limit use in a wilderness zone.

On other issues, most of those who commentedon overflow parking favored eliminating it . Mostpeople who commented on snowmobiling andlivestock use supported prohibiting snowmo-biling and limiting livestock use to two trails.Those who commented on plowing State Route410 were divided; slightly more people opposedplowing than favored it .

Comment letters dealt with a wide range of otherissues and topics, including park visitationlevels, air quality, the need to address ecosys-tems beyond the park’s boundary, and a varietyof operational topics such as fees, guiding versusprivate climbing party allocations, and providingmore backcountry rangers. Comments also werereceived on the management of fish stocks andother wildlife, zoning in the wilderness area,consultation with Native American tribes, andmoving concessioner commercial developmentsoutside the park.

People also commented about the use of bicy-cles, the proposed welcome centers, the use ofthe snowplay area, and developments occurringoutside of the park such as the Crystal Mountainexpansion. Other topics mentioned were theproposed changes in traffic flow to Paradise andthe use of the Longmire campground. Peoplecommented about visitor programs and inter-pretation (for example, the need to educate

visitors about geohazards) and general planningconcerns such as the high cost of the preferredalternative and how it would be funded.

MAJO R CHANGES MADEIN TH E FINAL PLAN

A number of changes from the draft plan weremade on the basis of the comments the planningteam received. The major changes that weremade during the preparation of this final plan arelisted below. The list does not include all thechanges that were made to clarify points, pro-vide additional rationale for decisions, or correctminor errors or omissions. Unless otherwisestated, all the changes below apply to thepreferred alternative.

• The nonwilderness primitive zone has beenchanged to provide for trails.

• In the “Direction for the Plan” section, newtext has been added on Native Americans,the long-term ecosystem monitoring net-work, and cooperation with timber com-panies and other landowners.

• Because it is premature to specify who, ifanybody, would be required to use theshuttles, the requirement that climbers andbackpackers take shuttles has been droppedfrom the preferred alternative and alternative3. Shuttles would be phased in, with publicinput. A transportation implementation planwould be prepared to determine the designand operation of shuttles in the park,including the use of incentives.

• To improve the quality of the visitor experi-ence and to enable people to visit who other-wise could not, the preferred alternative hasbeen changed to include the provision of awinter shuttle to Paradise.

• The Carbon River road would be kept openfor personal vehicles as long as possible. Ashuttle also would be made available.


316

Although there would be no restrictions onpersonal vehicles, high-clearance vehicleswould be recommended.

• The direction of traffic on the ParadiseValley Road would be reversed on a trialbasis. The western half of the Paradise loopwould continue to be open to two-waytraffic. The results of the test would beevaluated to determine if this change shouldbe made permanent.

• An area for stock staging would be desig-nated in the Ohanapecosh area so that stockgroups could access the LaughingwaterTrail.

• A change has been made in the proposal fora full-service Nisqually visitor center onState Route 706. Instead, it would be awelcome center and theater. It would belocated in cooperation with partners at a siteto be determined.

• The Carbon River boundary adjustment hasbeen modified to better protect the rivercorridor and better define the boundary.

• The zoning of the Longmire campgroundhas been revised to provide for picnicking inthe summer.

• The initial costs for all the alternatives havebeen changed from net to gross costs, whichincorporates costs for construction manage-ment and contingencies. Although the grosscosts are higher than the net costs in thedraft document, it is important to note thatthe cost figures are included for comparativepurposes only, and the relative differencebetween the alternatives has not changedsubstantially.

• The environmentally preferred alternativehas been identified at the end of the “Alter-natives” chapter.

• In compliance with a recently adopted NPSmanagement policy, a new section on im-pairment has been added to the end of the“Environmental Consequences” chapter.

RESPO NSES TOSUMMARIZED CO MMENTS

Introduction

This section provides responses to substantiveoral and written comments from agencies,organizations, tribes, and individuals. Eachcommenter was assigned an alphanumeric code.The letter within the code describes the affilia-tion of the commenter (agency, organization, orindividual), and the number, assigned sequen-tially, uniquely identifies the commenter. Table17 lists each commenter and the code for thatcommenter.

Written comments varied in length from lessthan a page to more than 30 pages and ranged incoverage from a single item to many subjects.Many commenters identified similar concerns.Therefore, to reduce repetition, the commentsand responses are grouped by topic. Similarcomments within each topic are summarized,with an identification of their sources, and then aresponse to each is given.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter,responses are provided only to substantivecomments. Many comments the planning teamreceived (opinions in favor of or against analternative) do not meet the criteria of sub-stantive comments, or were outside the scope ofthe General Management Plan. Although theNational Park Service values this input, we havenot responded to such comments.

Several people pointed out errors in the text.Changes were made to correct errors whereappropriate; these changes are not noted in thefollowing the summarized comments andresponses.


317

TABLE 17: IDENTIFICATION OF COMMENTERS

CommenterCommenterCode

FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Forest Service: Okanogan andWenatchee National Forests

A 1

Environmental Protection Agency A 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A 3

STATE OF WASHINGTON AGENCIES

Interagency Committee on OutdoorRecreation

B 1

Department of Transportation B 2

Office o f Archeology and Historic Preserv. B 3

LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS

City of Enumclaw C 1

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

Muckleshoot D 1

Puyallup D 2

BUSINESSES

Wapati Woolies E 1

Glacier Water Company, LLC E 2


NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Enumclaw Trail Riders F 1

Tacoma Wheelmen F 2

Tahoma Audubon Society F 3

Bluewater Network F 4

Washington Native Plant Society,

South Sound Chapter

F 5

Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter F 6

Washington Trails Association F 7

Crystal Conservation Coalition F 8

North Cascades Conservation Council F 9

Friend of the Carbon Canyon F 10

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance F 11

The Mountaineers F 12

The Mountaineers, Climbing Committee F 13

Mount Rainier National Park Associates F 14

The American Alpine Club F 15

National Parks Conservation Association F 16


318


CITIZENS

Aegerter, Bob G 89

Aiken, Jeffrey L. G 93

Alleman, Virginia and Gerald Howe G100

Allen, William F., Jr . G 9

Anderson, Valerie G106

Backus, Jo G 95

Barger, Robert M. G 52

Bartholomot, Henri D. G101

Bee, Cindy G 99

Biek, David G 27

Blanchard, Bev G 26

Boone, James L. G 10

Bourne, Andy G 44

Breit, Thomas G 43

Brooks, R. J. G 57

Brown, Steve G103

Calderon, Eric G110

Campbell, Loren G 41

Coulbourn, George I. G 29

Crandell, Perry G 86

Cubert, Betty and Pauline Kirkman G 68


Dacunto, Larry and Emilie G 7

Degerman, Eric G 92

Dehline, Steve G105

Denton, Steven G 73

Dobbs, Carolyn G 17

Dreimiller, Joe G 31

Dyer, Polly and John A. G102

Edwards, John S. G 5

Emerson, Earl G 61

Engel, Donald G 37

Engle, Helen G 32

Fabiani, Carl and Dinni G 82

Feller, Stefan G 97

First, Colleen G 67

Fluegel, Marilyn and Keith G 48

Friend, J. L. G113

Fries, Mary A. G 90

Gardner, David G109

Gatchel, Clay and Dixie G104

Gillespie, Bruce G108

Hansen, Judy G 49

Hansen, Raymond G 45


319


Harkness, Melissa G 18

Harnish, Jerry G107

Helf, Susan G 24

Henderson, Edward M., Jr. G 88

Hentges, Robert J. G 33

Holscher, Gary G 77

Horiskey, Joe and Marjorie G 63

Jacobson, Lawrence M. G 2

Johnson, Aaron G111

Jones, Michelle G 21

Keesling, Maxine G 30

Kemp, John G 55

Kohl, John M. and Karen H. G 20

Komarnitsky, Betsy G 47

Koury, Al G 85

Lally, Mark and Lisa G 13

LeFrancois, Gil G 23

Leicester, John R. G 91

Leskovar, Geraldine and John G 98

Ludtenburg, Lynn G 59

Lukins, Richard G 1

Mann, Amy G 15


McInttyre, Bob Jr. G 80

McNulty, Tim G 84

Meassick, Eva G 60

Mendenhall, John C. G112

Miles, Frank G 50

Morrison, Chuck G 87

Myers, Stuart G 66

Nelson, Eric H. and Judy A. G 65

O'Conner, K. G 14

Parker, Jerry G 12

Parlini, Flash G 75

Payne, Randell D. G 72

Perez, Jason G 19

Perez, Jason G 22

Peterson, Wilma G 64

Pirie, Ken G 46

Pratt, Clar G 78

Quinn, Kirsten A. G 51

Rasmussen, Al G 16

Ratliff, Ginny G 40

Romer, Leslie H. G 76

Russell, Tim G 83


320


Sando, David R. G 62

Sanford, Larry G 34

Scarborough, James G 36

Schaufler, Paul G. G 3

Schuller, Josef and Ruby G 79

Shafer, David G 11

Sherwood, Dennis G 35

Short, Steven G 42

Simonson, Eric G 114

Smith, Andy G 96

Smith, Pamela G 71

Spring, Ira G 81

Squires, John G 8

Stephens, Roger D. G 4

Strickland, Leslie G 39


Sullivan, Sean G 94

Sulzbacher, Stephen G 6

Titland, John A. G 74

Ulrich, Phil G 28

Walker, Scott G. G 25

Warfield, Bob G 69

Weatherly, Eugene G 116

Wilcox, John E. G 58

Wilson, Ed G 115

Winn, Norman I. G 93

Woodbury, Scott G 53

Worden, Brenda G 70

Yielding, James H. G 38

Yuaker, Barbara G 54


321

CO MMENTS AND RESPO NSES

Alternatives and Supporting Information

Comment: The plan fails to consider a fullrange of alternatives. (Sources: F3, F14, G74,G75, G78, G107)

Response: The National Park Service conducteda series of public scoping meetings to gatherpublic input and develop a range of alternatives.The range of alternatives in the General Man-agement Plan addresses the issues gatheredthrough the scoping process and complies withthe legal mandates and polices of the NationalPark Service.

Comment: The plan does not provide enoughdetail and defers future decisions to parkmanagement. (Sources: D2, G75, G78)

Response: A plan is developed to ensure thateach NPS unit has a clearly defined direction formanaging resources and visitor use. Generalmanagement plans take a long-term view,establishing the resource conditions and visitorexperience opportunities that should be achievedand maintained over time. Following the Gen-eral Management Plan, a series of implementa-tion plans (such as plans for transportation andresource management) will be prepared. Theseplans will describe how these resource condi-tions and visitor experiences will be achieved.The implementation plans, which will includegreater detail on how resources conditions andvisitor experiences will be managed, will beprepared in compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, which includes theopportunity for public review and comment.

Comment: The plan should include a definitionof “appropriate recreation” for Mount RainierNational Park. (Source: F4)

Response: The General Management Planaddresses what is “appropriate recreation” in themanagement zones established in the alterna-

tives. The “Purpose of and Need for the Action”chapter of the General Management Planincludes text that defines appropriate visitoraccess and enjoyment. The laws, regulations,and policies that guide the management of unitsin the national park system ensure that appropri-ate levels and kinds of recreation occur withinMount Rainier National Park.

Comment: The General Management Planstates that the National Park Service will“promote and foster partnerships with indi-viduals and groups.” The plan should includeguidelines for when and how partnershipagreements would be used. (Source: F4)

Response: A new section has been added to the“Direction for the Plan” section tit led “Relationswith Private and Public Organizations, Ownersof Adjacent Land, and Governmental Agencies.”That section addresses partnerships. In addition,NPS Management Policies (2001b, 1.9) provideguidance for entering into partnershipagreements.

Comment: Commenters gave recommendationsand asked questions relating to the managementzones used for specific areas of the park, such asthe Summerland Trail, Cowlitz Divide Trail, andLake James. (Sources: A1, B1, F14, G74, G75,G78)

Response: The zones in the General Manage-ment Plan reflect the desired future conditionsfor these areas, not necessarily the current uselevels of the area. The zones also reflect thereality that certain popular areas receive high uselevels. If the zones were to be changed, manypeople would be displaced to other parts of thepark. The National Park Service believes that thezones applied to these areas in the draft plan areappropriate.

Comment: Why does table 2 not show theChinook Pass facilit ies? (Source: G52)

Response: Chinook Pass facilit ies (parking,restrooms, overlook, etc.) are not within the


322

boundary of Mount Rainier National Park. Theyare on federal lands managed by the U.S. ForestService.

Comment: The plans should address staffingneeds to implement the alternatives. (Source:G4, G75, G78)

Response: The plan does address staffing needsfor implementing alternatives 2 and 3 in the“Costs and Implementation” section of thedocument.

Boundary Adjustments

Comment: The National Park Service shouldlook at expanding the boundary in other areas ofthe park, including Nisqually River Valley,White River, and Ohanapecosh. (Sources: G75,G84, G104, G107)

Response: As stated in the “Direction for thePlan” section tit led “Relations with Private andPublic Organizations, Owners of Adjacent Land,and Governmental Agencies,” the National ParkService feels it can be more effective workingwith adjacent managers to find common prac-tices that protect the park and ecosystem valuesthan just expanding the park boundary. The ParkService studied other areas adjacent to the parkand determined that only the proposed CarbonRiver addition meets the NPS criteria forboundary adjustments.

Comment: The Carbon River boundary adjust-ment should be larger than what is proposed inthe draft plan. Commenters suggested specificareas that should be incorporated into the park,such as the lands between the park and theClearwater Wilderness Area, the Chenuis Creekdrainage, and the lands south of the proposedboundary to include the road corridor. (SourcesF2, F3, F5, F6, F10, F14, G9, G35, G36, G57,G72, G74, G75, G78, G89, G105)

Response: The NPS criteria for recommendingboundary adjustments are quite strict. For

example, there must be no alternatives to directNPS management. The National Park Servicebelieves there are such alternatives (such asencouraging owners of adjacent property toadopt timber practices that protect resourcevalues), and that proposing a larger boundaryadjustment is not feasible.

Comment: The expansion of the park in theCarbon River area will have an adverse impacton elk hunters that currently use this area,because hunting is not allowed in the park.(Source: G78)

Response: The text in the “EnvironmentalConsequences” chapter has been revised toaddress this potential impact.

Comment: The proposed boundary adjustmentin Carbon River area should be reevaluated. Theboundary should be redrawn to include the entireriverbed. (Source: G75)

Response: We agree. The National Park Servicehas redrawn the boundary adjustment area tofollow the Carbon River drainage. The boundaryadjustment map has been revised.

Comment: Clarify the process used to decide onthe proposed boundary adjustment. (Source: D2)

Response: The rationale for proposing theboundary adjustment in the Carbon River area isdiscussed in appendix E of the document. Theprocess used for evaluating a park’s boundary isguided by NPS Management Policies 2001(NPS 2001b).

Carbon River Road

Comment: Carbon River Road gives people aunique opportunity for access to the CarbonGlacier. The road could be maintained throughthe use of correct road-building techniques,including armoring, constructing dikes, or build-ing the road on piers. Another alternative wouldbe to route the road to the north side of the river


323

to an existing road. (Sources: F12, G29, G34,G55, G58, G64, G75, G78, G93, G105)

Response: The National Park Service is com-mitted to keeping the road open to the public aslong as possible. The preferred alternative hasbeen revised to include establishing a shuttle onthis road and allowing private vehicles as longas possible. At some time the Park Service mayrecommend that the public traveling on the roaduse high-clearance vehicles. An evaluation ofthe Carbon River Road determined that it wasnot feasible to maintain the road in cost-effectivemanner because of the frequency and intensityof flooding. Further rerouting of the road in thisarea would be difficult because of the sensitivityof the resources in the area — designatedwilderness, endangered species, old-growthforest, and aquatic riparian systems. Reroutingthe road to an existing road on the north side ofthe Carbon River would require the replacementof a bridge (scheduled to get underway in thesummer of 2001 according to Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest representatives).However, the rerouting would not give visitorsdirect access to the Carbon Glacier.

Comment: The preferred alternative shouldconsider a shuttle on the Carbon River Road,which would continue to allow visitors access tothe Carbon River glacier. (Source: G52, G75)

Response: The preferred alternative has beenrevised to include shuttle service on the CarbonRiver Road.

Carrying Capacity

Comment: The plan lacks adequate details onthe park’s carrying capacity, such as prioritizingareas for implementation, identifying indicatorsand standards, and stating how the National ParkService will involve the public in developingindicators and standards. (Sources: B1, D2, F5,F14, F16, G74, G75, G78, G84)

Response: The General Management Plan hasestablished the carrying capacity framework andqualitatively evaluated carrying capacity, whichis an appropriate level of detail for a generalmanagement plan, according to ManagementPolicies 2001 (NPS 2001b). The National ParkService will develop indicators and standards forestablishing carrying capacities for the park, andas part of this effort will seek input from thepublic.

Comment: If visitor experience is to be used ascarrying capacity indicator, the General Man-agement Plan needs to explain how data will begathered and analyzed and how data will be usedto set carrying capacity. (Sources: F14, G74,G75, G96)

Response: As discussed above, indicators andstandards for implementing the park’s visitorcarrying capacity will be developed in the fu-ture. Data collected for carrying capacity indica-tors will be scientifically sound, meaning indi-cators will be objective, reliable, repeatable, andsensitive enough to detect change. Appendix Dcontains examples of possible indicators andstandards that may be used at the park.

Comment: The General Management Planregulates campers and climbers, but it does aninadequate job of addressing heavy day use inhigh impact areas. The plan needs to establishquotas and limits for day users, particularly insubalpine and alpine areas. (Source: G84)

Response: The plan includes a carrying capacityframework that sets the basis for managing allvisitors, including day users, in the park. Bothday and overnight use will be managed throughthe establishment of indicators and standards(see pages 71–72). Through monitoring, theNational Park Service will determine when areasof the park are being degraded by visitor use.When areas are being degraded, managementactions such as education and signs or, as a lastresort, use limits, will be implemented.


324

Comment: Please clarify how resource indi-cators and standards in the park will relate toindicators and standards being used outside thepark. (Source: D2)

Response: As the National Park Service movesforward with developing indicators and stand-ards for the park, information will be obtainedfrom other land managing agencies in theregion, such as the U.S. Forest Service. Thisinformation will help NPS employees developindicators and standards that are consistentwithin the region. However, it also should bepointed out that the standards that apply tonational parks may not be the same as those usedby other land managing agencies.

Cultural Resources

Comment: The National Historic LandmarkDistrict map in the draft document is incorrect; itshows structures that no longer exist. (Source:G75)

Response: You are correct. The map has beenrevised.

Comment: Please clarify definitions for termssuch as cultural landscapes and ethnographiclandscapes. (Source: D2)

Response: The National Park Service has astandard definition of a cultural landscapes; it isfound Director’s Order 28 (NPS 1997a): “Ageographic area, including both cultural andnatural resources and the wildlife or domesticanimals therein, associated with a historic event,activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural oraesthetic values.” There are four general kindsof cultural landscapes: historic site; historicdesigned landscape; historic vernacular land-scape; and ethnographic landscape. The last isdefined as “areas containing a variety of naturaland cultural resources that associated peopledefine as heritage resources, including plant andanimal communities, geographic features, and

structures, each with their own special localnames,”

Ecosystem Management

Comment: Mount Rainier National Park shouldwork immediately with other federal. state, andtribal partners to protect resources on an ecosys-temwide approach. Issues such as protectingwildlife habitat, air quality, viewsheds, nightsky, and watershed could be dealt with on aregional scale, not just within the park boundary.(Sources: B3, D2, F6, F9, G75, G76)

Response: As discussed in the draft plan (pages15–16), Mount Rainier National Park staff areworking with owners of adjacent property andnearby land management agencies and willcontinue to build on these relationships. The“Direction for the Plan” section has been revisedto include a discussion on working with landmanagement agencies and owners of adjacentproperty. An example of NPS efforts to workwith partners is our participation in a multi-agency effort focusing on the forest ecosystemhabitat for the northern spotted owl. This effortincludes several federal land management andregulatory agencies and the state of Washington.


Comment: References to timber harvest, log-ging, and vegetation management adjacent to thepark are consistently negative. Admittedly, someactivities degrade environmental conditions;however, many others, in particular those imple-mented under the Northwest Forest Plan, actu-ally produce long-term environmental benefits.(Source: A1)

Response: We agree. The discussion of timberlogging impacts in the “Environmental Conse-quences” chapter of the document has beenrevised.


325

Comment: The plan does not adequatelyaddress visual and visitor use impacts associatedwith development near the park boundary, suchas the expansion of the adjacent CrystalMountain ski area. (Sources: F8, G75, G100)

Response: The “Environmental Consequences”chapter has been revised to specifically note thevisual impacts of the proposed Crystal Mountainexpansion.

Comment: The plan does not adequatelyaddress direct and indirect impacts of increasedtraffic on deer and elk herds. (Source: D1)

Response: We have revised the “EnvironmentalConsequences” chapter to address the potentialfor roadkills due to increased traffic.

Jackson Visitor Center

Comment: Commenters discussed the design ofthe proposed replacement visitor center andrecommended functions that should be includedin the facility. (Source: F12, F75, G96)

Response: The proposed visitor center is in thedesign process. It will include features essentialfor a park visitor center, including an informa-tion desk, an exhibit area, an auditorium, rest-rooms, a dining facility, gift and book sales, andadministrative functions. An environmentalassessment will be prepared on the constructionof the new visitor center, and the public willhave an opportunity to review and comment onthe assessment.

Longmire Campground

Comment: The Longmire campground shouldbe opened to the public for camping during thepeak season. (Source: G45)

Response: Alternative 2 has been revised topermit the use of Longmire campground as aday use picnicking area. The area also wouldcontinue to be used as a Volunteers in Parks

camping area. However, the area is not suitablefor public camping. Access to the Longmire areafor camping is difficult because of road limita-tions, including the bridge over the NisquallyRiver. The area is in a geologic hazard area, andthe Park Service is not encouraging increasedovernight use.

Mowich Lake

Comment: Some commenters supported andsome opposed the modifications to the MowichLake area, including paving the road, parkingarrangements, a picnic area, and a campground.(Sources: C1, F3, F6, F11, F12, F14, F16, G1,G3, G23, G34, G35, G36, G52, G56, G62, G72,G74, G75, G78, G81, B82, G84, G85, G89,G94, G105)

Response: The National Park Service believesthat alternative 2 would protect the resources inthis area and improve the visitor experience.After the General Management Plan isapproved, the Park Service will work on adetailed site design and environmental assess-ment for the Mowich Lake area. At that t ime thepublic will have an opportunity to review theproposed modifications to the area and tocomment on the plan.

Comment: The Park Service should pave theentire road to Mowich Lake to provide access tothe lake for people with disabilit ies. (Source:G97)

Response: As noted previously, upon approvalof the General Management Plan the NationalPark Service will proceed with site design plan-ning for the Mowich Lake area. This processwill determine how access might be provided inaccordance with the Americans with Disabilit iesAct. It also should be noted that access to thelake for people with disabilit ies does not dependon whether or not the road is paved.

Comment: The preferred alternative indicatesthat two additional sites would be provided at


326

the Mowich Lake campground. The campingarea does not have designated sites; thus, it isunclear how two sites would be added. (Source:G75)

Response: Alternative 2 has been revised to saythat the Mowich Lake campground would havedesignated campsites. The exact number of siteswould be determined in the design process forthis area.

Comment: Table 2 indicates that Mowich Lakeroad would be zoned as “Visitor Facility”, andthe Summer Management Zone map shows theroad as “Roaded Multiuse.” Which is correct?(Source: G75)

Response: The Summer Management Zone mapwas incorrect. The map has been revised to showthe road zoned as a “Visitor Facility,” except forthe 0.5 mile from the new terminus to the lake,which is zoned “Roaded Multiuse.”

Comment: Mowich Lake road should be closedat the Paul Peak trailhead, and parking should bedeveloped at this point. This would offer visitorsaccess to a variety of areas and protect the wil-derness resources in the area. (Sources B1, G56,G81)

Response: The preferred alternative pulls theroad back 0.5 mile from the Mowich Lake toremove the resource threats discussed in theplan. Visitors still would have the opportunity toenjoy the lake. Moving the road back to PaulPeak would prevent most visitors from beingable to enjoy Mowich Lake; therefore, thataction would adversely impact many visitors’park experience.

Native Americans

Comment: The plan could adversely affectNative Americans, especially by affectingwildlife and plants that have cultural signifi-cance to the tribes. (Source: D1, D2)

Response: The National Park Service hadgovernment-to-government consultations on theplan with the Cowlitz, Muckleshoot, Nisqually,Puyallup, and Yakama Tribes. Based on theseconsultations the “Direction for the Plan” sec-tion and the “Affected Environment” chapter ofthe plan have been expanded to address concernsabout impacts on Native Americans.

Comment: The National Park Service needs toestablish better working relationships with thetribes. (Source: D1, D2)

Response: The National Park Service is cur-rently working with five federally recognizedtribes. Park staff met with all five tribes to seektheir input on the General Management Planand it has been revised on the basis of the inputreceived from these consultations. The NationalPark Service intends to maintain active consulta-tion with neighboring tribes in an effort to pro-tect mutually important cultural and naturalresources.

Comment: The National Park Service shouldconsult with tribes about identifying and pro-tecting natural and cultural resources such ascultural landscapes, wildlife habitat, watersheds,and archeological sites, and about the designa-tion of wild and scenic rivers. (Source: D1, D2)

Response: The “Direction for the Plan” sectionof this document has been expanded to include adiscussion on relationships with NativeAmericans. This section includes managementstrategies for improving relations with federallyrecognized tribes.

Comment: The plan focuses on traditionalimportance to Native Americans in the pasttense. Many of these sites are still culturallyimportant. (Source: D1, G75)

Response: After consultations with the tribes,the “Direction for the Plan” section and the“Affected Environment” chapter of the planhave been revised to recognize that sites in the


327

park have both historical and contemporaryimportance to Native Americans.

Comment: The park should involve the tribesand make use of their input about the infor-mation given to visitors on Native Americancultural history. (Source: D2)

Response: The “Direction for the Plan” sectionof the document has been expanded to include adiscussion on relationships with Native Ameri-cans. This section specifically includes a refer-ence to seeking input from the tribes on thepark’s interpretation program.

Park Advisory Board

Comment: The National Park Service shouldcreate an advisory board to provide input intopark management and help to disseminateinformation about the park. (Source: G80)

Response: The park staff currently consults witha large number of groups on a regular basis.These consultations have been very productive,and the park staff believes this allows the ParkService to hear a diversity of opinions. Further-more, advisory groups must be chartered underand satisfy the provisions of the FederalAdvisory Committee Act.

Parking

Comment: If parking was permitted only atdesignated places, it would prevent people fromparking or stopping along road shoulders. Thiswould increase visitor frustration, prevent wild-life watching and stopping for scenic views, andprevent access to cross-country areas (Source:F14, G74, G75, G89)

Response: The plan would eliminate overflowparking at parking areas, which is a separateissue from parking along road shoulders in therest of the park. Parking would be prohibited inall areas when there were public health andsafety concerns or traffic congestion. Regarding

parking at pullouts along roads, as noted on page28 of the draft plan, a study of the existing pull-outs along park roads will be prepared after thisplan is completed. This study will determine ifthe existing pullouts are adequate and in theproper places. Management action will be basedon the results of this study.

Plowing of State Routes 410 and 123

Comment: Comments were received both forand against the plowing of State Route 410 toprovide winter access to the northeastern part ofthe park. (Sources G60, G75, G91, G104)

Response: In alternative 3, the National ParkService evaluated plowing State Route 410 tothe White River entrance. The major concernsabout plowing the road are operational andsafety issues. Currently the park does not havethe equipment or personnel based at the north-east entrance to keep the road open and safe inwinter. If the road was plowed, the possibility ofavalanches could raise concerns about visitorsafety. In addition, as discussed in the section onthe environmental consequences of alternative 3,the plowing would be likely to adversely affectthe northern spotted owl, a federally listedthreatened species.

Comment: Alternative 3 should provide moredetails on the funding and resources the NationalPark Service expects from the WashingtonDepartment of Transportation (WDOT) forplowing State Route 123. (Source: B2)

Response: The preferred alternative does notcall for the plowing of State Route 123. There-fore, the Park Service is not seeking additionalsupport from WDOT.

Shuttle System

Comment: The plan lacks details on the opera-tion of the shuttle system, including the loca-tions of parking areas, hours of operations, andeconomic feasibility. (Sources: B2, F6, F9, F12,


328

F13, F14, F15, F16, G7, G14, G22, G24, G26,G30, G34, G35, G42, G43, G45, G52, G56,G58, G74, G75, G76, G77, G80, G81, G85,G88, G89, G93, G94, G96, G97, G98, G99,G101)

Response: We acknowledge that the draft planlacks these details. The intent of a general man-agement plan is to provide the overall goals andobjectives for managing the park over the next20 years. Additional planning will develop themeans of implementing these goals and objec-tives. The National Park Service has determinedthat shuttles would be the most effective way ofmanaging visitation to the park. Over the nextfew years we will develop a detailed transpor-tation implementation plan that will focus onhow a shuttle system can be managed effectivelyat Mount Rainier National Park.

Comment: The plan does not adequately assessthe impacts of implementing the shuttle system,including establishing facilit ies outside the park.(Source: B1, B2, F16, G96)

Response: We acknowledge that the plan doesnot provide these types of details. As discussedabove, the Park Service will develop an imple-mentation plan that will establish the details ofthe shuttle system. That plan will be developedin compliance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act and will fully disclose the impacts ofimplementing the shuttle system. In this planingprocess, public input will be sought.

Comment: The plan fails to fully recognize theimplications of requiring overnight backcountryusers to ride the shuttles, including the handlingof equipment and safety. Further, the ParkService should seek input from public on man-aging the shuttle system. (Sources: F6, F9, F12,F13, F15, G14, G22, G26, G34, G42, G43, G75,G77, G85, G88, G93, G94, G96, G97, G101)

Response: The National Park Service agreesthat it would be premature at this point to estab-lish a requirement that overnight backcountryusers must ride the shuttles. The preferred alter-

native has been revised to eliminate this require-ment. The detailed implementation plan for theshuttle system will determine how the systemwould operate in the most effective and efficientmanner possible. Throughout this planing pro-cess, input from the public will be sought.

Comment: The plan is not clear on how ashuttle system would protect resources andimprove the management of the backcountry.(Sources B1, G75)

Response: The shuttle system is a tool thatcould reduce parking issues in the frontcountryand move people throughout the park. Some ofthe positive benefits of a shuttle system werediscussed on page 69 of the draft document.Specific resource benefits to Mount Rainier willbe evaluated in more detail in the transportationimplementation plan. With regard to managingthe backcountry, once the shuttle system wasrunning, it would need to be factored into man-agement; the way different parts of the wilder-ness would be managed would be affected bytrailhead parking, shuttles, zoning, and thecarrying capacity. As noted on page 27 of thedraft document, the park’s wilderness manage-ment plan needs to be updated to addresspotential changes such as the shuttle system.

Comment: The National Park Service shouldimplement incentives for people to use the shut-tles or carpool to the park, such as reducing feesand incorporating interpretation into the shuttleride. (Sources: F7, F15, G30, G56, G75, G107)

Response: We agree. The use of incentives is anexcellent idea for encouraging the use of multi-passenger vehicles or using shuttles. The ParkService will explore incentives as it moves for-ward in more detailed transportation planning.

Snowmobile Use

Comment: The Park Service should continue toallow snowmobile use at Cougar Rock camp-ground, Westside Road, Mather Memorial Park-


329

way, and White River Road to White Rivercampground. (Source: G8)

Response: As discussed in the “Purpose of andNeed For the Action” chapter, the National ParkService is addressing snowmobile use at the na-tional level. This effort is to ensure that use ofsnowmobiles complies with Executive Order1989. An environmental assessment on snow-mobile use in Mount Rainier National Park hasbeen prepared and was released for public inputin March 2001. The preferred alternative in thatdocument calls for eliminating recreationalsnowmobile use in the park. This action wouldbe taken to decrease winter use conflicts, reduceimpacts on air and water quality, and decreasewinter stress on wildlife. Few snowmobilerswould be affected by this action, and otheropportunities for snowmobiling exist in theregion.

Stock Use

Comment: Alternative 2 limits the use of stockanimals to the Pacific Crest and LaughingwaterCreek trails. However, the Laughingwater Creektrailhead lacks facilit ies for stock use and thenecessary space for parking stock trailers.(Sources: F1, G52)

Response: We agree. The preferred alternativehas been revised to include the development of astaging area for stock users in the Ohanapecosharea of the park. The staging area would provideadequate space to park stock trailers. The detailsof the development would be evaluated under aseparate NEPA document.

Sunrise Lodge

Comment: The plan should address the futureof the Sunrise Lodge. The National Park Serviceshould consider the possibility of preserving thelodge. (Source: B3)

Response: Redeveloping the Sunrise area wasnot included in General Management Plan,

because the National Park Service had previ-ously prepared a Development Concept Plan /Environmental Assessment for this area. Publiccomment on that environmental assessment wassought and evaluated, and the finding of no sig-nificant impact approving the redevelopment ofthe Sunrise area was signed in November 1997.Thus, as noted on page 42, this action wasconsidered a “given” for the General Manage-ment Plan.

Comment: The National Park Service shouldreduce the development in the Sunrise area,which would reduce environmental impacts andthe cost of operating these facilit ies. (Source: F9,G104)

Response: As noted above, a DevelopmentConcept Plan / Environmental Assessment forthe Sunrise area had already been prepared.Decisions about development in that area havebeen made and were considered as “givens” forthe General Management Plan.

Traffic Flow to Paradise

Comment: Alternative 2 proposes to reverse theflow of traffic on the Paradise Valley Road dur-ing summer. This change in traffic flow mightcreate problems in safety and traffic circulation.Sources G31, G33)

Response: Alternative 2 has been revised toaddress these concerns. The Park Service wouldreroute traffic on a trial basis and then decidewhether or not to modify traffic circulation atParadise permanently.

Visitation and Visitor Experience

Comment: Commenters indicated that table 12in the draft, which shows visitor use statistics,does not support the trend of increasing visitoruse discussed in the plan. (Sources: G8, G78,G107)


330

Response: Looking back over visitation since1967, there has been an increase in visitation tothe park. The sharp increases and decreases invisitation from year to year can be attributedpartly to weather conditions. The heavy snow-pack in the winter of 1998–1999 delayed theopening of roads and trails in the park, resultingin a decrease in visitation. Likewise, the recordrainfall in 1995–1996 closed the Carbon Riverarea, delayed opening Mowich Lake, and closedportions of State Route 123, all resulting in adecrease in visitation. However, the Park Ser-vice believes that the growth in population in thePuget Sound area will result in increased visita-tion. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service com-ments on the plan (Letter A1) indicates that thatagency is experiencing an increase in visitorsfrom communities east of the Cascades, and thatthe park should expect to experience a similarincrease.

Comment: The road improvements to StateRoute 410 will result in increased traffic morevisitors stopping at the Tipsoo Lake area. Thisarea already suffers from resource impactsrelated to unregulated visitor use and increaseduse would result in further degradation.(Sources: F14, G74, G78)

Response: In response to the ongoing roadconstruction on State Route 410, the NationalPark Service will make some improvements inthe T ipsoo Lake area, including constructing acomfort station and improving the parking area.A development concept plan and environmentalassessment will be prepared for this area, andpublic comment will be sought during thisplanning effort. In addition, this Final GeneralManagement Plan indicates that the ChinookPass / T ipsoo Lake area is a high priority areafor visitor experience and resource protection.

Comment: What information does the NationalPark Service have to indicate that visitors willstop at welcome centers outside of the park?(Sources: F14, G74, G78)

Response: NPS experience across the countryhas shown that visitors want to get informationbefore arriving at a park so that they can plantheir visits better, using up-to-date information.At the welcome centers visitors will also be ableto obtain park passes and climbing and wilder-ness permits, as well as information, permits,and passes to other regional attractions (e.g.,Crystal Mountain tram rides). Visitors alreadystop at the existing Wilkeson and Enumclawstations. There is no reason to expect that theywill not stop at the welcome centers.

Comment: The National Park Service shouldconsider the Cayuse Pass area for a visitor con-tact station to greet visitors arriving from theeast.

Response: As noted on page 69 of the draft,visitor welcome centers would be establishedoutside the park. These centers would offerinformation to visitors before they entered thepark, which should help them to plan their visits.Although the specific locations of the welcomecenters have not been identified, one welcomecenter would provide information to peopletraveling on State Route 410, including CayusePass.

Comment: The park should encourage bicycleuse by opening more areas of the park and im-proving the roads for bicycling. Bicycle racksare need throughout the park. (Sources F2, F14,G52, G74, G89)

Response: Bicycles are allowed in many areasof Mount Rainer National Park, including themain park roads, Carbon River Road, WestsideRoad, and Skate Creek Road. Increasing thenumber of areas where bicycles are allowed islimited because 97% of the park is designatedwilderness, and bicycles are not a compatibleuse in designated wilderness. As shown on theNational Historic Landmark District map, mostpark roads are in the designated district. Thisdesignation limits the types of improvementsthat can be made to roads, such as adding bi-


331

cycle lanes. Bicycle racks will be added invarious areas of the park where appropriate.

Comment: The draft plan should have con-sidered the appropriateness of maintaining thesnow play area, because it is a financial drain onthe park and are not appropriate in nationalparks. (Source: F16, G75)

Response: The National Park Service did con-sider eliminating the snow play area, asdiscussed under “Alternatives and ActionsConsidered but not Evaluated Further.”Although this use does not contribute to satis-fying the purposes for which the park wasestablished, it is not inconsistent with the park’spurposes. This activity, which many peopleenjoy, has been permitted for many years andhas had a minimal impact on park resources.

Comment: The plan should consider buildingnew campgrounds. (Source: G8)

Response: The preferred alternative calls for anadditional campground in the proposed CarbonRiver boundary adjustment.

Comment: The “Affected Environment”chapter fails to identify all the existing picnicsites in the park. (Source: G75)

Response: You are correct. In the finaldocument, Falls Creek and Paul Peak have beenadded to the list .

Comment: What strategy will be implementedfor protecting park resources from theconstruction of the Foothills Rails to TrailsProject? (Source: D2)

Response: The National Park Service supportsthe development of this trail. However, the trailis proposed to end at the existing park boundary,so the trail construction should not affect parkresources. If the trail entered the park, anenvironmental compliance document would beprepared, as required under the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, and the Park Service

would consult with the tribes and otherappropriate agencies and organizations.

Westside Road

Comment: The Westside Road could be engi-neered so that it could be kept open, or it couldbe rerouted. (Source G58)

Response: The National Park Service does notbelieve that a road can be engineered to with-stand a glacial outburst. Under the preferredalternative, visitors could go to the area via ashuttle. This would eliminate the potential forprivate vehicles to become stranded on that road.An environmental assessment prepared for theWestside Road considered rerouting the road,but the idea was rejected because it is in desig-nated wilderness and is part of the nationalhistoric landmark district.

Comment: The Westside Road should beremoved and the area should be restored tonatural conditions. Allowing private vehicles orshuttles to use the road would result in impactson wildlife, special status species, air quality,and water quality. (Sources F9, F16, G62, G72,G73)

Response: In the past, the Westside Roadallowed visitors to reach many scenic parts ofthe park. It is still used for hiking and bicycling.Removing the road would eliminate an oppor-tunity for many visitors to enjoy the park (whichwould be contrary to the park’s purposes andmission goals) and would increase crowding inother parts of the park. Its removal also wouldadversely impact the national historic landmarkdistrict, a valuable cultural resource. TheNational Park Service believes that offeringshuttle service on the Westside Road wouldenable people to visit this part of the park whootherwise might not be able to do so, and theresource impacts would be negligible to minor.

Comment: Operating a shuttle on the WestsideRoad would be impractical because of low


332

demand and the probability of a washout.(Source: G56)

Response: We acknowledge that a washoutcould occur in the future, but there is no way topredict when this might happen. In the interim,the National Park Service believes that therewould be high interest in the shuttle, given pastuse of this area. As noted in alternative 2,continuing shuttle service on the Westside Roadwould be reexamined if a large stretch of theroad was destroyed.

Comment: If the Westside Road canaccommodate shuttles, then private vehiclesshould be allowed. (Source: G75)

Response: If the road was open to private ve-hicles, a washout would be likely to strandseveral cars, presenting operational and safetyissues. Shuttle passengers could be evacuatedmore easily, and the shuttles could remain abovethe washout for several weeks or more. In addi-tion, as noted on page 98 of the draft document,repairing and maintaining the road for privatevehicles would be more costly, and many usersenjoy not encountering motor vehicles on theroad. Furthermore, as noted in the “Environ-mental Consequences” chapter, the potential forresource impacts would be higher if the roadwas open to private vehicles than if it wasrestricted to shuttles.

Wilderness

Comment: The administrative designation ofpart of the Mount Rainier National HistoricLandmark District within designated wildernessis not contrary to the Wilderness Act. However,the Park Service must not view the existence ofthe national historic landmark as in any waylowering the standards that protect wilderness.(Source: F16)

Response: The Park Service agrees that thedesignation of the Mount Rainier National His-toric Landmark District does not lower thestandards for protecting the wilderness. TheGeneral Management Plan will help protectboth the wilderness and the district. NPSguidelines (NPS 1999f) state that historicproperties within wilderness will be protectedand maintained according to the pertinent lawsand policies governing cultural resources, usingmanagement methods that are consistent withpreservation of wilderness character and values.

AGENCY, TRIBAL, ANDO RGANIZATIO N LETTERS

The comment letters from federal, state, andlocal agencies, tribes and private organizationsare reproduced in this section.


333

(blank)


334

[agency and org. letters go for 48 pages.next divider becomes p. 383]

Appendixes / Bibliography /Preparers / Index

335

APPENDIXES

BIBLIOGRAPHY / PREPARERS /INDEX

384

(blank back)

385

APPENDIX A: MO UNT RAINIER LEGISLATIO N

The following federal and state laws are included inthis appendix.

• An Act To set aside a portion of cert ain lands inthe State of Washington, now know as thePaci fic Forest Reserve,” as a public park to beknown as “ Mount Rainier National Park,”approved March 2, 1899 (30 Stat. 993).

• Act of Legislature of Washington, approvedMarch 16, 1901, ceding to the United Statesexclusive jurisdiction over Mount RainierNational Park in the State of Washington (Lawsof Washington, 1901, p. 192).

• An Act to accept the cession by the State ofWashington of exclusive jurisdiction over thelands embraced within the Mount RainierNational Park, and for other purposes, approvedJune 30, 1916 (39 Stat. 243).

• Excerpt from “ An Act Making appropriationsfor sundry civil expenses of the Government forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, and forother purposes,” approved May 27, 1908 (35Stat. 365). (Amends Sec. 5, 30 Stat. 993.)

• Excerpt from “ An Act Making appropriationsfor sundry civil expenses of the Government forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, and forother purposes,” approved June 12, 1917 (40Stat. 152).

• An Act To revise the boundary of the MountRainier National Park in the State ofWashington, and for other purposes, approvedMay 28, 1926 (44 Stat. 668).

• Excerpt from “ An Act To provide for uni formadministration of the national parks by the UnitedStates Department of the Interior, and for otherpurposes,” approved January 26, 1931 (46 Stat.1044).

• An Act To extend the south and east boundaries ofthe Mount Rainier National Park, in the State ofWashington, and for other purposes, approvedJanuary 31, 1931 (46 Stat. 1047).

• An Act Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior toacquire on behal f of the United States Governmentall property and facilities of the Rainier NationalPark Company, approved September 21, 1950 (64Stat. 895).

• An Act Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior toacquire on behal f of the United States Governmentall property and facilities of the Rainier NationalPark company, approved September 21, 1950 (64Stat. 895).

• An Act To authorize the Secretary of the Interior toprovide a headquarter site for Mount RainierNational Park in the general vicinity of Ashford,Washington, and for other purposes, approved June27, 1960 (74 Stat. 219).

APPENDIXES

386

p. 1 of 11 pp of legislation

Appendix A: Mount Rainier Legislation

387


APPENDIXES

388



389


APPENDIXES

390



391


APPENDIXES

392



393


APPENDIXES

394

p.9 of 11 pp of legislation


395


APPENDIXES

396

p. 11 of 11 pp of legislation x

397

APPENDIX B: O THER PLANNING EFFO RTS

Several plans have influenced or would be influ-enced by the approved General Management Planfor Mount Rainier. These plans have been preparedby the National Park Service, the U.S. ForestService, regional and county agencies, and sitedevelopers. Some of these plans are describedbriefly in this appendix.

OTHER NATIONAL PARKSERVICE PLANS

Mount Rainier Master Plan (1974)

Mount Rainier National Park’s 1974 Master Plan setthe general direction for the park from the 1970sthrough the present. The plan established directionfor the major visitor activity centers at Paradise,Sunrise, Longmire and guided the park’s interpretiveprograms. It set the general direction for resourcemanagement (such as maintaining the subalpinewildflower fields and meadow), it zoned the parkinto five different classes, and it proposed severalboundary adjustments. The plan noted that it is notpossible to accommodate the large numbers ofvehicles that come to the Paradise area and said thatincreasing parking lot size would compoundproblems, resulting in unacceptable impacts onresources and visitor experiences.

The Master Plan recommended that the parkconsider alternative methods of transporting peopleto Paradise and Sunrise and called for cooperationwith private, local, and regional groups and otherpublic agencies. It contained recommendations thatmany administrative operations at Longmire bemoved to Tahoma Woods.

“Statement for Management” (1988b)

The “Statement for Management” for Mount RainierNational Park classifi ed the park into four zones,which are described under the no-action alternative(continue current management) in this document.Four major resource issues were identi fied: humanimpacts on park ecosystems above 7,000 feet; themanagement of human wastes in the subalpine zone;human impacts on ecosystems below 7,000 feet(primarily high country trails and alpine meadowareas); and the protection of park natural resourcesfrom external threats. The “Statement for Manage-

ment” noted that weekend crowds were impossible forsome areas to handle: campgrounds, picnic areas, park-ing areas, and some roads. The document also said thatdesign capacity is overloaded about 10% of the timeduring summer and frequently on winter weekends.

“Paradise Meadow Plan” (1989b)

The “Paradise Meadow Plan” dealt with visitor useimpacts in this popular area, documented the extent ofhuman impacts, and presented guidelines for revege-tating and protecting the area. It recommended changesfor the maintained trail system, identified five-yearrevegetation goals, and proposed the approval of addi-tional rest areas, interpretive exhibits, barriers, andsigns. The plan recommended that park rangers “ rove”the area to help reduce resource impacts, called forcontinued monitoring of the area, and recommendedthat winter camping and the use of winter trails shouldbe allowed only when snow accumulation exceeded 5feet.

Wilderness Management Plan (1992c)

Mount Rainier’s Wilderness Management Plan setmanagement goals and objectives for the wildernessarea, established management zones, classifi ed thewilderness area according to these zones, and estab-lished the limits of acceptable change for wildernessresource and social conditions through indicators andstandards. It also set the standards for administrative useand for managing the wilderness (including structures inthe wilderness, research, the use of watercraft, groupand party size, and camping restrictions). After theGeneral Management Plan is approved, the WildernessManagement Plan will be updated to be consistent withthe directions in the approved General ManagementPlan pertaining to new zones, zone allocations,indicators and standards, and visitor use regulations.

Sunrise Development Concept Plan /Environmental Assessment (1992b)

The 1992 Sunrise Development Concept Plan / Environ-mental Assessment and the 1997 Finding of No Signifi-cant Impact called for several actions to protectresources and improve visitor services in the Sunrisearea. The parking lot was to be redesigned to provide214 auto spaces, 10 pull-through recreational vehicle

APPENDIXES

398

(RV) spaces, and 4 bus spaces. The plan also calledfor removing the Sunrise Lodge and constructing anew ranger station and concession facility on thesame site.

Collections Management Plan (1994b)

The Collections Management Plan for MountRainier National Park is a specialized planningdocument designed to help the park administer themuseum collections. It contains specific recom-mendations for actions to be taken to improve thecollection. The 1994 plan confirmed that none of thepark’s exhibits met NPS standards for the preserva-tion and security of museum objects and recom-mended constructing a new curatorial storagefacility. It also recommended establishing specifiedpark funding and adding more seasonal, term, orpermanent positions to ensure the proper man-agement of park resources into the future.

Natural and Cultural ResourceManagement Plan (1999e)

The Natural and Cultural Resource ManagementPlan for Mount Rainier National Park tiers off thelong-term goals identified in legal mandates, otherpark plans, and NPS policies. Intended to describehow long-term resource goals will be achieved inMount Rainier, this plan provides a working founda-tion for resource management actions in the park. Itgives an overview of the status of the park’s naturaland cultural resources, describes current natural andcultural resource management programs and needs,and establishes criteria for prioritizing natural andcultural resource management projects. It alsoidentifies more than 150 speci fic projects andactions that will be taken to address the park’s mostimportant resource problems and research needs.This plan will be revised as needed to incorporatethe management directions provided by the GeneralManagement Plan.

Fire Management Plan

A collaborative fire management plan would be pre-pared between the park and other land managementagenci es. Eventually, the park staff would worktoward developing a joint fire management planwith land management agencies on its boundary.This collaborative plan would ensure coordinatedfire management across the principal U.S. Forest

Service / National Park Service boundary. Other sur-rounding national forests, including the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and the Wenatchee National Forests, wouldalso be part of the process. Based on fire history,topography, and other issues, the plan would identifyfire management units throughout the park and wouldaddress wildland fire for resource benefits, suppression,mechanical hazard fuel reduction, prescribed fi re, andother alternatives for the park’s fire managementprogram.

A Strategic Plan For Mount RainierNational Park 2000–2005 (2000b)

The Strategic Plan was intended to serve as a frame-work for other planning efforts. It set strategic objec-tives and goals and identified management actionsregarding resource stewardship, access, enjoyment,education, and interpretation, as well as actions forleadership, science and research, and professionalism.The plan also established priorities for allocating re-sources and assets to address natural and culturalresource problems, as well as a frame of reference forbudget and short-range operating plans. It called for theimplementation of a program to protect resources andenhance the visitor experience in wilderness and non-wilderness. It also called for inventorying and moni-toring impacts on wilderness resources and developingpartnerships with adjacent U.S. Forest Service wilder-ness managers. It also recommended reducing crowdingin the wilderness by limiting trailhead parking andadvocat ed, preparing a plan to provide for alternativeforms of transport ation and developing avolcanic/geologic hazards contingency plan.

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan (in progress)

The goal of the “Comprehensive Interpretive Plan” is todevelop a cost-effective, focused, high-quality parkinterpretive program for all audiences. The foundationof this plan is a long-range interpretive plan thataddresses themes and goals of the interpretive program;identifies the need for nonpersonal services, staffing,research, and partnerships; and outlines an annualimplementation plan. The “Long-Range InterpretivePlan,” a component of the “ Comprehensive InterpretivePlan,” was completed in 2000 (NPS 2000a). The “ Long-Range Interpretive Plan” calls for improving existinginterpretive exhibits and media throughout the park.This plan recommends renovating outdated exhibits andmedia at the Longmire museum, at the Paradise

Appendix B: Other Planning Efforts

399

Ohanapecosh, and Sunrise visitor centers, and atother visitor information facilities throughout thepark to convey the park’s purpose and significanceand resource protection messages more effectively.The implementation of the highest priority projectsis underway. The “Long Range Interpretive Plan,”which will be updated according to the directionprovided by the General Management Plan, alongwith corresponding tiered interpretive planningdocuments, will provide the detail needed to put anynew visitor information and interpretationrecommendations into action.

Mount Rainier Road CorridorStudies (Ongoing)

The Federal Lands Highway Program, through theTransportation Endowment Act of the 21st Century(TEA-21), funded several Mount Rainier roadcorridor transport ation planning projects, whichcover all road corridors leading to the park. Theseprojects are administered by the National ParkService’s Alternative Transportation PlanningProgram, an NPS-wide initiative to address trans-portation issues and explore transportation options inand around national parks. They involve manystakeholders, including multiple agencies, tribalinvolvement, counties, local community members,and business interests.

Speci fically, these corridor studies use the charetteprocess, a high-energy, intensive, focused effort, toinitially explore partnerships for meeting trans-portation needs in parks and gateway communities.The studies are intended to be consistent withagency, regional, county, and other local planningefforts. They attempt to further these efforts byhighlighting key plan components and stakeholderinitiatives, using transportation planning as a meansto knit these components together.

There is a need at Mount Rainier National Park toalleviate traffi c congestion during summer peak useperiods. Gateway communities are interested inencouraging appropriate levels and kinds of tourismbut are concerned about jeopardizing the quality oflife. A two-part strategy was developed to addressthese concerns: alternative multimodal transporta-tion and shuttle system concepts would be exploredin partnership with other agencies and interests. Alsoto be explored would be opportunities to enhanceexisting or create new recreational opportunities in a

larger region so that visitation would be dispersed andcongestion avoided in any given area.

Commercial Services Plan

The purpose of the commercial services plan will be toestablish a process for determining what types andlevels of commercial activities are necessary and appro-priate for Mount Rainier National Park. This plan willserve as a comprehensive guide for managing commer-cial services in the park for five to ten years, and it willaddress in more detail decisions about commercialactivities proposed in the approved General Manage-ment Plan. Commercial activities that will be managedby this plan are contracts, commercial use authoriza-tions, and special use permits for activities such asguiding and instructional services, commercial filming,weddings, festivals, and other special events.

OTHER FEDERAL, REGIONAL,AND LOCAL PLANS

Northwest Forest Plan (1994b)

The Record of Decision for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of Land Management PlanningDocuments within the Range of the Northern SpottedOwl: Standards and Guidelines for Management ofHabitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth ForestRelated Species within the Range of the NorthernSpotted Owl, commonly referred to the NorthwestForest Plan (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of LandManagement 1994b), consists of strategies for forestmanagement, economic development, and agencycoordination. The plan amends the forest managementplans for 19 forests, including those that border MountRainier National Park. The forest lands surroundingMount Rainier are managed in accordance with pro-visions of the Northwest Forest Plan, including thepreservation and management of old-growth forests.Coordination between National Park Service and U.S.Forest Service personnel is required to ensure that themanagement of land use is compatible at the watershedand physiographic province level.

The Northwest Forest Plan establishes several landmanagement cat egories. Lands reserved by an act ofCongress for speci fic land allocation purposes, such asMount Rainier National Park and wilderness areasbordering the park, are cat egorized as “ congressionallyreserved areas.” The Northwest Forest Plan does notaffect the management of congressionally reserved

APPENDIXES

400

areas, and this General Management Plan does notalter any of these congressionally mandated landallocations.

Two categories that allow for timber harvest at somelevel and lie adjacent to the park are late succession-al reserves and matrix lands.

• Most nonwilderness national forest landsbordering the park are in late successionalreserves (LSRs). These areas are managed overthe long term to maintain a functional, inter-active, late-successional and old-growth forestecosystem and to provide habitat for relatedspecies, including the northern spotted owl.Although certain thinning and silviculturalpractices are allowed, they can be practiced onlyin stands up to 80 years of age and only if thetreatments would be beneficial to creating andmaintaining late-successional forest conditions.Salvage activities also are allowed if they wouldhave either a beneficial or a neutral effect.

• Matrix lands are national forest areas wheremost commercial timber harvest and other silvi-cultural activities take place. Forested and non-forested areas that may be technically unsuitedfor timber production are not included. Matrixlands are scattered on land managed by the U.S.Forest Service along or near the southwest,northwest, and northeast corners of the park andadjacent to the Mather Memorial Parkway.

Wenatchee National Forest Land andResource Management Plan (1990),as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan

The Land and Resource Management Plan forWenatchee National Forest proposes implementingthe following management strategi es: (a) establish aspotted owl network, (b) evaluate roadless areas forpermanent status, (c) evaluate and recommendappropriat e rivers for inclusion in the national wildand scenic rivers system, and (d) maintain andmoderately increase the acreage for recreationalopportunities.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land andResource Management Plan (1990),as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan

The Land and Resource Management Plan for Gi ffordPinchot National Forest proposes the following actions:(a) maintain harvest levels that are sustainable over thelong term while protecting aquatic and late-successionalforest resources, (b) maintain or improve wildlife habi-tat, especially for speci es associated with late-successional forests, (c) maintain and enhance aquatichabitats, (d) moderately increase motorized and nonmo-torized recreational opportunities, (e) evaluate andrecommend appropriate rivers to be included in thenational wild and scenic rivers system, and (f) protectscenic quality, views, and viewsheds.

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National ForestLand and Resource Management Plan (1990),as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan

The Land and Resource Management Plan for MountBaker-Snoqualmie National Forest established landallocations and management goals and objectives for thenational forest system lands surrounding the northernportion of Mount Rainier National Park. The areaincludes the Clearwater Wilderness and parts of theNorse Peak Wilderness, which are managed to preservethe wilderness character for the use and enjoyment ofvisitors, in a manner consistent with the Wilderness Actof 1964 The area now managed for wilderness is desig-nated as a late successional reserve (providing habitatfor late-succession and old-growth related plant andanimal species, including the northern spotted owl).

Pierce County Comprehensive Plan (1999a)

The land use element of the 1994 Pierce CountyComprehensive Plan describes an urban growthboundary encompassing one-third of the county,generally surrounding the Puget Sound area. Lessintensely settled outlying areas (rural, resource, openspace, and government lands) would comprise the othertwo-thirds of the county. Two objectives of the plan areto retain the rural character and activities in these outly-ing areas and to avoid the fragmentation or subdivisionof farmlands and open spaces. Most of the land sur-rounding the park is designated as forestland, as part ofthe land use element of the plan. Lands surroundingWashington Highway 706 and bordering the Nisquallyentrance are zoned to as rural 10, which allows a densityof one residential unit per 10 acres, with a maximum of

Appendix B: Other Planning Efforts

401

2.5 units per 10 acres if 75% of the site is designatedas open space (see the amendment to the UpperNisqually Community Plan, below.)

Lewis County ComprehensiveLand Use Plan (1999)

All lands near Mount Rainier’s southern boundaryare designated as natural resource areas in the cur-rent Comprehensive Land Use Plan for LewisCounty. This land use designation is given to con-tinuous forestlands with at least 5,000 acres. Onecounty policy states that any land use activities in ornear lands with resource natural area designationshould be sited and designed to minimize conflictswith resource management and other activities.However, the primary uses for natural resource landsare commercial timber production, mineral resourceextraction, recreation, watershed, wildlife, viewshed,utility sites, and lines, and electronic andcommunication facilities.

King County Comprehensive Plan 2000

The “ Executive Recommended” King CountyComprehensive Plan 2000 is the first significantrevision of the plan since its adoption in 1994. Theplan advances these main themes: (a) creatinglivable communities, (b) linking land use andtransportation, (c) maintaining the rural legacy, and(d) protecting the environment. In addition, the planinitiates policy changes that may be required underthe Endangered Speci es Act. The ComprehensivePlan guides land use and development throughoutthe unincorporated portions of King County.

Protecting a rural way-of-life in King County is amajor tenet of the plan. Conserving King County’srural and natural resource lands is integral to pro-viding diversity in lifestyle choices, continuingfarming and forest economies, protecting environ-mental quality and wildlife habitat, and maintaininga link to King County’s resource-based heritage.

Under the environmental chapter of the plan, KingCounty pledges to continue to work closely withother jurisdictions, federal and state agencies, tribes,interest groups, special districts and citizens; toprotect and conserve the natural environment; tosave salmon; and to maintain the quality of life.

Although none of the Mount Rainier National Park is inKing County, south King County is less than 15 milesfrom the north boundary of the park. Consequently, thecorridors of State Routes 410, 164, 169, and 165 leadthrough King County to the park’s northeast and north-west areas and influence the experi ence of park visitors.Therefore, King County planning is relevant to the park.

Yakima County Plan 2015 (1998)

Most of the land in the western part of Yakima Countyis designated as a forest resource in the Yakima CountyPlan 2015. The goals for forest resource land are topreserve, stabilize, and enhance the primary forest landbase, which is being used for, or offers the greatestpotential for, the continued production of forestproducts and harvesting. Some areas along State Route410, about 25 miles east of Mount Rainier, have beendesignated as “ rural self-suffici ent” and “ rural remote.”These designations are intended to maintain a ruralatmosphere by encouraging low residential densities,reducing the potential for sprawl, and retaining largeopen spaces.

Nisqually River Management Plan (1987)

The Nisqually River Management Plan recognizes theunique cultural, historical, environmental, and economicresources of the Nisqually River basin and is more astewardship or protection plan than an action plan. TheNisqually River Council and its Citizens AdvisoryCouncil include individuals representing the interests offederal, state, and local government entities (includingMount Rainier National Park), agriculture, forestry, theNisqually Indian Tribe, other property owners, andenvironmentalists. Working together, they seek ways toprotect and enhance the river basin through collabora-tion, advocacy, and education.

Lower Puyallup Watershed Action Plan

The Lower Puyallup Watershed Action Plan is an effortto solve problems of nonpoint water pollution in theLower Puyallup River subdrainage watershed. Thewatershed covers a 117,000-acre area, which includesland from Buckley to Commencement Bay and southKing County to Orting. The plan area includes morethan a dozen cities and towns and more than 200,000residents with many diverse interests.

At the headwaters of the Puyallup River (as well as theWhite and Carbon Rivers that confluence with the

APPENDIXES

402

Puyallup), Mount Rainier National Park is involvedwith other federal, state, and local government enti-ties, agriculture, forestry, the Puyallup and Muckle-shoot Indian Tribes, other property owners, andenvironmentalists in working together to seek waysto protect and enhance the river basin throughcollaboration, advocacy and education.

Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan (2000)

The Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan is anamendment to the Pierce County ComprehensivePlan. The final supplemental environmental impactstatement was approved on January 1, 2000. Thisplan applies to land adjacent to the park’s southwestboundary, including the gateway communities ofAlder, Elbe, and Ashford. The plan sets forth plan-ning and land use policies and alternative growthscenarios to direct future land use decisions in theUpper Nisqually area. It outlines several elementsand visions for the area to protect critical areas andpreserve natural vegetation, to direct growth intocommunity-planned centers and maintain the ruralcharacter of the valley, to diversify the economicbase and promote tourism, to promote historicpreservation and the preservation of views and view-sheds, and to provide the basic facilities needed tomaintain the whole system. Coordination betweenNational Park Service and community plan officialsis underway to ensure that any impacts on parkresources are minimized and that visitor needs(beyond what the park can provide) are accommo-dated through gateway services.

Chinook Byways Corridor Planning andManagement Guidebook and Action Plan

The Chinook Byways Corridor Planning andManagement Guidebook covers the segment of StateRoute 410 that extends from east of Enumclaw tothe beginning of the Mather Memorial Parkway.This part of the highway runs through both publicand private forestlands, as well as through thehistoric community of Greenwater. This corridorplan meets the following objectives (among others):

• to provide guidance for solving existingproblems along the corridor

• to describe existing conditions and intrinsicqualities

• to provide a starting point for future corridorplanning, management, and implementation

• to serve as a community-based planning documentthat broadly and generally addresses diverseinterests throughout the corridor.

An action plan outlines projects, programs, strategies,and ideas for achieving the vision for the corridor.Benefits of the action plan include preserving andenhancing intrinsic qualities, improving road safety,balancing the needs of corridor users, promoting andmarketing the corridor, and preserving and enhancingthe visitor's experience.

In 1998 the Mather Memorial Parkway, along with therest of State Route 410 from Enumclaw to Naches(approximately 93 miles), was designated an “ AllAmerican Road” within the national scenic bywaysprogram because of its significant natural, scenic,recreational, and cultural resource values. With thisrecent designation, a committee is being organized toincorporat e the Chinook Byway, Mather MemorialParkway, and the section of State Route 410 fromCliffdal e to Naches into a single management planningeffort for an “ All-American Road” comprehensivecorridor.

Foothills Rails To Trails Project

Pierce County has partially completed the FoothillsTrail along the Carbon and Puyallup Rivers. The trail isdesigned to be a 26-mile segment of Pierce County's“ Nisqually Delta/Mount Rainier Trail Master Plan,”which was developed in 1989. The Foothills Trailsegment will connect the towns of McMillin, Orting,South Prairie, Buckley, Wilkeson, and Carbonado. Theproposed 9-mile Mount Rainier extension will lead tothe northwest corner of Mount Rainier National Park, atits Carbon River entrance. The trail also will provide aprotective greenway along major stretches of both riversin one of the fastest growing regions of the country.

APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTIO NS O F THE PARK MANAG EMENT ZO NES

TABLE C-1: WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT ZONES

Zone SummaryNatural Resource

ConditionsCultural Resource

Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresResearch Natural Area Zone

This zone would be an unmodi-fied landscape where unim-peded natural processes couldproceed, significant culturalresources would be preserved,focus on baseline ecologicalresearch; no visitor impacts;research and monitoring de-vices might be evident; fewvisible signs of human use, andaccess only for approvedresearch and education.

In general there would be novisible signs of human use;natural ecological functions,components, and processeswould not be influenced byrecreational use; some user-developed routes might existfor access to research andstudy areas; permits requiredfor research use and forassociated camping.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the Interior’sStandards and NPS policy;significant cultural resour-ces that might be preservedare prehistoric and historicarcheological sites andethnographic resources; per-mits required for researchuse and associated camping.

Because this zone would be designated forresearch, no recreational visitor use wouldbe permitted, but offsite interpretation andeducation might be available.

No permanent administrative orvisitor use facilities in this zone; notrails of any kind; research or moni-toring devices might be evident.

Pristine ZoneThis zone would be a land-scape where unimpedednatural processes could pro-ceed, signs of human useminimal; significant culturalresources would be preserved;no maintained trails, travelprimarily cross-country,abundant opportunities forsolitude; high degree of self-reliance needed to enjoy theseareas.

Natural ecological functions,components, and processeswould be minimally influ-enced by recreational use;natural landscape unmodified,with the only possible excep-tion being significant culturalresource structures.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the Interior’sStandards and NPS policy;significant cultural resour-ces that might be preservedare prehistoric and historicarcheological sites andethnographic resources.

Visitors might experience a high sense ofadventure and exploration; plentiful oppor-tunities for solitude; few chances of meetingpark staff or other visitors; activities woulddepend on cross-country foot travel; day andovernight party size limited; no designatedcampsites or marked trails; permits requiredfor dispersed camping, adherence to LeaveNo Trace standards required (no campingwithin 100 feet of surface water); no onsiteinterpretation or signs, but offsite interpre-tation and education encouraged; few op-portunities to learn more about park re-sources because little area-specific informa-tion from park and commercial publications,low potential for contacts with otherpeople;. high amount of outdoor skillneeded; level of risk high because trails andother people not present.

No designated campsites wouldexist; marked routes (trails, blazes,cairns, signs) generally would not bepresent, but unmaintained, con-structed trails might be present;temporary wanding would be per-mitted on snow for resource pro-tection and safety reasons; use ofresearch equipment and monitoringdevices might be allowed; signifi-cant cultural resource structures alsomight be present.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresPrimitive Zone

Zone would be a nearly un-modified landscape withnatural processes unimpededand significant cultural re-sources preserved; subtle signsof human use might be presentin parts of zone because waytrails would continue to becreated and used and camp-sites designated; opportunitiesfor solitude high, travel stillprimarily cross-country, butencounters with people morelikely than in pristine zone;visitors would feel apart fromother people in wilderness butnot entirely alone; high degreeof self-reliance needed toenjoy these areas.

Natural ecological functions,components, and processeswould not be influenced byrecreational use except for afew minimal modifications tohydrology, plants, and soils inlocalized areas resulting fromsignificant cultural resourcesand a few hiker-created travelroutes and campsites.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent with Sec-retary of the Interior’sStandards and NPS policy;significant cultural resour-ces that might be preservedare prehistoric and historicarcheological sites andethnographic resources.

Visitors might have a moderate sense ofadventure and exploration; opportunities forsolitude common; some possibility to en-counter other people and some signs ofhuman use (more than in pristine zone),visitors might feel apart but not alone; mostactivities would depend on cross-countryfoot travel; permit needed for dispersedcamping, also adherence to Leave No Tracestandards (no camping within � miles of anytrail or 100 feet of surface water); a fewdesignated campsites might be present insensitive alpine areas; size of day and over-night parties limited; some way trails; noonsite interpretation or signs, but offsiteinterpretation and education offered; goodoutdoor skills needed but not as much as inpristine zone because some user-createdroutes and more chance of meeting others.

Same as in pristine zone exceptpossibly a few designated campsitesto protect sensitive areas; someprimitive routes (way trails) andunmaintained constructed trailsmight exist, but no maintainedmarkers such as signs, blazes, orcairns.

Semiprimitive Trail ZoneZone mostly a nearly unmodi-fied landscape with naturalprocesses unimpeded and sig-nificant cultural resources pre-served; visitors could enjoywilderness hiking with a mod-erate potential for social inter-action; moderately maintainedtrails in narrow (4 feet) corri-dors with associated signs,thus highly modified; possiblyother visitor and administra-tive structures such as trailsidecamps.

Natural ecological functions,components, and processeswould not be influenced byrecreational use except in aminor part of this zone;natural conditions intention-ally modified in areas withintrail corridors and arounddesignated campsites; zoneabout 0.5 mile wide to allowfor rerouting trails if requiredby changes in natural con-ditions such as floods ormajor windthrow.

Cultural resources wouldpreserved consistent withSecretary of the Interior’sStandards and NPS policy;preservation, rehabilitation,or restoration used to main-tain significant culturalresources such as patrolcabins, fire lookouts, trailshelters, historic trails, andother cultural landscapefeatures; routine or regularadministrative use would bemade of some cultural re-sources, such as patrolcabins; other culturalresources, such as trailshelters, might be usedintermittently by visitors.

Visitors could sense adventure and explora-tion; signs of human use and structuresreadily apparent in localized areas; travel onfoot along user-developed and maintainedtrails, with people widely dispersed; oppor-tunities for solitude relatively common butinterspersed with opportunities for socialinteraction; size of day and overnight partieslimited; permit needed to camp in desig-nated camps (with marked campsites) wherea moderate number of people might beencountered; (few opportunities to campapart from others in peak periods); no onsiteinterpretation and education offered, butsigns on trails and in camps would givemiles, direction, warnings, and resourceprotection data; offsite interpretation andeducation offered; visitors could understandand appreciate cultural landscape;knowledge and skills needed lower than inpristine and primitive zones because moretrails and more people.

Moderately maintained trail(s) in 4-foot corridors; associated trail struc-tures like culverts, bridges, and turn-piking might be present; signs ontrails, in camps, at trailheads andtrail junctions would give miles,direction, warnings, resource pro-tection information; designatedroutes and user-developed trailsmarked or flagged for safety; un-maintained constructed trails mightbe present; temporary wanding onsnow permitted to protect resourcesor for safety; dispersed wildernesscampgrounds (trailside camps) withdesignated campsites available; pos-sibly other structures allowed by theWilderness Act, such as primitivetoilets, patrol cabins, shelters, firelookouts, and radio repeaters;research equipment and monitoringdevices might be allowed; essentialadministrative or minor utilitysystems might be present.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresTransition Trail Zone

Zone mostly a nearly unmodi-fied landscape with naturalprocesses unimpeded and sig-nificant cultural resources pre-served; visitors could enjoywilderness hiking with a highpotential for social interaction;development same as in semi-primitive zone; but more evi-dence of human use; well-maintained trails in 8-foot cor-ridors, thus highly modified.

Same as semiprimitive zone,except natural ecologicalfunctions, components, andprocesses intentionallymodified, influenced byrecreation in a larger area;zone about 0.5 mile wide toallow for rerouting trails ifrequired by changes in naturalconditions such as floods ormajor windthrow.

Same as semiprimitivezone.

Same as semiprimitive zone except fornumber of people that might be en-countered; opportunities for solitudeuncommon, and many opportunities forsocial interaction; in designated campschance of encountering many people;visitors widely dispersed or concentratedalong well-maintained trails.

Same facilities as semiprimitivezone might be permitted, exceptpossibly more trailside camps andtrails dispersed through zone;campsites might be more closelyspaced.

Moderate Use Climbing ZoneZone mostly a nearly unmodi-fied landscape with naturalprocesses unimpeded and sig-nificant cultural resources pre-served; few visible signs ofhuman use except for a fewclimbing routes and desig-nated campsites, other wilder-ness-appropriate structures;visitor experience orientedtoward mountaineering, low tomoderate potential for socialinteraction; although disperseduse would be prevalent, thereoften would be a delineatedroute toward summit.

Recreational use would notinfluence natural ecologicalfunctions, components, andprocesses except in a minorpart of zone; areas intention-ally modified in narrow trailcorridors through snow andalpine environments and in amoderate number of desig-nated and dispersed camps forhikers and climbers; measuresto control impact of humanwaste used to limit damage tosensitive resources in thisalpine and permanent snow-field zone; where zone con-tains only trail corridors, zoneabout 0.5 mile wide to allowfor rerouting trails if requiredby changes in natural condi-tions such as snowmelt andcrevasse patterns.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the Interior’sStandards and NPS policy;significant cultural resour-ces that might be preservedare prehistoric and historicarcheological sites andethnographic resources.

Main activity in this zone would be moun-taineering, but there could be day hikers,and commercial guide services might bepermitted; visitors could sense a high degreeof adventure and exploration while en-countering a moderate number of othervisitors; many opportunities for solitude, butalso potential for much social interaction;high amounts of self-reliance and outdoorskills needed because of inherent dangers interrain and climate; most travel would becross-country but could be some way trailsor routes, and some routes would have nocommercial use; limits on public and com-mercial day and overnight use and partysize; permits needed for wilderness campingand climbing; camping primarily dispersedbut possibly designated trailside camps anda few designated campsites to protect sensi-tive alpine environment; adherence to LeaveNo Trace standards required except in areaswith designated campsites; no onsite inter-pretation or signs, but offsite interpretationand education available.

Where not well-defined by foottraffic, routes might be temporarilywanded to ensure visitor safety orprotect sensitive alpine resources;some way trails and unmaintainedconstructed trails might be present; afew designated campsites availablein sensitive areas, and other struc-tures allowed by the Wilderness Actmight be permitted such as toilets,radio repeaters, and cultural re-sources; rock walls or shelters mightbe permitted in certain places;research equipment and monitoringdevices might be allowed.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresHigh Use Climbing Zone

Zone would be similar tomoderate use climbing zone,but more people would bepresent and there would be amoderate to high potential forsocial interaction.

Same as moderate useclimbing zone, but moredesignated, well-dispersedcampsites where areas wouldbe intentionally modified.

Same as moderate useclimbing zone.

Same as moderate use climbing zone exceptthat more people would be encountered; fewopportunities for solitude, and potential fora high degree of social interaction.

Same as moderate use climbingzone.

TABLE C-2: NONWILDERNESS MANAGEMENT ZONES



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresPrimitive (formerly Undeveloped) Zone

This zone generally would bemanaged like primitive zone inthe wilderness area, as anunmodified landscape withnatural processes unimpeded andsignificant cultural resources pre-served; only signs of human usewould be some way trails andpossibly some maintained trails;visitors could be apart from butrelatively close to developedareas; although not part of desig-nated wilderness, mechanizeduse would not be permitted, butunlike other wilderness zones,overnight use would not bepermitted

Natural ecologicalfunctions, components, andprocesses would not beinfluenced by human useexcept for minimalmodifications of soils,hydrology, and plants inlocalized areas bysignificant culturalresources and a few user-made travel routes.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the Interi-or’s Standards and NPSpolicy; significant cul-tural resources that mightbe preserved are prehis-toric and historic archeo-logical sites and ethno-graphic resources.

Visitors could experience a feeling ofexploration while being near developedfacilities; few people present, many oppor-tunities for solitude; cross-country hikingwould be primary focus, but some maintainedtrails and user-developed way trails wouldexist; no overnight or mechanized use; skillsand knowledge needed because few facilitiesand other people; in the winter access wouldnot be provided to the zone; no onsiteinterpretation or information; but offsiteinterpretation and education might beavailable.

No visitor facilities except trails andassociated structures; trail structuressuch as culverts, bridges, turnpiking,and signs might be present; some waytrails also might be present.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresSensitive Resource / Recreation Zone

This zone would be applied toareas whose easily accessibleresources have a high poten-tial for damage; landscapegenerally natural, only slightlymodified by facilities andstructures in localized areas;signs of human use few andlimited to designated trails,facilities, and use areas;visitors, closely managed tominimize impacts, couldexperience resources butwould remain relatively closeto developed areas; a highdegree of social interactionpossible, but experience ofpark resources generallyunimpeded by others.

Natural ecological functions,components, and processeswould not be influenced byrecreational use except in asmall part of zone; environ-ment intentionally modified intrail corridors (about 10 feetwide) and a few designatedcampsites; where zone appliedonly to trails, zone would beabout 100 feet wide toaccommodate rerouting trailswhen required by naturalconditions

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the In-terior’s Standards andNPS policy; significantcultural resources thatmight be preserved areprehistoric and historicarcheological sites,historic structures, cul-tural landscapes, andethnographic resources.

Visitors could see and enjoy natural and cul-tural resource attractions while still being neardeveloped facilities; could pursue a variety ofnonmotorized and nonmechanized activitiesand use wheelchairs on designated trails, butto protect sensitive resources, no cross-country travel permitted in summer; no stockuse permitted; many people present, few op-portunities for solitude; a high degree ofsocial interaction, but visitors could movealong trails relatively freely; could experiencepark resources near developed facilities andnot be impeded by others; camping might bepermitted, but only in designated trailsidecamps and shelters in summer; (in winter,cross-country camping permitted near devel-oped areas); overnight party size limited; nospecial skills or knowledge needed to usethese areas, but visitors informed about mini-mu m impact practices; bulletin boards, way-side exhibits, signs, and formal/informalinterpretive programs would give informa-tion; in winter access not facilitated by mech-anized or motorized means (e.g., groomingequipment).

Trails well-defined, highly main-tained, usually with many trailstructures, some unmaintained,constructed trails might be present; afew designated trailside camps, walk-in picnic areas, and a few smallrestrooms, benches, and shelters,available No roads provided in thiszone.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresRoaded Multiuse Zone

Natural landscape noticeablymodified by graveled roads,trails, walk-in campgroundsand picnic areas, small build-ings; much social interaction;visitors would arrive and ex-perience park resources byhorse, bicycle, or hiking ontrails or roads; motor vehiclespermitted only for adminis-trative use, as shuttles, or totransport people withdisabilities

Natural ecological functions,components, and processesmoderately modified inten-tionally in 50-foot unpavedroad corridor and by devel-opments in localized areas;zone would be 200 feet wide.

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the In-terior’s Standards andNPS policy; significantcultural resources thatmight be preserved arehistoric roads as de-signed, and attendantbridges and culverts,prehistoric and historicarcheological sites, andethnographic resourcessuch as traditional routes.

Visitors could see resources via trails or grav-eled roads; roads and associated structureswould foster feeling of an area untouched bytime ecologically and historically; nonmotor-ized recreational activities permitted such asbicycling, hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and walk-incamping; motor vehicles might be allowed forshuttles, to transport visitors with disabilities,and for administrative purposes; no cross-country travel in summer; many peoplepresent and few opportunities for solitude; nospecial skills or knowledge needed; summercamping allowed only in walk-in camp-grounds, cross-country camping allowed inwinter; motorized winter access might beavailable (grooming equipment); interpreta-tion available but concentrated at trailheadsand camps

Graveled roads , entrance stations,and small buildings like those listedfor the sensitive resource / recreationzone might be present; new trailsmight be located in roadbeds; somelimited parking; visitor and admin-istrative facilities generally well-concealed, being almost unnoticeablefrom road corridor(s); structuresalong roadways, (rock walls andstone-faced concrete bridges)designed to ensure ecological andhistorical consistency.

Visitor Facilities ZoneZone would offer highlystructured opportunities toenjoy and learn about park;many facilities and servicesavailable, usually in a con-centrated area; only in thiszone could people find lodges,visitor centers, and drive-incampgrounds; much socialinteraction; natural processesand natural landscape mightbe highly modified.

Natural ecological functions,components, and processesintentionally modified tovarying degrees, dependingon type of visitor facility (lessin campgrounds and in CampsMuir and Schurman, more invisitor center parking areas).

Cultural resources pre-served consistent withSecretary of the In-terior’s Standards andNPS policy; significantcultural resources thatmight be preserved arecultural landscapes andlandscape features suchas buildings, structures,roads, bridges, naturalareas, and topographicfeatures; historic build-ings and other attendantfeatures of the nationalhistoric landmark district;prehistoric and historicarcheological sites, andethnographic resourcessuch as traditional routes.

Visitors could experience much social inter-action while acquiring information and theconveniences needed to experience parkresources; motorized and nonmotorized usesavailable, including attending interpretiveprograms and exhibits, scenic driving, walk-ing, dining, picnicking, camping, and otheractivities available in highly developed areas;many people present and almost no oppor-tunity for solitude; no special skills orknowledge needed; in winter access may beprovided by mechanized or motorized means(grooming equipment); formal and informalinterpretive programs available frequently;delivery concentrated at visitor centers,trailheads, parking areas, and pullouts.

Many visitor facilities and someadministrative facilities present; alltypes of visitor-related buildingspermitted in this zone, only zonewhere visitor centers, lodges, pavedroads, and drive-in campgroundspermitted; access by paved andgraveled roads as well as trails;facilities accessible to all visitors;utility developments present but asmuch as possible not evident.



Conditions Visitor Experience Facilities and StructuresAdministrative Zone

The primary purpose of thiszone would be to support themanagement and operation ofthe park. The zone would behighly developed withconcentrations of administra-tive facilities. General visita-tion would not occur, althoughsome visitors might accessthese areas to obtain staffassistance, to solve a problem,or to learn about historicallysignificant buildings.

Natural ecological functions,components and processeswould be intentionally modi-fied to various degrees, de-pending on type of admin-istrative facility (less withtrails to water supplies, morein park maintenance andhousing areas).

Cultural resources wouldbe preserved consistentwith Secretary of theInterior’s Standards andNPS policy. Significantcultural resources thatmight be preserved inthis zone are historicbuildings and attendantfeatures, prehistoric andhistoric archeologicalsites, and ethnographicresources (such astraditional routes).

Visitor recreation opportunities would not beoffered. However, some use might be allowedso visitors could see and learn about his-torically significant buildings. Minimal inter-pretive information would be available in thezone.

This would be a highly developedzone withe all types ofadministrative-related buildings.Where feasible, facilities separated orscreened from visitor-use areas.Access would be via some paved andgravel roads and parking areas, exceptuse would be primarily for adminis-trative purposes.

410

APPENDIX D: EXAMPLES O F PO TENTIAL INDICATO RS AND STANDARDS FO RMO UNT RAINIER NATIO NAL PARK

All general management plans for units managedby the National Park Service must by law addressthe issue of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity isa determination of what types and levels of visitoruse can be accommodated while maintaining re-source and social conditions consistent with thepurposes of the park, its mission goals, and theprescriptive management zones. There are threemajor components of carrying capacity: physicalcapacity (e.g., parking spaces, facility space, roadcapacity); the visitor experience (e.g., congestion inparking areas, opportunities for solitude), andresources (which speci fy conditions of natural andcultural resources). The carrying capacity in a givenarea could be exceeded for any of these com-ponents, which would trigger management action.

The alternatives of this plan include a carryingcapacity framework for the park. The carryingcapacity model sets measurable standards andindicators that let park managers know when theexperience and resources are in decline and actionis needed. Indicators are speci fi c, measurablevariables that can be monitored to determine thequality of natural and cultural resource conditionsand visitor experiences. Standards identify theminimum acceptabl e conditions for each resourceor social indicator. The standards are set at levels orconditions to warn when management actions aremerited.

Evidences that action may be needed in some areasand for some conditions have already appeared inseveral forms Increasing visitor use has resulted inchanges in the park’s resources and in the visitorexperiences. Resource damage has occurred inseveral areas, such as the Paradise meadows andSpray Park. With continued increases in visitor uselevels, there is the potential that unacceptablechanges could occur to park resources and visitorexperiences − changes that would be contrary to thepurposes and significance of the park and themission of the National Park Service.

The carrying capacity concept does not necessarilymean a set number of people can be in the park onany given day and others will be turned away. Itdoes mean that park staff, based on resource andvisitor experience indicators, would take actions,

from the least restrictive (such as education) to possiblerestrictions on numbers (as the last resort), to maintainthe highest quality park resource and experience.

CARRYING CAPACITY FRAMEWORK

Under the preferred alternative, a carrying capacityframework would be established for Mount Rainier.This approach to addressing carrying capacity wouldbe similar to the wilderness limits of acceptable change(LAC) process that has been used to monitor andmanage the Mount Rainier Wilderness since 1989.Each park management zone described previouslywould have its own goals for long-term natural,cultural, and social (visitor) conditions. The carryingcapacity concept is implemented as a series of man-agement prescriptions not for controlling the numbersof people, but as prescriptions for desired ecologicaland social conditions in the management zone.

Decisions regarding the need to take action, such aswhen to apply protective measures to damaged areas,or when to initiate different visitor education programs,are based on a multiple phased process. The process isapplied to all park management zones. It identifieszone-speci fic management actions compatible with thearea’s resources that achieve the intended resourcecondition and/or visitor experience. The frameworkinvolves five key steps.

• Establish near- and long-term visions for desiredphysical, ecological, and social conditions in thepark, which relies on a good inventory of parkresources and visitor uses.

• Define each park management zone, whichincludes desired conditions for visitor experiencesand resources for both wilderness and nonwilder-ness areas. Management zones are proposed aspart of each plan alternative (see appendix B).

• Select indicators and set standards for eachindicator, which is done on a resource and visitorexperience speci fic basis. Separate indicators andstandards can be set for each management zone.Define each park management zone, whichincludes desired conditions for visitor experiencesand resources for both wilderness and

Appendix D: Examples of Potential Indicators and Standards for Mount Rainier National Park

411

nonwilderness areas. Management zones areproposed as part of each plan alternative (seeappendix B). Define each park managementzone, which includes desired conditions forvisitor experiences and resources for bothwilderness and nonwilderness areas. Manage-ment zones are proposed as part of each planalternative (see appendix B).

• Develop and implement a monitoring programto track attainment and maintenance of desiredconditions for each zone and resource by mea-suring or estimating specifi c resource and visi-tor experience indicators. Measurement resultsare then compared to standards selected asthresholds for taking management action.Monitoring documents when a managementaction is needed to keep conditions within thestandards. Monitoring would be an on-goingtask starting with the implementation of thisplan.

• Take management actions as necessary to im-prove the situation and achieve the desiredconditions within the zone if resource condi-tions or visitor experiences are out of standardor monitoring indicates a downward trend inconditions. Management actions could rangefrom low intrusiveness (such as education andsigning) to highly restrictive (such as closuresor use limits). Park managers would implementthe least intrusive actions first, and evaluatetheir effectiveness before taking the next levelof action.

POTENTIAL NATURALRESOURCE INDICATORS

The following examples identify natural resourceindicators that may be applied to various resources.These potential resource indicators address soils,vegetation, air quality, aquatic resources, noise,wildlife, and trails. Standards would need to bedeveloped for potential indicators. These exampleswould be considered for future resource monitoringapplications.

Soils

Bare ground can indicate an area that is used ortrampled beyond the capability of veget ation torecover. Bare ground (not associated with trails)

can be measured as the extent of denuded area and theproportion of overall plant ground cover in a definedarea.

Extent of area that has been denuded can be measuredshowing changes in size. This works well for picnicareas, campsites, areas adjacent to parking and pulloffs.Standards can be established for total acceptable areaof impact in a larger context (i.e., a developed areasuch as Longmire or a wilderness campground) oracceptable area of unvegetated soils for each unit (i.e.,wilderness campsite, nonwilderness campsite).Standards for wilderness campsites have been devel-oped for the existing wilderness zones. They are:trailside zone — about 45 square yards for groupcampsites and about 30 square yards for individualsites; cross-country zone — about 3 square yards, morethan about 45 yards from closest campsite, no morethan 5 campsites/500 acres; alpine zone — no newcampsites, camping in current sites and on snowfields,designated sites. Generally this approach wouldidentify effects after they have been occurring for anextended period or are created by more than oneperson.

Generally when vegetation, litter and cryptobiotic soilsdecrease, the site is on its way to bare ground. Overallground cover by type can be determined, and minimumground cover standards could be established by lookingat various impact sites in various communities and onvarious soil types.

Soil compaction can be measured with a soil pene-trometer. Standards can be developed by measuringcompaction in various degrees of visitor use in varioussoil types as described above. Chemical characteristicsand biotic composition change with compaction. Soilsamples from various impacts can be analyzed fornematodes, fungi, and chemical charact eristics.

Vegetation (Nonnative Species)

An increase in number of nonnative plant speciespresent on a site can indicate recreational effect;however, an increase in abundance may be a result ofother factors as well. Although the number ofnonnative species and area occupied by these speci esshould be monitored, they may not be a good indicatorof human impacts.

Changes in the diversity and abundance of nonnativespecies can be measured in several ways usingconventional vegetation sampling techniques,

APPENDIXES

412

including: species list for an area or trail, transectsand Daubenmire plots, point-intercept, and line orbelt transects. Collecting plant species diversity andabundance data from speci fic locations regularlythrough time enables estimates of trends and thespeed of vegetation changes.

Vegetation (Species diversity/richness)

A shift from plant communities dominated by forbsto those dominated by graminoids (grass and grass-like plants) often indicate excessive trampling innumerous plant communities, particularly in alpineand subalpine settings. Graminoids are generallymore resistant to poor growing conditions thanforbs. Also, some forbs are more resistant thanothers and could be used as early indicators. Aseries of transects covering a range of conditionsfrom moderate to high-use areas to unused areascan be established with species diversity, speciescomposition, and richness being measured withDaubenmire plots at various intervals along thetransect. With suffici ent sampling, statistical trendscorrelating plant composition and visitor use pat-terns can be established to show, for example,which species are resistant and distance from themain source where changes occur. Standards canthen be developed using specifi c species presence,species diversity, species richness, and percentcover of graminoids and forbs.

Air Quality

The air quality of Mount Rainier is protected as aClass I area under the Clean Air Act. Changes in airquality approaching unacceptable levels couldindicate need for action. Recreational use can affectlocal air quality by creating emission sources suchas campfires in nonwilderness campgrounds (suchas Cougar Rock and Ohanapecosh) and by opera-tion of motor vehicles along the park’s roadways.Reductions in visibility, negative effects on publichealth, and possible damage to soils and other airquality-related impacts can result.

Both qualitative and quantitative measurementmethods can be used to track changes. Qualitativeapproaches can include estimating the relativeamount of reduced visibility of distant scenesobserved at established sites during establishedtimes. Conditions can be recorded by a trainedobserver. Documentation can include visual air

quality conditions (haze, dust) and odors (diesel buses,trucks; cars) rel ated to campfires and motor vehicles.The degree of impact can be recorded as high, medium,or low, or another relative scale can be used.

Quantitative measurements can be made of particulatematter, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides using airquality monitoring equipment. The number of camp-fires and vehicles in an area can be counted in visitorfacilities such as roads, campgrounds, and parking lotsto compute pollutant emissions.

Aquatic Resources

Water quality in the park is protected by the CleanWater Act. Several aspects of water and aquaticresources can be used to indicate and track aquaticresource conditions (e.g., compliance with designatedwater quality standards that are established to protectaquatic life communities and park visitor health) thatmay be affected by point and non-point dischargesfrom developed and non-developed areas.

Recreational use can affect water nutrient con-centrations, aquatic plant production, and fishpopulations through activities conducted along thebanks of park streams and lakes. These activities canaffect dissolved oxygen content of water; bacterialconcentrations and types; suspended matter content;and water turbidity. Compaction of shoreline soils andtrampling of vegetation from recreational use and trailmaintenance practices can alter habitat for amphibiansand benthic organisms.

Qualitative and quantitative measurement methods canbe used as indicators to track changes. Qualitativeapproaches can include estimating the number of signsof human waste (e.g., toilet paper flowers ) and docu-menting instances of offensive odors from humanwaste, signs of fish wastes in water left by anglers,relative amount of shoreline trampled with compactedsoils, and relative amount of sedimentation or waterturbidity.

Quantitative approaches can include making directmeasurement of fecal contamination in snow within alake’s watershed (e.g., winter use of areas such asRefl ection Lake); measuring coliform and other entericorganisms in lakes and streams heavily visited byrecreational users; quanti fying amount of human wasteremoved from areas of concern (e.g., Camp Muir andSchurman, wilderness camps); and measuring relative

Appendix D: Examples of Potential Indicators and Standards for Mount Rainier National Park

413

transparency of lake or pond (measured by using aSecchi disk).

Concentrations of nutrients, inorganic ions, andother water quality parameters can be measuredusing a wide array of measurement equipment (e.g.,transparency using a light meter, turbidity, specificconductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity; andaquatic species composition). Candidate park areaswhere monitoring could be applied first, includesensitive resource and recreation zones (Refl ection,Tipsoo, Shadow); wilderness transition trail, andsemi-primitive trail zones (all sites with lake orstream destination).

Noise

The National Park Service Director’s Order 47,“Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management(NPS 2000e) directs park managers to protectnatural sounds and to allow visitors the opportunityto hear the sounds of nature with a minimum ofhuman-induced noise intrusions. As visitor usesincrease and the use of transport ation in, around,and above the park increases, the preservation ofnatural sounds becomes more diffi cult. Major noisesources include private vehicl es, commercialvehicles, aircraft, blasting for avalanche control ortrail maintenance and construction; and sounds oflarge numbers of people talking. Noise also affectswildlife. Research shows that birds, mammals, in-sects and amphibians may experience reproductivelosses, habitat avoidance or abandonment andinjury when noise interferes with normal behaviorand the ability to communicate or detect danger.

Information collected with acoustical monitoringand recording equipment can be used to indicateincreases in noise levels in wilderness and nonwil-derness visitor areas compared to unvisitedreference areas (natural ambient soundscapes).Changes in noise levels can be measured to monitortrends in sensitive areas. Correlations can beestablished between measured noise levels andvisitor responses.

To monitor noise effects on park visitors, visitorsurveys could be administered to look at visitors’psychological response to noise and changes to theambient soundscape. This approach assumes thatnoise exposure affects visitors’ well-being andhighly variability noise levels disturbs individualmore than a constant noise level. Visitor surveys on

noise intrusions could be first applied in sensitiveresource and recreation areas, near visitor facilities, andalong major roadway at popular visitor facilities andattractions. Results of the visitor surveys could becompared to ongoing acoustical monitoring of thevarious park natural ambient soundscapes and noiseintrusions to determine if management actions werenecessary to correct diminished visitor experiences.

Wildlife (Food-Habituation)

The incidence and extent of changes in wildlifebehavior can be used to indicate effects of visitors onsome wildlife species. Visitors offering food to animalsthat accept handouts and eventually come to expectofferings from all visitors is an obvious animalbehavior change from normal patterns. The presence ofwildlife (primarily rodents and bird species of the crowand jay families) that have grown accustomed toreceiving food handouts from visitors by foraging atpopular visitor areas, campsites, and campgroundsindicates that they have altered their normal foragingbehavior. Besides creating the potential for negativeconsequences to the animal, this behavior leads toincreased threats to public safety from animal bites andfrom the transmission of wildlife-borne diseases.Monitoring of such behavior can occur primarily atmore heavily visited developed areas (picni c areas, reststops along trails, parking lots, roadside pullouts) andsecondarily at nonwilderness campgrounds anddesignated wilderness campsites.

Charact eristics that can be measured or estimatedinclude the number of feeding incidents observed perunit time, number of food offering incidents byvisitors, evidence of food-begging behavior of animals,and number and species of animals approaching peoplein campgrounds and campsites.

Wildlife (Highway Mortality)

The number, type, and rate of wildlife deaths resultingfrom automobile collisions on park roads can indicateeffects to wildlife populations from increased visitoruses of the park or in popular areas. Traffic volume,speed, and timing, land use along the road, terrainfeatures, and wildlife abundance are primary factorsthat determine the degree of wildlife mortality causedby automobile collisions. In general, greater numbersof wildlife perish due to collisions with vehicles as thenumber of vehi cles increases, as the speed of traffi cincreases, and when those vehicles travel during peak

APPENDIXES

414

animal activity periods (e.g., dusk and dawn, duringmigration periods). Therefore, as the number ofvehicle trips in the park increases, wildlife mortal-ity along roads can be expected to increase. Mea-surements can be made along road corridorsthroughout the park but should be focused in areasthat have a history of frequent and constant wildlifecollisions.

Measured parameters can include the number ofroadkills per mile of road, physical locations ofroadkills, species and numbers of wildlife lost.Wildlife mortality quantities and trends can beestimated by driving roads with recognized highwildlife mortality rates at different times during theday, stopping at carcasses to identify what died, andestimating the approximate time of death.

Wildlife (Human Incidents)

The number and types of encounters betweenpotentially dangerous wildlife and humans isanother useful indictor of visitor effects on somewildlife speci es. Encounter numbers and rates mayincrease if visitation increases. The likelihood thatsome of these encounters would involve injury topark visitors also rises. The numbers of sightings ofmountain lions and black bears seems to be on therise, as evidenced by the numbers of wildlife obser-vations being reported by visitors. Tracking canfocus on encounters between bears and mountainlions in both nonwilderness and wilderness areas,

especially at campgrounds and picnic areas, alongtrails, and at wilderness campsites.

The numbers of observations, encounters, anddangerous incidents between humans and mountainlions and black bears can be tabulated and analyzed toidentify problem areas and historical trends. Measure-ment indicators can include wildlife-human incidentsreported to rangers and interpreters by park visitors andstaff.

Trails

Trail standards are well defined in the WildernessManagement Plan (NPS 1992c) and the “TrailManagement Handbook” (NPS 1989c). Data on trailscould be obtained using either aerial photographs orconducting on-site surveys. Width of trails can bemeasured at regular or random intervals and measure-ments could be averaged and multiplied by trail lengthto derive the area affected. Current wilderness stand-ards are for trails no wider than 18 inches. Additionalstandards could be developed for density of trails bynumber, length and total area. This would put a limiton the number of social trails accepted (wildernessstandards allow for no social trails in all zones).Additional changes to trails can be measured, includingtrail depth, gully formation, extent of erosion, numberof switchbacks, and number of parallel trails.

415

APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS O F BO UNDARY ADJUSTMENT ANDLAND PRO TECTIO N CRITERIA

As one of the provisions of Public Law 95-625, theNational Park and Recreation Act of 1978, Con-gress directed that the National Park Service con-sider, as part of a planning process, what modifi-cations of external boundaries might be necessaryto carry out park purposes. Subsequent to this act,Congress also passed Public Law 101-628, theArizona Desert Wilderness Act. Section 1216 ofthis act directs the Secretary of the Interior todevelop criteria to evaluat e any proposed changesto the existing boundaries of individual park units.Section 1217 of the act calls for the National ParkService to consult with affect ed agenci es and othersregarding a proposed boundary change, and toprovide a cost estimate of acquisition cost, if any,related to the boundary adjustment.

These legislative provisions are implementedthrough NPS Management Policies, which statethat the National Park Service will conduct studiesof potential boundary adjustments and may makeboundary revisions:

• to include significant resources or opportunitiesfor public enjoyment related to the purposes ofthe park

• to address operational and management issues

• to improve identification by topographic orother natural features

• to protect park resources critical to ful fillingpark purposes

NPS policies and special directive 92-11 instructthat any recommendation to expand park bounda-ries be preceded by determinations that the addedlands will be feasible to administer consideringsize, configuration, ownership, cost and otherfactors, and that other alternatives for managementand resource protection have been considered andare not adequate.

The following is a review of the criteria forboundary adjustments as applied to Mount RainierNational Park. This review is included as sup-porting documentation for the alternatives 2-and 3,which includes a recommendation for a boundary

change along the Carbon River corridor contiguouswith the Northwest quadrant of the park.

This plan does not address the legislative requirementto provide a cost estimate for the boundary adjustment.However, the legislative proposal for the boundaryadjustment and accompanying support materials wouldinclude a cost estimate.

BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL,CARBON RIVER CORRIDOR

The proposed boundary change would seek con-gressional authorization for an addition of approxi-mately 1,063 acres to Mount Rainier National Park.Also recommended would be an accompanyingauthorization to appropriate funds to the National ParkService from the Land and Water Conservation Fund toimmediately purchase, on a willing seller basis, 210acres within the revised boundary for purposes ofdeveloping a new vehicular accessible campground andadministrative area along the Carbon River.

Significant Resources or Opportunities forPublic Enjoyment Related to the Purposeof Mount Rainier National Park

The boundary modification would allow the NationalPark Service to provide both enhanced and replacementvehicular accessible campground for the public along ascenic and protect ed section of the Carbon Riverimmediately west of the current park entrance. Thisnew campground would be in addition to the existingIpsut Creek campground, which would be converted toa facility that would be accessible only by foot ornonmotorized vehicle. It is anticipated that a futurenaturally occurring flood event will permanentlypreclude motorized vehicle access to the Ipsut Creekcampground located some 5 miles up the Carbon RiverValley from the current entrance. The Ipsut Creekcampground would then be converted to a walk-incampground. Therefore, this boundary change willenable the development of a new campground withinthe Carbon River, in turn providing more recreationalopportunities to the public. Its development will alsohelp to mitigate the loss of recreational use caused bythe anticipated future closure of the Ipsut Creekcampground to vehicular access.

APPENDIXES

416

Operational and Management Issues Related toAccess and Boundary Identification byTopographic or Other Natural Features

The proposed boundary change would follow adedicated county road on the south and anestablished section line on the north side of theCarbon River on the north. The proposed boundaryis contiguous with the existing park boundary onthe east. On the west, multiple ownerships and thewest side of the county road right-of-way wouldframe the western boundary north of Carbon RiverRoad. Given these features and topography, theNational Park Service will be able to easily identifyand mark the amended boundary of the park. Theproposed boundary also allows the National ParkService to move certain administrative facilitiesfrom the current park entrance, which are in afloodplain, to an area within the proposed newcampground site that is not in a floodplain.

Protection of Park Resources andFulfillment of Park Purpose

The proposed boundary change would protectadditional areas along the Carbon River corridordirectly adjacent to the park. This includes the pro-tection of both scenic and natural resources, andincludes protection of the road corridor entering thepark from the west, and protection of the CarbonRiver and its environs. Portions of the proposedaddition also contain designated critical habitat formarbled murrelets a threat ened speci es.

The addition of about 1,063 acres to Mount RainierNational Park also would provide additional publicrecreation opportunities that are not currently pres-ent, including a new vehicular accessible camp-ground, sites for group camping, additional miles ofnon-motorized hiking trails, and additional acces-sible riverbank fishing, and an appropriatesoutheast terminus of the foothills trail.

Feasibility to Administer the LandsAdded through Boundary Adjustment

The proposed addition is very feasible for theNational Park Service to manage. Alternatives 2and 3 both include a permanent visitor contactfacility (welcome center) in the nearby communityof Wilkeson. This would include resource

protection and interpretive staff that would be availableto strategically serve the proposed approximate 1,063-acre boundary addition, as well as the Carbon River/Mowich areas of the park. Also, the proposed camp-ground site offers opportunities for the siting of certainadministrative/ maintenance facilities, which wouldenhance on-site capabilities for staff to meet varyingsituations within the Carbon River/Mowich area of thepark.

Protection Alternatives Considered

Regarding the proposed campground area, otherlocations were considered, but rejected. This is theclosest large area to the existing park boundary that isconducive to camping that is outside of the floodplainof the Carbon River. A willing seller is involved in theproposed acquisition of the site. Regarding other landswithin the proposed boundary addition, one parcel is aproposed land donation to the National Park Service bya non-profit entity. Other lands with the proposedboundary addition can either be managed by theNational Park Service or by the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. In any event, an additionto the park boundary affords the best opportunity toprovide for future public recreational use of the area,along with the protection of important scenic andnatural resources within a National Park setting.

Proposed Additions to the Mount Rainier NationalPark Boundary and Other Adjustments

Under the preferred alternative, about 1,063 acres areproposed for inclusion within the boundaries of MountRainier National Park. Congressional action would berequired to authorize this change, and authorize andappropriat e the funds from the Land and Water Conser-vation Fund, which would be necessary to acquireinterests in private lands from willing sellers. About 14parcels of private lands would need to be acquiredwithin the proposed boundary change. Some landwithin the proposed boundary change is currentlymanaged by the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie NationalForest. These lands could either be administrativelytransferred to the National Park Service or retained aspart of the National Forest.

417

APPENDIX F: LETTER O F CO NSULTATIO N

APPENDIXES

418

Appendix F: Letter of Consultation

419

APPENDIXES

420

Appendix F: Letter of Consultation

421

PHONE MESSAGEUnited States Department of the Interior / National Park Service / Denver Service Center12795 West Alameda Parkway / P.O. Box 25287 / DSC-PM / Denver, CO 80225-0287

Project: MORA GMP Date:February 10, 2000

NPS Package No: 2001-A134-409 Time:

FHWA Package No.:

Call To/From: Thomas Hooper, Fish Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, WA

Phone Number: 360/753-9453

Subject: Threatened & Endangered Species in Mount Rainier

Discussion: On February 9, I called Tom to initiate section 7 informal consultation on the MORA GMP/EIS.(Although we had contacted the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a list of federally threatened andendangered species, we had not contacted the National Marine Fisheries Service.) Tom is the fishbiologist responsible for covering Pierce County. He told me that the Puget Sound chinook salmonpopulation is listed as threatened and that the salmon probably occurs in all of the major drainages inMount Rainier , including the Puyallup and Nisqually drainages. (Even if the fish does not occur in somedrainages, any changes in the headwaters of these drainages could affect salmon populations downstreamof the park.) Thus, we need to make a determination (biological opinion) in the EIS whether or not ouractions in the GMP would affect the salmon.

Tom noted that we do not have to send them a letter requesting a species list, since I called him.However, his office will want to review the GMP and our finding

Followup Tasks: We need to include the salmon in the description of threatened species in the AffectedEnvironment

We need to include chinook salmon in the analysis of impacts in the EnvironmentalConsequences section. (I don’t expect that we’re doing anything to affect water quality orquantity as a result of the GMP, but we need to state this and explain why.)

We also need to make sure that the National Marine Fisheries Service is on our mailing list toget the draft GMP, and we probably will want to send them sections of the draft in the internalreview period to get their concurrence with our finding.

We also need to include this phone log in the appendix of the document as a record that wecontacted NMFS, since we don’t have a formal letter from them.

We can send the draft to Tom Hooper. His address is NMFS, 510 Desmond Dr., SE, Suite 103,Lacey, WA 98503. His e-mail address is [email protected]

Copies to: TIC with attachment by mail

X PIFS without attachment by NPS mail system

X Project Files by fax by electronic mail

By:

Project Manager: Larry Beal Telephone No.: 303/969-2454

422

APPENDIX G: DRAFT S TATEMENT O F FINDINGS FO R THE GENERALMANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRO NMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

MO UNT RAINIER NATIO NAL PARK

RECOMMENDED:__________________________________________________________

SUPERINTENDENT DATE

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

CONCURRED:______________________________________________________________

CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION DATE

CONCURRED:______________________________________________________________

DIRECTOR, WESTERN REGION DATE

Appendix G: Draft Statement of Findings for the General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

423

INTRODUCTION

It is NPS policy to preserve floodplain values andto minimize potentially hazardous conditions asso-ciated with flooding. (In this regard, floods can beclear-water floods, mudflows, or debris flows.)NPS developments in floodplains are subject tocompliance with Executive Order 11988 asspeci fied by the National Park Service’s (1993b)Floodplain Management Guideline (Guideline).

According to the Guideline, various Park Serviceactions are classi fied as fitting into one of three“ action classes” depending upon the type of activityand the nature of flooding at the proposed or exist-ing site. NPS policy is to avoid the use of a flood-plain of speci fic recurrence interval associ ated witheach of the three action classes (regulatory flood-plain), whenever there is a practical alternative. ForClass I actions, the base floodplain (100-year) is theregulatory floodplain; for Class II actions, the 500-year return period floodplain is the regulatoryfloodplain; for Class III actions, the extreme flood-plain is the regulatory floodplain. Class I actionsinclude most NPS developments in non-high hazardsettings (defined below). Class II actions are so-called critical actions, i.e., those actions that requirea higher degree of prot ection such as schools,museums, and large fuel storage facilities. Class IIIactions are class I or II actions that are located inhigh hazard areas — areas where dangerousflooding can occur without warning.

Where there is a compelling reason for ParkService facilities to occupy a regulatory floodplain,NPS policy permits the activity when a statement offindings (SOF) is prepared that explains the ra-tionale for use of the floodplain, discloses the riskfrom flooding, and discusses how mitigation of therisk can be achieved. The statement of findingsprocess applies to all new facilities and to existingfacilities when park planning is being performed. Inthe case of existing facilities not in compliance withthe Guideline, the planning document is to identifythose areas potentially or known to be out ofcompliance and to define a course of action to betaken over a reasonable amount of time to bringthese developments into compliance with theGuideline. Immediate recti fication of all problemlocations may not be possible, however,consideration in the plan should be given to long-term solutions, such as relocation, and short-term

actions that can be taken to reduce flood risk to lowerlevels.

As shown in the Geologic Hazards map and table 11 inthe general management plan, many of the developedsites within Mount Rainier National Park are in areas atrisk from debris flows that may occur at any time ofyear, some without warning. Specifically, sevensites — Longmire, White River campground, CougarRock campground, Ipsut Creek campground, KautzCreek, Westside Road, and the Box Canyon picnicarea — are in Case III debris flow zones. These areareas that are subject to destructive debris flows on anaverage recurrence interval of one event every 100years. Seven other sites are in Case II debris flow zones(Sunshine Point campground, Ohanapecosh, Nisquallyentrance, the Stevens Canyon area, White River en-trance, Carbon River entrance, and Falls Creek picnicarea), which are inundated on an average recurrenceinterval of 100 to 500 years. Tahoma Woods, CampMuir/Camp Schurman, and the Nahunta Falls picnicarea are in Case I debris flow zones, which are inun-dated on an average recurrence interval of 500 to 1,000years. Debris flows are triggered by a number of pro-cesses, including avalanches of hydrothermally alteredrocks, volcanic activity, and glacial outburst floods —massive, sudden releases of water from a glacier. Ingeneral, outburst floods and debris flows are far moredestructive than water-dominated floods. They canoccur rapidly on either sunny or rain days, with littlewarning. For example, debris flows from the summit ofMount Rainier could arrive in the Cougar Rock andWhite River campgrounds between 6 and 22 minutes.(For more information on the flooding characteristicsand volcanic hazards of these areas, see NPS 1997b,Hoblitt et al 1998, and the “ Affected Environment”chapter of this general management plan.)

JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAININGFACILITIES IN THE FLOODPLAIN

Under preferred alternative all of the above facilitieswould be retained for their existing uses, with theexception of the Carbon River entrance administrativefacilities (which would be relocated to the proposedboundary adjustment) and the Ipsut Creek campground(which would be converted to a walk-in only camp-ground if and when the road is closed to privatevehicles). The decision was made not to move thefacilities for several reasons. Mount Rainier NationalPark is dominated by an active volcano. All of themountain’s valleys are subject to the risk of outburstfloods and debris flows. Further, there are very few fl at

APPENDIXES

424

areas in the park where developments could belocated near popular attractions with no or minimalrisk from these events. (And even i f there weresuch areas, they would still be at risk from othervolcanic activity, including pyroclastic flows,lateral blasts, lava flows, tephra falls, andlandslides.)

Furthermore, although there are areas of the parkthat are susceptible to less geologic hazard thansome of the existing development locations, mov-ing facilities is costly and would cause new envi-ronmental impacts and concerns. The process ofidentifying and moving to new and less hazardouslocations is beyond the scope of this general man-agement planning effort. However, the decision toretain existing facilities and functions in theirpresent locations is not a permanent decision butone intended to permit time for further analysis ofalternatives and rel ative risks associated with thealternatives. In the interim period, several actionswill be taken to reduce risk (see below).

Finally, the public has expressed an unwillingnessto move several of the visitor facilities. At publicmeetings held in 1997, most people said theypreferred to make their own decisions aboutwhether or not to camp or participate in otheractivities in areas where the risk for geologicalhazards is high.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FLOOD RISK

It is certain that some time in the future there willbe another outburst flood/debris flow in MountRainier National Park, although it is not possible topredict when the event will occur. When an out-burst flood or debris flow occurs in the park,depending on the time, season, and location of theevent, there could be a major loss of life andproperty. As noted in the “ Environmental Conse-quences” chapter of the general management plan,risk to public safety in the long-term would rangefrom minor to major, depending upon a site’slocation. Major, long-term risks would continueunder the preferred alternative in areas such asLongmire, Cougar Rock, and the White Rivercampground because of their location in debris flowinundation zones. The White River campground inparticular would continue to be at high risk due toits proximity to the mountain, its location on thevalley floor, and the large mass of fractured,hydrothermally altered rock on Little Tahoma Peak.

Little or no warning time will be available for evacu-ation in any of these areas and conditions during aflood event could be devastating. Additionally, waterquality impacts are likely during very large floodsassociated with the fuel storage facilities at Longmire.

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE RISKTO LIFE OR PROPERTY

To mitigate the risk to life and property, informationhas been posted at campgrounds, inns, and visitorcenters on the geologic hazard/ flood risk and onevacuation and escape routes. Information on geologichazards also is posted on the park’s Website(www.nps.gov/mora/general/safety.htm), and thehazard is pointed out in the park’s offici al brochure andnewsletter (The Tahoma News). It is noted that thelonger one stays in these areas, the greater the chancesthe individual could be involved in an event, thatvisitors may have insuffi cient warning to safely leavean area should an event occur, and that each individualneeds to decide if he or she will assume the personalrisk of visiting and staying overnight in these poten-tially dangerous locations. Work also is continuing oncompleting an evacuation plan and a park/regionalemergency response plan in cooperation with federal,state, county, and local emergency responseorganizations.

The preferred alternative in the general managementplan calls for several more steps to reduce the risks tolife and property. Additional efforts would be taken toeducat e and inform visitors and employees about thethreat of geologic hazards and what to do if a debrisflow occurs. The preferred alternative also states thatnew park facilities would not be built (and existingfacilities would not be expanded) in high hazard areas,such as the White River valley floor (including theWhite River campground), the Nisqually valley floorabove Tahoma Woods (including Longmire andCougar Rock campground), and the Muddy Fork of theCowlitz River. In other potential hazard areas pre-cautionary guidelines would be developed to directfuture development. The National Park Service wouldlook for opportunities to move administrative facilities,including employee housing, from the Carbon Riverand White River entrances. The National Park Servicewould also examine gradually relocating otheremployee housing in high hazard areas, includingLongmire.

Appendix G: Draft Statement of Findings for the General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

425

SUMMARY

The National Park Service recognizes that there is arisk of maintaining many of the existing visitor andemployee facilities at locations within MountRainier National Park, and that potentially therecould be a major loss of life and property. How-ever, the National Park Service has determined thatthere is currently no immediate, practicable alterna-tive to maintaining park employee and visitor facili-ties, including campgrounds and inns, in areas atrisk from outburst floods and debris flows. Thisdetermination was based on the lack of “ safe” areasin the nonwilderness portion of the park; the highenvironmental cost of moving facilities; and publiccomments indicating a willingness to accept aninformed level of risk. However, this determinationis not a permanent decision to retain all existingfacilities and functions in their present locations.With the additional knowledge gained in thisgeneral management planning process, it is well

understood that several developed areas within MountRainier exceed ordinary NPS standards for risks fromgeologic hazards. With this knowledge, park managerswill continue to investigate alternatives for substan-tially reducing risk to humans, park structures, andcultural and natural resources, with the long-term goalof providing protection up to levels specified in the“Floodplain Management Guideline.” To reduce risk tothe extent possible while continuing use of existingfacilities the following actions are proposed. Park staffwould continue to inform and educate people about therisk through a variety of means, and would continue todevelop contingency evacuation plans. No new facili-ties would be built, and existing facilities would not beexpanded, in high hazard areas. Employee and admin-istrative facilities would be relocated from the WhiteRiver and Carbon River entrances when possible.Other administrative facilities in high-risk areas,including Longmire, mighy be gradually relocated.

426

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, D. R., and K. P. Burnham.1992 “Model Building and Statistical

Inferences for Adult FemaleNorthern Spotted Owls.” Paperpresented at the 62nd CooperOrnithological Society meeting,June 22-28, at. Seattle, WA.

Asquith, A., J. D. Lattin, and A. R. Moldenke1990 “Arthropods: the Invisible

Diversity.” The NorthwestEnvironmental Journal 6(2):404-405.

Biek, D. E.2000 Flora of Mount Rainier National

Park. Oregon State Univ. Press,Corvallis, OR.

Blong, R. J.1984 Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook

on the Effects of Eruptions.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Boxberger, D. L.1998 The Legal Context of Native

American Land and Resource Usein Mount Rainier National Park.Prepared for the National ParkService. Seattle, WA: WesternWashington University, Columbia-Cascades Cluster.

Bradley, W. P., and C. H. Driver1981 Elk Ecology and Management

Perspectives at Mount RainierNational Park. National ParkService Cooperative Park StudiesUnit, University of Washington,CPSU/UW 81-2, Seattle,Washington.

BRW, Inc.1994 Transportation Feasibility Study,

Mount Rainier National Park.Prepared for the National ParkService. On file at Mount RainierNational Park, Ashford, WA.

1995 Transportation Feasibility Study,Mount Rainier National Park:Final Report Prepared for theNational Park Service. On file atNational Park Service, DenverService Center, Denver, CO.

Brockman, C. F.1947 Flora of Mount Rainier National

Park. U.S. Government PrintingOffice. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department ofInterior, and Washington Department ofTransportation

1999 Draft Environmental ImpactStatement: White RiverAmphitheater, Muckleshoot IndianReservation. Portland, OR

Burtchard, G. C., S. C. Hamilton, andR. H. McClure, Jr.

1998 Environment, Prehistory andArchaeology of Mount RainierNational Park, Washington.Prepared for the National ParkService. Honolulu, HI:International ArchaeologicalResearch Institute, Inc.

Carr, E.1998 Wilderness by Design: Landscape,

Architecture, and the NationalPark Service. Lincoln, NE: Univ.of Nebraska Press.

2000 Electronic mail message from Carrto Kelly Heidecker, CulturalResources Specialist , ParsonsHarland Bartholomew andAssociates, Inc., Sacramento, CA,July 17.

Bibliography

427

Census Bureau and State of Washington1999 April 1, 1999 Estimated Popula-

tion. Census Bureau, U.S.Department of Commerce; andState of Washington, Office ofFinancial Management, Fore-casting Division. Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality, ExecutiveOffice of the President

1978 “Regulations for Implementing theProcedural Provisions of theNational Environmental PolicyAct.” Code of Federal RegulationsTitle 40, Parts 1500-1508.Washington, D.C.

Crandell, D. R.1967 Potential Effects of Future

Volcanic Eruptions in MountRainier National Park, Wash-ington. Unpublished reportprepared for the National ParkService. U.S. Geological SurveyAdministrative Report. On file atMount Rainier National Park,Ashford, WA.

1969 Surficial Geology of Mount RainierNational Park, Washington. U.S.Geological Survey Bulletin 1288.Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

1971 Postglacial Lahars from MountRainier Volcano, Washington. U.S.Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 677. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Crandell, D. R., and R. K. Fahnestock1965 Rockfalls and Avalanches from

Little Tahoma Peak on MountRainier, Washington. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Crandell, D. R., and R. P. Hoblitt1986 “Lateral Blasts at Mount St. Helens

and Hazard Zonation,” Bulletin ofVulcanology 48:27-37.

Crowley, J. K., and D. R. Zimbelman1997 “Mapping Hydrothermally Altered

Rocks on Mount Rainier, Washing-ton with Airborne Visible / InfraredImaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS)Data.” Geology 26(6): 559-562.

David Evans and Associates1999 Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Mount Rainier Resort atPark Junction. Prepared for thePierce County Department ofPlanning and Land Services.Tacoma, WA.

Desert Research Institute1997 “Weather Station Data for Mount

Rainier.” Western RegionalClimate Center, Climatic DataService Facility. Reno, Nevada.

Dragovitch, J. D., P. T. Pringle, and T . J. Walsh1994 “Extent and Geometry of the Mid-

Holocene Osceola Mudflow in thePuget Lowland — Implications forHolocene Sedimentation andPaleogeography.” WashingtonGeology 22(3): 3-26.

Driedger, C. L.1986 A Visitor’s Guide to Mount Rainier

Glaciers. Seattle, WA: PacificNorthwest National Parks andForests Association.

Driedger, C. L., and B. Samora1999 “Recent Evolution of the Nisqually

Glacier, Mt. Rainier NationalPark.” Abstract for A Century ofResource Stewardship and Beyond:Mount Rainier National Park 100thAnniversary Symposium. Tacoma,WA.

Dunbar, D. L., B. P. Booth, E. D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington, and D. J. Wilson

1991 “Status of the Spotted Owl, Strixoccidentalis, and Barred Owl, Strixvaria, in Southwestern BritishColumbia.” Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:464-468.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

428

Edwards, O. M.1980 “The Alpine Vegetation of Mount

Rainier National Park: Structure,Development and Constraints.”Ph.D. diss., University ofWashington, Seattle.

Eldred, R. A., T. A. Cahill, L. K. Wilkinson, P.J. Feeney, J. C. Chow, and W. C. Malm

1990 “Measurement of Fine Particlesand their Chemical Components inthe IMPROVE/NPS Networks.”Paper presented at theAWMA/EPA InternationalSpecialty Conference: Visibilityand Fine Particles.

Fahnestock, R. K.1963 Morphology and Hydrology of a

Glacial Stream: White River,Mount Rainier, Washington. U.S.Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 422-A. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fiske, R. S., C. A. Hopson, A. C. Waters.1964 Geologic Map and Section of

Mount Rainier National Park,Washington. MiscellaneousGeologic Investigations Map, I-432. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Geological Survey.

Franklin, J. F., W. H. Moir, M. A. Hemstrom, S.E. Greene, and B. G. Smith.

1988 The Forest Communities of MountRainier National Park. ScientificMonograph Series No. 19. Wash-ington D.C.: U.S. Department ofthe Interior, National Park Service.

Franklin, A. B., K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, R.G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, C. Schwarz,J. D. Nichols, and J. Hines.

1999 Range-Wide Status and Trends inNorthern Spotted Owl Populations.Fort Collins, CO and Corvallis,OR: U.S. Geological Survey,Colorado Cooperative Fish andWildlife Research Unit and Oregon

Cooperative Fish and WildlifeResearch Unit.

Hamer, T . E., E. D. Forsman, A. D. Fuchs, andM. L. Walters

1994 “Hybridization Between Barredand Spotted Owls.” Auk 111:487-492.

Henderson, J. A.1974 “Composition, Distribution, and

Succession of Subalpine Meadowsin Mount Rainier National Park.”Ph.D. diss., Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis.

Hoblitt , R. P., J. S. Walder, C. L. Driedger,K. M. Scott, P. T. Pringle, and J. W. Vallance

1995 Volcano Hazards from MountRainier, Washington. U.S. Geo-logical Survey Open-File Report95-273. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

1998 Volcano Hazards From MountRainier, Washington, Revised1998. Open-File Report 98-428.Denver, CO: U.S. GeologicalSurvey..

Hobson, F. D.1976 “Classification System for the Soils

of Mount Rainier National Park.”MS thesis, Washington StateUniversity, Pullman.

Johnson, D. R., K. P. Foster, and K. L. Kerr1991 “Mount Rainier National Park 1990

Visitor Survey.” Prepared for theNational Park Service. Seattle,WA: Cooperative Park Study Unit,College of Forest Resources,University of Washington.

Jones, L. L. C., and M. G. Raphael1991 Ecology and Management of

Marten in Fragmented Habitats inthe Pacific Northwest. ProgressReport: Fiscal Year 1991.Olympia, WA: Pacific NorthwestResearch Station.

Bibliography

429

Kaiser, H.1997 Landmarks in the Landscape. San

Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Kernan, A., and E. Drogin1994 “The Effect of a Verbal Interpre-

tive Message on Day User Impactsat Mount Rainier National Park.”Manuscript. Univ. of Maryland,College Park.

King County2000 King County Comprehensive Plan.

King County, Office of RegionalPolicy and Planning. Seattle, WA.

Lewis County1999 Lewis County Comprehensive Land

Use Plan. Lewis County, Com-munity Development. Chehalis,WA.

Liss, W. J., G. L. Larson, E. Deimling, L. Ganio,R. Griesswell, R. Hoffman, M. Kiss, G.Lomnicky, C. D. McIntire, R. Truitt , andT. Tyler

1995 Ecological Effects of Stocked Troutin Naturally Fishless High Moun-tain Lakes, North Cascades Na-tional Park Service Complex,Washington, USA. TechnicalReport NPS/PNROSU/NRTR-95-03. Seattle, WA: National ParkService, Pacific Northwest Region.

Moir, W. H.1989 The Forests of Mount Rainier.

Seattle, WA: NorthwestInterpretive Association.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)2001 Electronic mail message from

Matthew Longenbaugh, NMFS, toRose Rumball-Petre, MountRainier National Park, February 8,2001.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of theInterior

1920 Unpublished fish stocking records.Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park, et seq. resourcemanagement files.

1974 Mount Rainier National Park Mas-ter Plan. Ashford, WA: MountRainier National Park.

1975 Final Environmental Statement,Proposed Mount Rainier Wilder-ness. Denver, CO: Denver ServiceCenter.

1977 Director’s Order 12: NEPACompliance Guideline. Draft.Washington, DC

1981 Mount Rainier National Park,Historic Resource Study, by E. N.Thompson. Denver, CO: DenverService Center.

1983 Historic Building Inventory, MountRainier National Park. Seattle,WA: Cultural Resources Division,Pacific Northwest Region.

1986 Unpublished data on water quality.Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park, resourcemanagement files.

1988a Management Policies.Washington, D.C.

1988b “Statement for Management:Mount Rainier National Park.” Onfile at Mount Rainier NationalPark, Ashford, WA.

1989a The Forest Communities of MountRainier National Park, by J. F.Franklin, W. H. Moir, M. A.Hemstrom, S. E. Greene, and B. G.Smith. Scientific Monograph SeriesNo. 19. Washington, D.C.

1989b Paradise Meadow Plan, by R. M.Rochefort. On file at MountRainier National Park, Ashford,WA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

430


1989c “Mount Rainier Trails Manage-ment Handbook.” Ashford, WA.

1990a Environmental Assessment forFlood Damage Repair, Dry CreekWashouts, Westside Road. Ash-ford, WA: Mount Rainier NationalPark.

1990b The Historic Resources of MountRainier National Park: NationalRegister of Historic Places Mul-tiple Property DocumentationForm, by S. Toothman. Seattle,WA: Cultural Resources Div.,Pacific Northwest Region.

1992a Limnology of Subalpine and HighMountain Forest Lakes in MountRainier National Park, by G.Larson, A. Wones, C. D. McIntire,and B. Samora. Technical ReportNPS/PNR CPSU OSU/NRTR-92/01. Seattle, WA: PacificNorthwest Region.

1992b Environmental Assessment:Sunrise Development ConceptPlan. Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park.

1992c Wilderness Management Plan.Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park.

1992d Laughingwater Creek BridgeReplacement Amended Environ-mental Assessment. Denver ServiceCenter. Denver, CO.

1992e Replace Deadwood Creek BridgeEnvironmental Assessment. DenverService Center. Denver, CO.

1993a Guiding Principles of SustainableDesign. Denver Service Center,Denver, CO.

1993b National Park Service FloodplainManagement Guideline. SpecialDirective 93-4. Fort Collins CO:Water Resources Division.

1994a "Application of FloodplainManagement Guideline. Nisquallyand Carbon River Floodplains."Unpublished report. On file atMount Rainier National Park,Ashford, WA.

1994b “Collections Management Plan.”On file at Mt. Rainier NationalPark, Ashford, WA.

1995a “Aquatic Studies in Mount RainierNational Park: 1995 Field Season,”by B. Samora. On file at MountRainier National Park, Ashford,WA.

1995b “Draft Analysis of Winter UseActivities for the General Man-agement Plan.” On file at MountRainier National Park, Ashford,WA.

1995c The Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties, with Guide-lines for Preserving, Rehabilita-ting, Restoring and ReconstructingHistoric Buildings, by Kay D.Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer.Washington, D.C.

1995d Environmental Assessment for theReconstruction of the ParadiseEmployee Dorm. Denver ServiceCenter, Denver, CO.

1996a “Mount Rainier National ParkMarbled Murrelet Inventory andMonitoring Program 1996 ProgressReport,” by R. Lechleitner, M.Cookson, and D. George. On file atMount Rainier National Park,Ashford, WA.

1996b National Historic Landmark Nomi-nation, Mount Rainier NationalPark, by E. Carr, S. Toothman, andS Begley. Washington, D.C.

Bibliography

431


1996c National Historic LandmarkTheme Study: The Twentieth-Cen-tury Landscape Park: Landmarksof the National Park Service Land-scape Architecture, by Ethan Carr.Washington, D.C.

1996d The Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties, with Guide-lines for the Treatment of CulturalLandscapes. Washington, D.C.:Cultural Resource Stewardship andPartnerships, Heritage PreservationServices, Historic LandscapeInitiative.

1996e Value Analysis Study for the Jack-son Visitor Center Rehabilitation.Mount Rainier National Park.Value Analysis Study 105-96.Denver, CO: Denver ServiceCenter.

1996f Wonderland, An AdministrativeHistory of Mount Rainier NationalPark, by T. Catton. Prepared forthe National Park Service. Seattle,WA: Cultural Resources Program.

1996g “Modeling Analysis of the Cen-tralia Power Plant.” by John C.Vimont, Natural ResourcesProgram Center, Air ResourcesDivision. Denver, Colorado.

1997a Cultural Resource ManagementGuideline, Release No. 5. DirectorsOrder NPS-28. Washington, D.C.

1997b “Geological Hazard and FloodplainManagement for the Mount RainierGeneral Management Plan,” by J.L. Riedel. On file at Mount RainierNational Park, Ashford, WA.

1997c Environmental Assessment toReconstruct Washington StateRoute 410. Denver Service Center.Denver, CO.

1997c “National Register of HistoricPlaces form for Mount RainierNational Historic LandmarkDistrict,” National Register No.97000344. Washington, D.C.

1998a Carbon River Road ReconstructionEnvironmental Assessment. Den-ver, CO: Denver Service Center.

1998b Personal communication. Elec-tronic mail message from BarbaraSamora, Resource Specialist,Mount Rainier National Park, Ash-ford, WA to Karen Lusby, NaturalResource Specialist , National ParkService, Denver, April 9.

1998c Personal communication. Elec-tronic mail message from BarbaraSamora, Resource Specialist,Mount Rainier National Park, Ash-ford, WA to Heather Todd, NaturalResource Specialist , National ParkService, Denver, November 23.

1999a “Briefing Statements for PacificWest Regional Director on ParkJunction Resort and Crystal Moun-tain Resort Master Plan Devel-opment, January 1999.” Seattle,WA: Pacific Northwest Region.

1999b Unpublished data, elk study.Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park, resource man-agement files.

1999c Unpublished data, lake acidity.Ashford, WA: Mount RainierNational Park, resourcemanagement files.

1999d Information extracted from“Wilderness Camping and Hik-ing.” Available on Internet atwww.nps.gov/mora/recreation/wildcamp.htm.

1999e Resource Management Plan. Onfile at Mount Rainier NationalPark, Ashford, WA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

432


1999f “Director’s Order 41 andReference Manual 41: WildernessPreservation and Management.”Washington, D.C.

1999g Environmental Assessment. Groveof the Patriarchs Nature Trail andRestroom Modifications. Ashford,WA.

2000a “Long-Range Interpretive Plan.”Harpers Ferry, WV: Harpers FerryCenter.

2000b “Strategic Plan for Mount RainierNational Park, Fiscal Year 2000-2005.” Unpublished report on fileat Mount Rainier National Park,Ashford, WA.

2000c “Mount Rainier National ParkWetlands Survey” by B. Samoraand R. M. Rochefort. On file atMount Rainier National Park,Ashford, WA.

2000d White River Entrance StationEnvironmental Assessment.Ashford, WA.

2000e “Director’s Order 47: SoundscapePreservation and NoiseManagement.” Washington, D.C.

2001a Environmental Assessment forSnowmobile Rulemaking in MountRainier National Park.” Ashford,WA.

2001b National Park ServiceManagement Policies.Washington, D.C.

2001c “Director’s Order 12: ConservationPlanning, Environmental ImpactAnalysis, and Decision-Making.”Washington, D.C.

n.d. Unpublished creel census data.Mount Rainier National Park.Longmire, WA.

National Research Council1994 Mount Rainier, Active Cascade

Volcano: Research Strategies forMitigating Risk from a High,Snow-Clad Volcano in a PopulousRegion. U.S. Geodynamics Com-mittee, Board on Earth Sciencesand Resources, Commission onGeosciences, Environment andResources. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.

Natsuhara, C.2000 Personal communication from C.

Natsuhara, soil scientist , U.S.Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service.February 16.

Nelson, L. M.1986 Flood Characteristics for the

Nisqually River and Susceptibilityof Sunshine Point and LongmireFacilities to Flooding in MountRainier National Park. WaterResources Investigations Report86-4179. Tacoma, WA: U.S.Geological Survey.

Nisqually River Council1986 Nisqually River Management Plan.

Yelm, WA.

Otak, Inc.1999 Chinook Byways Corridor Plan-

ning and Management Guidebook.Otak Inc. Seattle, WA.

Phuffman, P. Unpublished“Train to the Mountain: A Regional Trans-

portation Project.” Paper presentedat the January 5, 2001, NPSNisqually Road Charrette, Eaton-ville, WA.

Pierce County, Washington1999a Comprehensive Plan for Pierce

County, Washington. AdoptedOctober 5, 1999. Effective July5,2000. Pierce County Planningand Land Services. Tacoma, WA.

Bibliography

433

Pierce County, Washington1999b Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for the UpperNisqually Valley Community Plan.Pierce County Planning and LandServices. Tacoma, WA.

Pierce County, Washington2000 Upper Nisqually Valley Community

Plan: A Component of the PierceCounty Comprehensive Plan.Pierce County Planning and LandServices. Tacoma, WA.

Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael, andJ. F. Piatt, eds.

1995 Ecology and Conservation of theMarbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech.Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific SouthwestResearch Station.

Rochefort, R. M., and D. D. Swinney2000 “Human Impact Surveys in Mount

Rainier National Park: Past,Present and Future” in Proceed-ings: Wilderness Science in a Timeof Change, ed. by D. N. Cole andS. F. McCool. RMRS-P000.Ogden, UT: Rocky MountainResearch Station, U.S. ForestService.

Samora, B.1993 “Wilderness and Backcountry

Visitor Use Analysis, MountRainier National Park.” Unpub-lished report on file at MountRainier National Park, Ashford,WA.

Schasse, H. W.1987 Geologic Map of the Mount

Rainier Quadrangle. Washington.Washington, D.C.: U.S. GeologicalSurvey.

Schmoe, Floyd

1925 Our Greatest Mountain: AHandbook for Mount RainierNational Park. G. P. Putnam'sSons, New York and London.

Schullery, P.1984 A History of Native Elk in

Mount Rainier National Park:Final Report to the NationalPark Service, Mount RainierNational Park. Livingston,Montana.

Scott, K. M., and J. W. Vallance1994 History of Landslides and Debris

Flows at Mount Rainier. Open FileReport 93-111. Vancouver, WA:U.S. Geological Survey, CascadesVolcano Observatory.

1995 Debris Flow, Debris Avalancheand Flood Hazards at andDownstream From Mount Rainier,Washington. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Hydrologic InvestigationsAtlas, HA-729. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Geological Survey.

Scott, K. M., J. W. Vallance, and P. T . Pringle1992 Sedimentology, Behavior and

Hazards of Debris Flows at MountRainier. U.S. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 1547.Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Sisson, T . W.1995 “An Overview of the Geology of

Mount Rainier’s VolcanicEdifice.” Paper presented at theMount Rainier — Decade VolcanoI session. Fall meeting, AmericanGeophysical Union, San Francisco,CA.

Sumner, L., and J. S. Dixon1953 Birds and Mammals of the Sierra

Nevada. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

434

Taylor, W. P., and W. T. Shaw1927 Mammals and Birds of Mount

Rainier National Park. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Thomas, J. W., M. G. Raphael, R. G. Anthony,E. D. Forsman, A. G. Gunderson,R. S. Holthausen, B. G. Marcot, G. H. Reeves,J. R. Sedell, and D. M. Solis

1993 Viability Assessments and Manage-ment Considerations for SpeciesAssociated with Late-successionaland Old-growth Forest of thePacific Northwest: The Report ofthe Scientific Analysis Team .Portland OR: U.S. Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture.

T illing, R. I., W. E. Scott, N. G. Banks, D. H.Harlow, J. W. Ewert, and R. S. Punonbayan

1989 Volcanic Hazards: Short Course inGeology, Volume 1. Crawford, M.L., and E. Padovani, eds. Wash-ington, D.C.: AmericanGeophysical Union.

U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.

Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicks-burg, MS: Waterways ExperimentStation, Environmental Laboratory.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1999 Policy and Guidance Record:

Emissions Inventory Guidance forImplementation of Ozone andParticulate Matter NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) and Regional HazeRegulations. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior

1984 National Wetlands Inventory maps.Washington, D.C.

1991 “Discovery and Observations ofTwo Tree Nests of the MarbledMurrelet,” by S. W. Singer, N. L.Naslund, S. A. Singer, and C. J.Ralph. Condor 93:330-339. Quotedin Draft Recovery Plan for MarbleMurrelet, Washington, Oregon,and California Populations, by G.S. Miller, S.R. Beissinger, H.R.Carter, B. Csuti, T. E. Hamer, andD. A. Perry. Portland, OR.

1992 “The Pinyon Jay: BehavioralEcology of a Colonial and Cooper-ative Corvid,” by J. M. Marzluffand R. P. Balda. London, England:T & A D Poyser. Quoted in DraftRecovery Plan for Marble Murre-let, Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia Populations, by G. S.Miller, S.R. Beissinger, H.R.Carter, B. Csuti, T. E. Hamer, andD. A. Perry. Portland, OR.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Department ofAgriculture

1985 Influence of Forest and RangelandManagement on Anadromous FishHabitat in Western North America:Influences of Recreation, by R. N.Clark, D. R. Gibbons, and G. B.Pauley. General Technical ReportPNW-178. Portland, OR: PacificNorthwest Forest and RangeExperiment Station.

1995 The Biology of Amphibians andReptiles in Old-Growth Forests inthe Pacific Northwest, by A. R.Blaustein, J. J. Beatty, D. H. Olson,and R. M. Storm. GeneralTechnical Report PNW-337.Portland, OR: Pacific NorthwestForest and Range ExperimentStation.

1999a Crystal Mountain Master Devel-opment Plan EnvironmentalImpact Statement Update, April1999. Mount Baker-SnoqualmieNational Forest and CrystalMountain Ski Area, Washington.

Bibliography

435

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Department ofAgriculture

1999b Decision Notice and Finding of NoSignificant Impact, WildernessResource Protection Project,Gifford Pinchot National Forest,Counties of Lewis, Pierce,Skamania and Yakima in the Stateof Washington. Vancouver, WA:Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

1999c Information extracted from“Schedules of Proposed Actions:Wenatchee, Gifford Pinchot, andMount Baker–SnoqualmieNational Forests.” Available onInternet at http://www.fs.fed.us/.

1999d “Categorical Exclusion for theCarbon River Bridge.” SignedApril 5, 1999. On file at the MountBaker-Snoqualmie National Forest.Mountlake Terrace, WA.

2000 Bronze Billy EnvironmentalAssessment. Prepared by theCowlitz Ranger District, GiffordPinchot National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, and Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Department of the Interior

1994a Final Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement: Management ofHabitat for Late-Successional andOld-Growth Forest Related Spe-cies within the Range of theNorthern Spotted Owl. Volumes Iand II, and appendices. Portland,OR.

1994b Record of Decision for Amend-ments to Forest Service andBureau of Land ManagementPlanning Documents within theRange of the Northern SpottedOwl: Standards and Guidelines forManagement of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-GrowthForest Related Species within theRange of the Northern SpottedOwl. (Commonly called theNorthwest Forest Plan.) Portland,OR.

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of theInterior

1969a The Geologic Story of MountRainier, by D. W. Crandell. Geo-logical Survey Bulletin 1292.Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

1969b Surficial Geology of Mount RainierNational Park, by D. R. Crandell.Geological Survey Bulletin 1288.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office.

Van Gelder, R. G.1982 Mammals of the National Parks.

Baltimore, MD and London,England: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Vande Kamp, M. E.1996 “Possible Social Indicators for the

Motorized Sightseeing Zone.”Seattle, WA: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Biological ResourcesDivision, FRESC, University ofWashington Field Station.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

436

Vande Kamp, M. E, and D. R. Johnson1990 “A Study of Visitor Attitudes

toward Initiation of a VisitorTransportation System at MountRainier National Park.” Preparedfor the National Park Service.Seattle, WA: Cooperative ParkStudies Unit, College of ForestResources, University ofWashington.

1998 “Visitor Density in Facilit ies:Mount Rainier National ParkFacility Surveys.” TechnicalReport NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-98-11, NPS-D-322. Seattle, WA: U.S.Geological Survey, BiologicalResources Division, FRESC,University of Washington, Collegeof Forest Resources, Field Station,Protected Area Research.

in prep. “Survey of Overnight Backpackersat Mount Rainier National Park.”Seattle, WA: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Biological ResourcesDivision, FRESC, University ofWashington, College of ForestResources, Cascadia Field Station.

Vande Kamp, M. E., D. R. Johnson, and J. E.Swanson

1998 “1993 Spray Park Visitor Use Sur-vey.” Prepared for the NationalPark Service. Technical ReportNPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-98-04,NPS-D-317. Seattle, WA: U.S.Geological Survey, BiologicalResources Division, FRESC,University of Washington, Collegeof Forest Resources, Field Station,Protected Area Research.

1999 “A Survey of Wilderness TrailUsers in Mount Rainier NationalPark.” Prepared for the NationalPark Service. Technical ReportNPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-2000-01,NPS D-339. Seattle, WA: U.S.Geological Survey, BiologicalResources Division, FRESC,University of Washington, Collegeof Forest Resources, CascadiaField Station.

Vande Kamp, M. E., D. R. Johnson, A. Kucera,and Y. Young

1997 Describing and Estimating theSystem of Visitor Distribution inMount Rainier National Park:1995 Visitor Distribution Survey.Technical Report NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-97-07. NPS V-370.Prepared for the National ParkService. Seattle, WA: Field Stationfor Protected Area Research,College of Forest Resources.

Walder, J. S. and C. L. Driedger1993 Glacier-Generated Debris Flows

at Mount Rainier. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Bulletin 1966.

Washington, State of1995 Washington State County

Population Projections by Age andSex: 1990-2020. Olympia, WA:State of Washington, Office ofFinancial Management, Fore-casting Division.

2000 State of Washington 1999 DataBook. Olympia, WA: WashingtonOffice of Financial Management,Population Division.

Yakima County1998 Yakima County Plan 2015. Yakima

County, Planning Department.Yakima, WA.

Bibliography

437

Zimbelman, D. R.1995 “Geologic Controls on Large

Volcanic Debris Avalanches asDisplayed at Mount Rainier,Washington.” Paper presented atMount Rainier — Decade VolcanoI session. Fall meeting, AmericanGeophysical Union, San Francisco,CA.

Zimbelman, D. R., R. O. Rye, G. S. Plumlee,and G. Whitney

1995 “Geologic Controls on Large Vol-canic Debris Avalanches asDisplayed at Mount RainierNational Park, Washington.” EOSTransactions of the AmericanGeophysical Union. Fall MeetingSupplement Abstract. SanFrancisco, CA.

Zimbelman, D. R., T . W. Sisson, C. G. Whitneyand K. J. Esposito

1994 “Relationship of HydrothermalAlteration to Volcanic Hazards atMount Rainier National Park,Washington. Preliminary Results.”Geological Society of AmericaAbstracts 26(7).

438

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

CORE PLANNING TEAM

National Park Service

Gary M. Ahlstrand, Chief of Natural and CulturalResources, Mount Rainier National Park,(retired). B.A. (Biology), MNS (NaturalScience), Ph.D. (Botany). Twenty-six yearswith the National Park Service, of which eightyears were with Mount Rainier National Park.

Larry Beal, Project Manager, Denver Service Center.B.A. (Geography) and M.R.P. (Regional Plan-ning). Twenty-one years with the National ParkService. Project manager for the Mount RainierGeneral Management Plan (1999 to present).Responsible for managing the planning processand coordinating preparation of the document.

William J. Briggle, Superintendent, Mount Rainier(retired) 1977-1984, and 1991-1999. Served asDeputy Director of the National Park Service,and Deputy Regional Director of the Pacifi cNorthwest Region, as well as many otherassignments in his 50-year career with theNational Park Service. Superintendent duringthe initial planning stages of the generalmanagement plan.

Sharon Brown, Interpretive Planner, Harpers FerryCenter. B.S. (History), M.A. (History), Ph.D.(American Studies). Twenty-three years withthe National Park Service. Interpretive plannerfor the Mount Rainier general management plan(1994-97). Responsible for developing prescrip-tive management zones (visitor experience andinterpretation) and developing preliminarymanagement alternatives.

Ethan Carr, Historical Landscape Architect, DenverService Center (now with the WashingtonOffice). B.A., M.A. (Art History) M.L.A.(Landscape Architecture). Six years with theNational Park Service. Assisted in analysis ofimpacts on cultural landscapes.

William Dengler, Chief of Interpretation and Edu-cation, Mount Rainier National Park (retired).Worked on general management plan from1994-97. Participated in team meetings in the

development of the prescriptive managementzones.

Laurie Domler, Community Planner, Denver ServiceCenter (now with Intermountain Region ) B.S.(Regional Development), M.S. (RenewableNatural Resource Studies). Seven years as apublic sector planner, and six years with theNational Park Service. Responsible for reviewand comment on adjacent area plans for con-sistency with our plan, and a boundary study.

Suzann Essman, Landscape Architect, DenverService Center (now with Denver Parks andRecreation Department). B.S. (Plant and SoilScience), M.L.A. (Landscape Architecture). Sixyears with the National Park Service. Respon-sible for helping develop management alterna-tives and analyzing their feasibility, coordinatedarchitectural and engineering contracts.

Maria Gillett, Chief of Interpretation and Education,Mount Rainier National Park. B.A., (English).Twelve years with the National Park Service,two years with Mount Rainier National Park.

Allen Hagood, Outdoor Recreation Planner, DenverService Center (retired). B.S., M.S. (Geology).Thirty-four years with the National Park Ser-vice. Job captain for the Mount Rainier generalmanagement plan (1993–98). Responsible forcoordinating data collection, carrying capacitystudies, geologic hazard studies, and publicinvolvement activities for the project; providedday-to-day guidance to team members.

Jonathan B. Jarvis, Superintendent, Mount Rainier,July 1999 to Present. B.S. (Biology). Twentyfour years with the National Park Service,including Superintendencies at Craters of theMoon National Monument in Idaho, andWrangell St. Elias in Alaska.

Patrick Kenney, Natural Resource Specialist, DenverService Center. B.S. (Zoology). Eleven yearswith the National Park Service. Job captain(2000–2001), managing the completion of theplan.

Preparers and Contributors

439

Paul Lee, Interpretive Planner, Harpers Ferry Center.M.S. (Plant Ecology). Thirty years with theNational Park Service. Contributed to the“ Affected Environment” and “ EnvironmentalConsequences” sections relative to visitorexperience concerns.

Richard Lichtkoppler, Resource Economist, DenverService Center (now with the Bureau ofReclamation). B.S. (Business Administration),M.S. (Natural Resources), Ph.D. (ResourceEconomics). Nine years with the National ParkService. Responsible for socioeconomicresources and analyses.

Jerald M. Lorenz, Project Manager, Denver ServiceCenter (retired). B.A. (Landscape Architecture).Twenty-two years with the National ParkService, 4 years with Washington State, and 2years private practice. Responsible for projectscheduling and budgeting.

Jon Nickolas, Writer-Editor, Denver Service Center).(deceased) B.S. (Journalism). Seven years withthe National Park Service. Responsible forinitial editorial work.

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Speci alist, DenverService Center. B.A. (Environmental Studies),and M.F.S. (Forest Science). Eight years withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, seven yearswith the National Park Service. Responsible foranalysis of impacts on wilderness values.

Rose Rumball-Petre, Environmental ProtectionSpecialist, Mount Rainier National Park, B.S.(Natural Resources). Fourteen years with theNational Park Service, four years at MountRainier National Park. Participated throughoutplanning process, responsible for rewritingaffected environment and some environmentalconsequences sections.

Craig Strong, Cultural Resources Specialist, MountRainier National Park (deceased). B.S. (Archi-tecture). Responsible as key park contact andcoordinator of the cultural resources program atthe park. Ten years with National Park Service;three years with Mount Rainier National Park.

Patricia S. Trap, Planning Team Leader andLandscape Architect, Denver Service Center(now with Mesa Verde National Park). B.S.(Park and Recreation Resources–planning andadministration) and M.L.A.(LandscapeArchitecture). Eleven years with the NationalPark Service. Responsible for managing the

planning process and coordinating preparationof the document; prior to being team leader,served as landscape architect for the project.

Heather Todd, Natural Resource Specialist, DenverService Center (now with the Alaska RegionalSupport Office). B.A. (Zoology), M.A. (PublicPolicy), Master of Environmental Management.Five years with the National Park Service, twoyears with the U.S. Forest Service. Responsiblefor writing initial descriptions of the alterna-tives, describing natural resources, and assess-ing natural resource impacts.

Dave Uberuaga, Deputy Superintendent, MountRainier National Park. B.S. (Biology), M.B.A.(Business Administration). Eighteen years withNational Park Service at Mount RainierNational Park. Involved in all aspects of thegeneral management plan / environmentalimpact statement from initial planning throughfinal document.

Eric J. Walkinshaw, Chief of Planning and Pro-fessional Services, Mount Rainier NationalPark. B.S. (Civil Engineering). Twenty-twoyears with National Park Service, of which nineyears were with Mount Rainier National Park.Responsible as park coordinator on the generalmanagement plan.

Steven Whissen, Historian/Cultural ResourceSpecialist, Denver Service Center. M.A.(Historic Preservation). Eight years with theNational Park Service. Responsible forassessing archeological and ethnographicresources for the general management plan, andsection 106 compliance coordination.

BRW, Inc.

William Byrne, P.E., Transportation Planner andEngineer, BRW, Inc. B.S. (Civil Engineering),M.S. (Civil Engineering). Twenty-two years ofexperience. Responsible for developing trans-portation and visitor experience sections of theinitial draft document.

Karen Lusby, Environmental Planner, BRW Inc. B.S.(Outdoor Recreation/Park Administration),M.S. (Forest Economics). Sixteen years ofexperience. Responsible for assessing naturalresource impacts and providing guidance oncumulative impact assessments in the initialdraft.

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

440

Michael Morelli, Project Manager, BRW, Inc. B.A.(Environmental Design and Planning); M.L.A.(Landscape Architecture and Planning).Twenty-four years of experience. Responsiblefor project coordination and review with NPSstaff on the initial draft plan.

Beth Ordonoz, Transportation Planner, BRW, Inc.B.A. (Political Science), M.C.P. (City Plan-ning). Ten years of experience. Responsible forassessing impacts associated with visitor useand experience on the initial draft document.

Mary Taylor Raulerson, Environmental Planner,BRW, Inc. B.S. (Biological Science). Ten yearsof experience. Responsible for assessingenvironmental impacts in the initial draftdocument.

Amanda Rutherford, Environmental Planner, BRW,Inc. B.A. (Environmental Policy), MURP.(Master of Urban and Regional Planning).Three years of experi ence. Responsible forassessing natural resource impacts and coordi-nating work on the initial draft document.

Greg Sorensen, Editor, BRW, Inc. B.A. (InternationalAffairs ). Twenty-five years of experience.Responsible for editing the initial draftdocument.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. and ParsonsHarland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc.

Patricia Collins, Environmental Planner, ParsonsHarland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. B.A.(Ecology) and M.S. (Environmental Health andSciences). Thirty years of experi ence. Respon-sible for editing and technical review of thedraft document.

Robert Duchek, Project Manager, Parsons HarlandBartholomew and Associates, Inc. B.A.(Political Science), graduate study in urbanplanning. Thirty-five years of experience.Responsible for project coordination, andassessing impacts associated with visitorexperience in the draft document.

Bryan Ferguson, Graphic Technician, ParsonsHarland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. B.A.(Architecture) Twelve years of experience.Responsible for editing and revision of maps inthe draft document.

Anders Hauge, Principal Project Manager, ParsonsHarland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. B.S.(City and Regional Planning).Twenty-nineyears of experience. Provided planning andNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)compliance for the draft document.

Kelly Heidecker, Cultural Resource Specialist,Parsons Harland Bartholomew and Associates,Inc. B.A. (anthropology) and M.S. CulturalResources Management. Six years of experi-ence. Responsible for assessing impacts asso-ciated with cultural resources in the draftdocument.

Carrie Lukaci c, Environmental Planner, ParsonsHarland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. B.S.(Natural Resources Planning and Interpre-tation). Thirteen years of experience. Respon-sible for assessing impacts associated withwater resources, floodplains, and geologichazards in the draft document.

Nancy Potenza, Graphics Artist, Parsons EngineeringScience, Inc. A.A. (Cartography). Fifteen yearsof experience. Responsible for layout ofsummary draft document.

Bruce Snyder, Environmental Scientist, ParsonsEngineering Science, Inc. B.S. (Biology) andM.S. (Wildlife Biology). Thirty-one years ofexperience. Provided wetlands and wildlifeanalyses and National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) compliance for the draft document.

Janet Snyder, Environmental Scientist and Editor,Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. B.S.(Zoology). Twenty-six years of experience.Responsible for editing and technical review ofthe draft document.

PUBLICATION SERVICES

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, NPS, DSCGlenda Heronema, Visual Information Specialist,

NPS, DSCJoan Huff, Visual Information Technician, NPS, DSCLou Layman, Writer-Editor, NPS, DSC

Preparers and Contributors

441

TECHNICAL EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS

John Austin, Natural Resource Specialist, SequoiaKings Canyon National Parks

Darryll R. Johnson, Project Leader, Social ScienceProgram, United States Geological Survey,Biological Resources Division, Forest andRangeland Ecosystems Science Center,University of Washington Field Station, Collegeof Forest Resources, Seattle, WA.

Mark Vande Kamp, Research Associate, UnitedStates Geological Survey, Biological ResourcesDivision, Forest and Rangeland EcosystemsScience Center, University of Washington FieldStation, College of Forest Resources, Seattle,WA.

Jon L. Riedel, Geologist, North Cascades NationalPark.

Michael Spratt, Project Manager, Denver ServiceCenter (now with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService)

Richard G. Turk, Technical Expert, Value Analysis,Washington Office

Bob Welch, Supervisory Leader, Site Development,Denver Service Center

National Park Service, Pacific West Region

Keith Dunbar, Team Leader, Planning andPartnerships, Seattle

John Reynolds, Regional Director

Cheryl Teague, Landscape Architect, Planning &Partnerships, Seattle

Dr. Stephanie Toothman, Team Leader, CulturalResources, Seattle

Rick Wagner, Chief Columbia Cascades LandResources Program Center, Seattle

Bill Walters, Deputy Regional Director

Dr. Fred York, Regional Anthropologist, Seattle

Mount Rainier National Park

Dan Blackwell, Chief of Maintenance

Steve Burns, Historical Landscape Architect (nowwith the Intermountain Region)

Greg Burtchard, Cultural Resource Specialist(Archeologist)

Randy Brooks, former Mather District Ranger(retired)

Frank Cope, former Chief of Maintenance

Sheri Forbes, Assistant Chief of Interpretation andEducation

Vicky Jacobson, Historical Architect

John Kambrink, former Chief Ranger (retired)

Rick Kirscher, Klapatche Unit Ranger

Laurie Kurth, Plant Ecologist

Rich Lechleitner, former Ecologist

Alisa Lynch, Interpretive Specialist

Uwe Nehring, Northern District Ranger, ParkWilderness Coordinator

Jim Petterson, Wildlife Ecologist

Donna Rahier, Superintendent's Secretary

Regina Rochefort, Botanist (now with NorthCascades National Park)

Barbara Samora, Biologist

Darin Swinney, Geographic Information Specialist

Karla Tanner, former Paradise Supervisory ParkRanger

John Wilcox, former Muir District Ranger (retired)

442

INDEX

Aaccess, accessibility, ix, x, 12, 15, 21, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 46, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 74, 75,

77, 82, 83, 90, 91, 93, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 131, 133, 143, 145, 161, 165, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 188, 198,204, 205, 211, 215, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 235, 238, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260,261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 268, 276, 278, 280, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295, 296,297, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 317, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 398, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 415

air quality, 14, 19, 20, 21, 28, 35, 53, 58, 91, 108, 116, 124, 129, 130, 198, 199, 207, 212, 213, 241, 242,267, 270, 295, 308, 316, 325, 332, 411, 412

alpine areas, 4, 11, 21, 33, 34, 48, 52, 59, 70, 79, 130, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146, 149, 150, 164, 165, 180,182, 183, 186, 193, 234, 235, 238, 261, 288, 316, 324, 397, 404, 405, 411, 412

American Indians (also see Native Americans), 16, 17, 18, 24Ashford, v, 73, 174, 183, 191, 193, 207, 208, 210, 307, 385, 402, 426, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433

Bbackpacking, 184, 185, 234, 262, 263, 290, 310, 313, 316birds, 4, 21, 125, 140, 144, 148, 149, 220, 250, 275, 278, 413boundary adjustment, vi, x, 45, 84, 85, 86, 89, 94, 109, 113, 114, 116, 117, 199, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247,

249, 250, 259, 260, 269, 271, 272, 274, 276, 278, 287, 296, 308, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 323, 332, 397,415, 423

Burroughs Mountain, 60, 184, 234Butter Creek Research Natural Area, 52, 60

CCamp Muir, 48, 67, 132, 134, 156, 166, 183, 186, 194, 211, 224, 225, 226, 412, 423campgrounds, ix, x, 7, 22, 27, 34, 36, 38, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 67, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79,

80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 94, 97, 103, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 127, 130, 133, 134, 135, 137, 156,160, 161, 162, 163, 173, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 193, 194, 211, 215, 223, 224, 242,244, 246, 250, 254, 256, 258, 260, 271, 272, 284, 285, 286, 287, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 326, 327, 329,332, 397, 404, 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 423, 424, 425

camping, 23, 32, 33, 37, 38, 48, 53, 55, 56, 59, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 104,108, 109, 112, 113, 134, 139, 140, 162, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 192, 210, 213, 214, 216, 217,220, 224, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 241, 243, 248, 252, 262, 263, 271, 280, 289, 324, 326, 327, 397, 403,404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 411, 416, 424

Carbon River, 3, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46, 51, 55, 56, 68, 70, 74, 75, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90,91, 93, 94, 95, 103, 106, 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 146, 148,151, 156, 162, 163, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 188, 192, 198, 210, 211, 213,214, 215, 216, 217, 221, 223, 224, 229, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255,256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 285,286, 287, 288, 290, 294, 295, 296, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 316, 317, 323, 324, 331, 332, 401,402, 415, 416, 423, 424, 425, 430, 431, 435

Carbonado, 174, 191, 192, 402carrying capacity, 19, 23, 31, 33, 37, 52, 58, 68, 69, 80, 81, 82, 91, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116,

117, 127, 241, 242, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 270, 271, 272, 274,275, 276, 278, 286, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 310, 311, 313, 314, 324, 329, 410, 438

Cascade, 4, 11, 77, 137, 140, 150, 152, 159, 160, 191, 302, 304, 305, 306, 432

Index

443

climbers, climbing, 4, 7, 12, 30, 33, 48, 52, 54, 59, 60, 75, 81, 96, 110, 119, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184,185, 186, 194, 210, 233, 234, 235, 236, 262, 263, 289, 290, 310, 313, 316, 324, 331, 405, 406

closure (roads), 36, 38, 54, 56, 98, 109, 204, 244, 255, 273, 284, 415Comet Falls, 32, 60, 184, 185, 234, 263, 290concessions, concessioners, 26, 27, 32, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 67, 68, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 91, 109, 110, 119,

125, 127, 162, 173, 183, 194, 205, 212, 227, 239, 254, 267, 268, 282, 294, 295, 316, 398congestion, 3, 23, 34, 38, 40, 58, 74, 76, 77, 81, 118, 126, 174, 178, 179, 198, 204, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232,

237, 239, 256, 257, 258, 261, 285, 286, 288, 297, 298, 312, 328, 399, 410consultation, 22, 23, 24, 97, 98, 99, 100, 165, 303, 316, 327, 421costs, 9, 36, 37, 38, 45, 57, 74, 86, 89, 92, 94, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 265, 266, 292, 308, 312, 313, 316,

317, 330, 415, 425Cougar Rock, 27, 51, 53, 67, 76, 79, 103, 130, 134, 137, 156, 161, 179, 182, 223, 329, 412, 423, 424Crystal Mountain, 7, 40, 70, 82, 104, 186, 192, 193, 209, 212, 214, 217, 227, 230, 232, 235, 236, 237, 238,

239, 266, 267, 268, 279, 293, 294, 295, 302, 305, 311, 316, 326, 331, 431, 434cumulative impacts, 35, 197, 206, 207, 211, 213, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228,

230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254,255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281,282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 439

Ddebris flow (geologic hazard), 35, 38, 53, 76, 77, 96, 103, 108, 125, 132, 133, 134, 144, 145, 146, 155, 156,

159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 199, 200, 202, 203, 223, 224, 252, 253, 280, 281, 423, 424, 425deer, 124, 140, 143, 164, 165, 219, 248, 275, 310, 326disabilities, see visitors with disabilities

EEatonville, 177, 191, 193, 207, 301, 304, 306, 308, 432ecosystem management, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 138, 140, 184, 314, 316, 323, 325, 400education center, 46, 197Elbe, 73, 174, 191, 193, 207, 208, 209, 402elk, 14, 22, 124, 140, 143, 164, 165, 219, 248, 275, 310, 323, 326, 431Enumclaw, 52, 159, 174, 191, 192, 207, 208, 232, 301, 304, 305, 306, 308, 315, 318, 402environmental justice, 128environmentally preferred alternative, 101, 317ethnographic resources, 18, 24, 99, 165, 184, 203, 225, 226, 254, 282, 325, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408,

409, 439

Ffishes, fishing, 4, 21, 22, 97, 98, 125, 145, 148, 149, 151, 182, 183, 209, 221, 251, 279, 316, 412, 416, 421,

429floodplains, 36, 83, 96, 116, 123, 124, 132, 133, 134, 135, 162, 163, 176, 200, 202, 215, 216, 224, 244,

245, 272, 273, 310, 416, 423, 440

Ggateway communities, 26, 27, 74, 77, 118, 119, 126, 127, 174, 187, 191, 193, 205, 206, 207, 237, 238, 266,

267, 293, 294, 311, 399, 402glaciers, 4, 12, 20, 35, 52, 60, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 144, 146, 155, 159, 160, 161, 178, 180, 182,

184, 215, 238, 324, 423Greenwater, 174, 191, 192, 193, 208, 209, 304, 305, 402Grove of the Patriarchs, x, 30, 45, 67, 93, 106, 118, 134, 175, 180, 182, 211, 214, 287, 432

INDEX

444

HHenry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center, 45, 51, 53, 55, 58, 82, 86, 92, 95, 106, 107, 110, 116, 118, 125,

161, 170, 228, 231, 239, 243, 255, 256, 260, 268, 269, 271, 283, 295, 296hikers, hiking, 33, 36, 39, 48, 52, 54, 59, 74, 80, 84, 92, 94, 104, 109, 113, 115, 133, 138, 139, 143, 161,

162, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 193, 194, 209, 213, 216, 221, 231, 234, 248, 259, 260, 262,263, 267, 275, 284, 290, 310, 313, 332, 404, 405, 406, 408, 416

hunting, 4, 24, 143, 150, 164, 165, 188, 192, 259, 287, 323

Iimpairment, 28, 128, 204, 297, 298, 317Indian see American Indian, Native Americanindicators, 14, 19, 20, 21, 68, 69, 70, 76, 81, 82, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 144, 179, 246, 251, 259, 279,

286, 287, 301, 310, 311, 314, 324, 325, 397, 410, 411, 412, 414interpretation, 3, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 26, 30, 32, 36, 39, 46, 51, 52, 53, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 86, 91, 97, 107,

126, 169, 179, 180, 181, 204, 208, 209, 232, 259, 260, 261, 287, 288, 308, 309, 316, 328, 329, 397, 398,403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 416, 438

Ipsut Creek, 51, 53, 55, 56, 68, 84, 85, 86, 91, 94, 108, 113, 115, 133, 134, 135, 137, 156, 162, 163, 176,178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 185, 215, 223, 224, 229, 244, 257, 258, 272, 273, 284, 285, 310, 311, 415, 423

JJackson Memorial Visitor Center, see Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center

KKautz Creek, 67, 134, 156, 159, 223, 423Klapatche Point, 80, 91, 92, 109, 257, 260, 284

Llandowners, 14, 15, 21, 39, 89, 316Lewis County, 4, 39, 128, 130, 148, 173, 187, 188, 191, 192, 207, 237, 302, 304, 401, 429, 435Longmire, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 46, 51, 52, 54, 56, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, 92, 97, 102, 103, 109, 129, 131,

132, 133, 134, 140, 148, 150, 151, 152, 156, 160, 161, 166, 170, 175, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 186,194, 200, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 244, 256, 257, 258, 261, 272, 283, 284,285, 288, 316, 317, 326, 397, 398, 411, 423, 424, 425, 432

Mmammals, 4, 21, 125, 140, 148, 164, 220, 275, 413marbled murrelet, 33, 85, 98, 117, 144, 146, 148, 220, 222, 250, 252, 277, 278, 280, 416Mather wye, 56, 67, 85, 94, 115mitigation, 23, 24, 80, 86, 93, 99, 117, 118, 162, 208, 211, 213, 214, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 235, 239,

246, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 286, 415, 423, 424monitoring, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 35, 53, 68, 69, 70, 76, 77, 99, 100, 104, 129, 139, 149,

183, 210, 249, 259, 276, 278, 287, 309, 310, 311, 316, 324, 397, 398, 403, 404, 405, 410, 411, 412, 413Mount Rainier Resort, 41, 207, 212, 214, 230, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 266, 268, 295, 311, 427Mowich, 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 55, 56, 68, 70, 74, 75, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95,

112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 124, 131, 134, 136, 137, 140, 145, 148, 151, 152, 156, 162, 169, 172, 173, 174,175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 186, 192, 213, 221, 222, 223, 229, 242, 243, 244, 249, 250, 251, 254,255, 256, 257, 263, 268, 271, 272, 273, 279, 284, 285, 296, 308, 311, 312, 314, 315, 326, 327, 331, 416

Mowich Lake, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 51, 55, 56, 68, 70, 74, 75, 83, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 112, 113,118, 131, 134, 136, 137, 140, 156, 162, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 186, 213,

Index

445

223, 229, 242, 243, 244, 249, 250, 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, 263, 271, 272, 273, 279, 284, 285, 296, 308,311, 312, 314, 315, 326, 327, 331

NNarada Falls, 34, 134, 156, 169, 175, 182, 185, 257, 285National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, 28, 29, 70, 73, 74, 101, 124, 128, 197, 322,

329, 330, 332, 427, 429, 440National Historic Landmark District, 3, 7, 9, 11, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 47, 51, 52, 58, 80, 81, 82, 84,

92, 99, 102, 103, 105, 113, 125, 126, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 204, 211, 227, 228, 254, 255, 260, 282,283, 325, 331, 333, 431

Native Americans (also see American Indians), 4, 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 99, 117, 125, 128, 164, 165, 173, 203,225, 226, 254, 282, 302, 305, 308, 309, 316, 327, 328, 426

Nisqually, 11, 16, 18, 34, 36, 37, 47, 51, 52, 56, 67, 79, 84, 92, 93, 103, 108, 109, 114, 124, 130, 132, 133,134, 145, 148, 152, 156, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183,184, 188, 191, 193, 200, 207, 208, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 229, 230, 237, 302,303, 305, 306, 308, 309, 317, 323, 326, 327, 400, 401, 402, 421, 423, 424, 427, 430, 432, 433

noise, 54, 74, 78, 79, 98, 108, 220, 231, 235, 248, 250, 260, 264, 275, 278, 288, 291, 411, 413northern spotted owl, xii, 8, 14, 33, 98, 101, 117, 144, 146, 147, 148, 220, 222, 249, 250, 252, 277, 278,

280, 295, 298, 325, 328, 400

OOhanapecosh, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 67, 77, 79, 82, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 106, 108,

111, 114, 130, 131, 134, 146, 148, 152, 156, 161, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 182, 184, 192, 194, 224,228, 229, 232, 234, 254, 283, 284, 287, 317, 323, 330, 399, 412, 423

overflow parking, 34, 38, 54, 55, 56, 58, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 93, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 118,178, 198, 213, 224, 229, 230, 243, 244, 246, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 265, 266, 267, 268,271, 272, 274, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 293, 294, 296, 314, 316, 328

PPaci fic Crest Trail, 8, 40, 77, 91, 108, 183, 184, 259, 287, 306pack stock, 54, 55, 77, 82, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 106, 108, 109, 113, 183, 186, 217, 246, 255, 259,

274, 287Packwood, 52, 90, 95, 174, 191, 192, 193, 207, 304, 306, 308Paradise, 3, 21, 23, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 67, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79,

80, 81, 82, 84, 90, 92, 93, 95, 102, 104, 108, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 126, 129, 131, 134, 136, 139, 156,159, 161, 162, 166, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 194, 198,201, 211, 217, 218, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 241, 243, 246, 248, 252, 254, 255, 256,257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 268, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 295, 308, 310, 316, 317, 330, 397, 398, 410,429, 430, 441

Paradise Meadows, 23, 51, 67, 116, 139, 201, 217, 218partnerships, 17, 19, 20, 27, 28, 32, 52, 53, 73, 74, 86, 89, 107, 108, 212, 312, 317, 322, 325, 399Paul Peak, 55, 56, 79, 83, 85, 90, 95, 113, 115, 182, 184, 243, 250, 327, 332picnic sites, facilities, 7, 37, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 68, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 109, 110,

112, 113, 114, 116, 127, 133, 134, 148, 156, 160, 180, 181, 182, 184, 194, 211, 220, 223, 229, 231, 241,243, 246, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257, 259, 260, 269, 271, 274, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 284, 287,288, 296, 326, 332, 397, 407, 408, 411, 413, 414, 423

Pierce County, v, 4, 8, 39, 128, 130, 148, 173, 187, 188, 191, 192, 207, 208, 212, 214, 216, 218, 219, 230,236, 237, 238, 266, 293, 302, 304, 305, 306, 309, 311, 312, 400, 402, 421, 427, 432, 433, 435

planning process, 58, 76, 103, 104, 107, 128, 297, 301, 302, 309, 311, 415, 425, 438, 439

INDEX

446

Rresearch, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 59, 60, 137, 145, 156, 164, 183, 184, 199, 203, 397, 398,

403, 404, 405restoration, ix, 21, 22, 29, 30, 34, 97, 136, 139, 140, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 235, 245, 246, 247,

248, 249, 255, 269, 271, 273, 275, 276, 282, 296, 297, 404Ricksecker Point, 45, 54, 56, 67, 80, 90, 95, 110, 254road closures, 36, 38, 54, 56, 98, 109, 204, 227, 257, 284, 285, 286, 308, 309, 415roaded multiuse zones, 67, 68

Ssafety, 20, 22, 34, 36, 37, 38, 46, 76, 81, 82, 101, 104, 105, 117, 124, 125, 133, 160, 161, 162, 200, 202,

203, 223, 231, 252, 281, 313, 328, 329, 330, 333, 402, 403, 404, 405, 413, 424scoping, 8, 124, 126, 301, 302, 322semiprimitive zones, trails, 59, 60, 405sensitive resource zone, 69, 86, 226, 254, 282, 405, 407, 408, 413shuttles, 38, 39, 54, 55, 58, 59, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 102,

103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 126, 127, 177, 194, 198, 204, 208, 212,241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 268,270, 271, 272, 274, 278, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 293, 294, 295, 296, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313,314, 315, 316, 324, 328, 329, 332, 333, 399, 408

Silver Creek, 52, 209, 232snow camping, 38, 180, 184snow coaches, 103snow play, 37, 39, 47, 52, 56, 59, 79, 84, 104, 180, 182, 184, 332snowmobiles, snow machines, 27, 28, 37, 188, 315, 329, 330soils, 20, 27, 33, 34, 35, 60, 77, 91, 96, 97, 104, 116, 124, 127, 132, 135, 136, 137, 139, 146, 198, 201, 213,

214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 271, 274, 275, 297, 404, 406, 411, 412, 432soundscapes, 9, 24, 58, 69, 78, 91, 108, 413special use permits, 26, 399special use zone, 52spotted owl, 8, 14, 33, 98, 101, 117, 144, 146, 147, 148, 220, 222, 249, 250, 252, 277, 278, 280, 295, 298,

400Spray Park, 23, 32, 33, 60, 116, 136, 140, 178, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 217, 218, 228, 234, 263, 264, 283,

289, 290, 291, 410, 436State Route 123, 37, 39, 56, 67, 73, 85, 93, 103, 106, 114, 137, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 211,

229, 276, 277, 279, 287, 328, 331State Route 410, 37, 39, 56, 67, 73, 85, 91, 93, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 114, 115, 117, 118, 131, 148, 169,

170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 191, 192, 208, 209, 211, 229, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 287, 295, 298, 308,315, 316, 328, 331, 401, 402, 431

stewardship, 12, 13, 14, 19, 24, 36, 398, 401Sunrise, 3, 21, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 51, 52, 55, 58, 67, 68, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79, 82, 83, 90, 91, 92,

95, 102, 111, 118, 126, 131, 134, 136, 140, 143, 148, 156, 162, 164, 165, 166, 169, 175, 176, 177, 178,179, 180, 182, 186, 194, 211, 214, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234, 254, 256, 259, 261, 263, 268,282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 308, 309, 310, 315, 330, 397, 399, 430

Sunrise Lodge, 46, 55, 83, 91, 211, 214, 227, 254, 282, 330, 398Sunshine Point, 51, 53, 67, 79, 108, 130, 133, 134, 156, 160, 179, 182, 215, 223, 244, 272, 423, 432

TTahoma Woods, 7, 46, 51, 67, 89, 102, 129, 134, 156, 177, 191, 197, 208, 223, 307, 397, 423, 424threatened or endangered speci es, 9, 22, 23, 33, 40, 85, 101, 123, 125, 146, 147, 148, 151, 154, 160, 161,

198, 209, 221, 222, 302, 303, 324, 328, 416, 421Tipsoo Lake, 30, 34, 45, 68, 70, 79, 131, 140, 169, 182, 225, 234, 257, 259, 285, 316, 331

Index

447

tour buses, 54, 55, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 91, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 130, 177Trail of the Shadows, 67, 179, 182trailheads, 34, 53, 56, 70, 76, 79, 83, 85, 90, 95, 103, 107, 115, 119, 169, 175, 177, 178, 181, 183, 224, 229,

231, 234, 236, 243, 250, 256, 257, 260, 284, 285, 288, 327, 329, 330, 398, 404, 408trails, 7, 11, 21, 27, 33, 34, 38, 40, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 67, 69, 70, 76, 77, 79, 80, 89, 91,

94, 96, 97, 103, 106, 108, 116, 135, 138, 139, 140, 143, 150, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169, 172, 177, 179,180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 193, 198, 209, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 224, 225, 231, 232, 234,235, 243, 244, 246, 248, 253, 255, 259, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 281, 286, 287, 290, 291,295, 313, 316, 330, 331, 332, 397, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416

Train to the Mountain, 191, 208, 212, 230, 235, 237, 238, 267, 294, 432transportation, 14, 20, 27, 29, 30, 58, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 90, 95, 102, 103, 130, 175, 177, 187, 208, 239,

250, 256, 278, 284, 312, 316, 322, 329, 398, 399, 401, 413, 439

UU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 22, 85, 97, 98, 99, 136, 146, 148, 150, 151, 154, 199, 202, 210,

220, 303, 434, 439, 441U.S. Forest Service, 8, 14, 15, 21, 27, 30, 39, 40, 41, 73, 82, 89, 129, 152, 174, 183, 192, 193, 206, 209,

210, 214, 215, 246, 247, 250, 259, 287, 302, 304, 309, 311, 318, 323, 325, 331, 397, 398, 399, 400, 433,434, 435, 439

Vvegetation, 4, 11, 16, 21, 27, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 60, 76, 96, 97, 98, 104, 116, 124, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 146, 164, 169, 184, 186, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 207, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222,235, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 255, 260, 264, 272, 274, 275, 277, 291, 325, 402, 411,412

vehicles, 7, 9, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 54, 55, 56, 59, 69, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96,98, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 126, 129, 131, 172, 176, 177, 178,179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 212, 213, 217, 219, 227, 229, 231, 232, 239, 241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 250, 251,255, 257, 259, 260, 261, 263, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 278, 280, 281, 284, 287, 288, 290, 291, 295,308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 324, 329, 332, 333, 397, 408, 412, 413, 415, 423

visitor experience, 3, 17, 19, 23, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 46, 58, 60, 68, 69, 70, 76, 81, 92, 103, 105,106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, 125, 126, 127, 170, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 197, 204, 205, 228,229, 231, 235, 259, 260, 261, 268, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 295, 297, 298, 308, 311, 313, 314,316, 322, 324, 326, 331, 397, 398, 405, 410, 411, 413, 438, 439, 440

visitor facilities, 37, 38, 54, 55, 56, 76, 86, 89, 91, 96, 107, 109, 110, 169, 179, 231, 232, 239, 243, 250,252, 256, 260, 269, 278, 280, 284, 288, 296, 406, 408, 412, 413, 424, 425

visitors, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 133, 137, 138, 143, 149, 155, 162, 169,170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192,193, 197, 198, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224,225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 248,249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270,271, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294,295, 296, 297, 298, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 322, 324, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331,332, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 424,425, 438, 439, 440

visitors with disabilities, 28, 54, 59, 81, 83, 231, 257, 260, 313, 326, 408volcanic hazards, 35, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 202, 203, 223, 224, 252, 253, 423volcano, 4, 46, 125, 132, 133, 135, 155, 156, 159, 161, 162, 178, 200, 423

INDEX

448

Wwater quality, 20, 21, 33, 35, 96, 116, 124, 131, 198, 199, 200, 213, 214, 242, 243, 244, 270, 271, 272, 297,

298, 330, 332, 412, 413, 421, 424, 429welcome center, 73, 86, 89, 90, 95, 106, 107, 119, 191, 193, 208, 241, 246, 248, 261, 266, 269, 289, 293,

294, 296, 311, 316, 317, 331, 416Westside Road, 3, 27, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 45, 54, 56, 67, 74, 80, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 106,

107, 108, 109, 114, 117, 118, 133, 136, 148, 152, 156, 160, 169, 170, 175, 183, 184, 213, 215, 222, 223,227, 229, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 257, 258, 260, 262, 263, 271, 272,273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 284, 285, 286, 290, 291, 308, 312, 313, 314, 329, 331, 332,333, 423, 430

wetlands, 4, 96, 116, 124, 136, 144, 150, 152, 185, 199, 200, 201, 216, 245, 273, 440White River, 27, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 55, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 79, 82, 85, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,

102, 103, 106, 111, 114, 115, 130, 132, 134, 145, 151, 152, 156, 159, 160, 162, 166, 169, 175, 176, 177,179, 181, 182, 183, 186, 194, 211, 218, 223, 229, 232, 256, 263, 276, 284, 286, 287, 302, 305, 323, 328,330, 423, 424, 425, 426, 428, 432

wild and scenic rivers, 30, 327, 400wilderness, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59,

60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 79, 81, 83, 89, 91, 97, 99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 119, 126, 127, 129, 132, 139,143, 166, 169, 173, 175, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 192, 204, 205, 209, 210, 217, 218,221, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 243, 251, 256, 259, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 271, 279,283, 286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 296, 301, 311, 313, 316, 324, 327, 329, 331, 332, 333, 397, 398, 399, 400,404, 405, 406, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 439

Wilderness Management Plan, 33, 47, 48, 52, 53, 69, 107, 123, 397, 414, 430Wilkeson, 46, 52, 174, 191, 192, 232, 302, 304, 305, 331, 402, 416winter recreation, 37, 127, 173, 192, 295Wonderland Trail, 11, 51, 52, 58, 60, 91, 166, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 255, 431

Zzones, zoning, 4, 8, 23, 35, 37, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 60, 68, 69, 76, 80, 86, 91, 100, 107, 117, 124,

126, 127, 132, 138, 144, 156, 159, 160, 162, 183, 185, 223, 224, 231, 233, 234, 241, 242, 244, 245, 247,249, 251, 252, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 286, 288,289, 290, 291, 292, 301, 316, 322, 397, 404, 406, 410, 411, 413, 414, 423, 424, 438