DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ‘ OCTOBER 1988 A) a “3 CL) CV \ ‘FN u :51 osmzew JUL 1 9 1989 OCTOBER 1988 DRAFT SITE' DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK/ALASKA u.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE “ gygyozoé Docfi CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS INTRODUCTKMJ 3 . Background 4 Location . 4 Purpose of this Site Plan 5 Existing Visutor. Center Floor Plan 5 Planning Issues/Existing Conditions 5 Exnsting Conditions 6 Preferred Alternative 9 Site Plan A 10 ALTERNATWVES 7 . . General Concepts 8 Alternative 2 - No Action 11 Assumptions 8 Alternative 3 12 Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative 9 gléterglatlvgs 4a a4nd 4b 13 Alternative 2 - No Action 11 ' e an ,1 . _ _ Alternative 3 12 Conceptual Desugn - Maintenance Facullty 15 Alternative 4A 13 Alternative 48 13 _ Phasing 17 Alternative Comparisons 17 TABLES Square Footages 17 9°“ Estimates 18 1. Summary of Alternatives 16 Life-Cycle COSt Estimates 18 2. Comparison of Square Footage 17 3. Comparison of Costs 18 ENV'RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 19 4. Annual Visitation 1976-1988 20 Affected Envnronment 20 5. Summary of lmpacts 22 Impacts 21 lmpacts on Natural Resources 21 Impacts on Cultural Resources 21 Impacts on Visitor Use and Park Operations 21 CONSULTATION AND COORDlNATlON 24 " “ REFERENCES 24 PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 24 . » u x? . 5am: BACKGROUND The town of Sitka, in the southeast panhandle of Alaska, is approximately 100 air miles southwest of Juneau. Access to the area is only by boat or aircraft. Sitka is a regular stop on the state ferry system as well as for commercial flights connecting from cities such as Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, and Seattle. Public transportation within Sitka consists of taxis only. There are also rental cars and state-licensed tour buses. Sitka National Historical Park forms the southeast boundary of the town of Sitka. The Indian River flows from the mountains north of town through the 108-acre park into Sitka Sound. The park is on a small peninsula that is between the Indian River and Sitka Sound. The visitor center area, where the majority of visitors receive information and view exhibits and cultural demonstrations, is the focal point for viSitors to Sitka National Historical Park. 0 All administrative, maintenance, and curatorial activities also occur in this same area. The number of park visitors and staff has increased since the visitor center was constructed in 1965. The legislated purpose of Sitka National Historical Park is to preserve and interpret the historically and culturally significant sites and artifacts relating to the 1804 battle of Sitka, the Russian Bishop's House, the Russian-American period, and the Tlingit peoples of southeast Alaska. Much of the land now in Sitka National Historical Park was originally dedicated as a public park by President Harrison on June 21, 1890. Twenty years later, on March 23, 1910, President Taft signed a proclamation designating the public park as Sitka National Monument. In 1952 President Truman issued a proclamation to correct errors in the legal description of the area and to add tracts of land to the monument. In 1972, Public Law 92-501 expanded the park and changed the monument's designation to Sitka National Historical Park. The Master Plan for Sitka National Monument was completed in 1966. The most current interpretive prospectus was approved in 1981, and the Statement :95 Management was completed and approved in 1983. 0 L0 am» em 0 MILES CATHEDRAL NATIONAL HIBTOIZICAL PAKK/ 9mm. {70qu A SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK LOCATION MAP. ALASKA PURPOSE OF THIS SITE PLAN The purpose of this site development plan/environmental assessment is to provide the park with a range of conceptual alternatives that show functional site and interior building space relationships of the visitor center, a maintenance facility, and the surrounding site and to examine the consequences of such alternatives on park resources. These alternatives provide a range of solutions to the problems associated with current use and help implement the following park management objectives: Obtain adequate facilities for storage, protection, and preservation of totem poles and the physical remnants of the culture and histOry of the Tlingit and Russian residents of the area. Promote an understanding and appreciation of the contributions made to the culture and history of the Tlingit and Russian residents of the area. , Provide for the public a program of cultural awareness and general information about the southeast Alaskan Indian culture. PLANNING ISSUES / EXISTING CONDITIONS Several issues have arisen as the park has developed and visitation has increased. This section describes the issues that this study will address. 1. Visitor Center Capacity When the visitor center was constructed in 1965, it was designed to house administrative offices and to accommodate approximately 25,000 visitors annually. Visitation for 1988 is already over 100,000, which far exceeds the design capacity of the building. Visitors arrive in "waves" by bus from the cruise ships and overwhelm the facilities. Eight to 10 tour buses containing up to 450 visitors sometimes arrive at the visitor center simultaneously, resulting in congestion —Ij—-—-- , EXISTING VISITOR CENTER FLOOR PLAN ~-PA|NI' ———————————————————————————— —. SYOIAOI I— T I I! r Er fjjpm I l vamcu I I I i "can" ism» I | I I I I : ml ____J | l I 0 Q 0—: —.r “““““““““““ "i I uuun : ——J SI’OIAOI I I ‘ _ I I "OH! I noon I | | name nu .14. “INN” I l: loom j II I ”a —- I II run “an" I 'I' '_1 icon I {I I I I —I I I" I1 ‘— H. won": I I: _ : II' ornc: nus I II 7 I l ‘45 /,r'r~|ouu — ‘1 I I I I lOIIY _______________ J r .4 llIlAlYlI I l 0"!“ wont [OOH IXNIII‘I' I00" "01. II. PT”— AUDIO s_.____....____._‘ because the center was not built to accommodate this large a crowd. The audiovisual room holds 45 visitors, and sometimes visitors do not have enough time to view the interpretive message. The restrooms also become quite crowded during peak visitation, often adding to the time constraints. 2. Administrative Facilities Currently the park administrative offices are in two separate wings of the visitor center, contributing to a less-than-optimal operating situation. The visitor center was originally designed to accommodate a staff of four permanent and three seasonal employees. The staff has grown to eight permanent and nine seasonals and is expected to increase. Operating conditions are crowded, with staff sharing inadequate work space and storage area. There is no conference room or private office space for law enforcement activities. 3. Curatorial Facility/Artifact Storage Sitka National Historical Park has extensive archeological, ethnographic, and historic objects in its collections. These collections, all related to Sitka, Russian America, and the Tlingit culture, have grown substantially in the past five years, outgrowing any available secure and environmentally sound storage and curation space. The Russian-American era materials that have been stored in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, for 10 years are scheduled to be returned in 1988. Some of the objects will be Russian Bishop's Home refurnishings; many others will require secure, environmentally stable storage. This will contribute to the existing lack of inadequate storage space. Currently, Park Service and Alaska State Museum collections of Russian-American era materials are housed in a facility on the north side of the visitor center. There is no fire suppression system or environmental control system in the facility, and artifacts are subject to decay. This facility also houses the maintenance staff, and there is inadequate working and storage space for both activities. The two functions of collection management and maintenance, even under the best conditions, are not compatible because of the nature of the materials used in maintenance activities--acetylene torches, flammable materials, solvents--which should not be stored in proximity to valuable collections. ln addition, the park has in its care original Tlingit totems. These are currently stored behind the temporary maintenance/curatorial facility and in the totem storage shed under poor climatic conditions and are also subject to decay. 4. Maintenance Area All maintenance functions used to occur in the facility on the north side of the visitor center (described above). Because of the incompatibility of maintenance and curatoriaI/artifact storage functions, all maintenance activities except nonflammable storage and offices for maintenance staff have been removed. There currently is no adequate permanent space for maintenance activities for the park staff to use. Currently there is a temporary storage shed north of the visitor center. This structure is not secure or adequate for maintenance needs. 5. Parking/Circulation Visitors arrive at the visitor center area either by foot, tour bus, taxi, or private vehicle. Visitors arriving in private vehicles park in the existing paved parking lot in front of the visitor center. The majority of visitors arrive by tour bus and are dropped off in the upper. parking lot. This upper lot, which provides parking for buses and cars, is poorly organized, and there is much unused space. From this upper lot, visitors then descend stairs, walk through the paved lot at the front of the visitor center, and enter the building. The building entrance is not clearly identified, resulting in visitors entering from several different points. STW DUILDIHO '625) SF DPF W ‘bF-AVE—L UPPEI- Mir-lb Lor - PAVE? \ \ ...—e I I -_--~-—’ TOIHDIAH \ .__'._' DTOFPQGE bHED WC?— Pmmb MT Ttl’vaMF-Y MHHTEHN-KE, amp: ~ meA TEMWY MW gr VEDITOF- 60"” EP- ‘—_— /’“’ “x" Tm 53W 34:9 fl /‘-\\ r . ‘V \g, T60L. camp "-\V//’ / x . N . brim my \ § \ ., § \\° ~‘ 0'50: g w’ a ‘ a)»: homo? ‘ Wt) Wt: —_+—m owes y Hb‘DF-IL mic SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK EXISTING SITE PLAN ALASKA Four action alternatives have been developed that address the issues identified above. A no-action alternative, i.e. , a continuation of existing conditions, is also presented. Alternative 1, the Park Service's preferred alternative, is described first. General concepts were outlined for all action alternatives to ensure that they address the needs of the park. In addition to the general concepts, several assumptions were made to help guide and order the alternatives. The general concepts and assumptions are presented below. GENERAL CONCEPTS Provide secure and environmentally controlled curatorial facilities. Improve visitor circulation within the visitor center to reduce congestion and conflicts. Provide adequate maintenance facilities, which are separate from the visitor/curatorial area. Provide adequate administrative space, on- or off-site, that is separate from visitor use areas. Maintain existing exhibit areas. Provide office space for the Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center staff. ASSUMPTIONS Common to all of the action alternatives are the following assumptions: The existing two-story maintenance/curatorial facility will be converted into an environmentally controlled curatorial services area. The current breezeway between the maintenance/curatorial facility and the visitor center would become a two-story totem display area. As a part of the design of the facility, there will be visual access from the totem display area into the curatorial work area for possible interpretation of the curatorial activities. The auditorium in the southwest wing of the visitor center will be expanded to incorporate the existing office space. The expanded auditorium will have an estimated capacity of 100 people. If it is not economically or structurally feasible to expand the auditorium to the full size of the southwest wing of the visitor center, the auditorium will be expanded as much as possible, with the remaining space used for additional exhibits or storage. The cultural center exhibit and demonstration area will retain its current size. Some expansion might occur to provide office space for cultural center staff. The existing exhibit area will remain in its current location. A new maintenance building, approximately 3,000 square feet, will be built or leased in a location that is separate from the curatorial and visitor areas. Administrative offices that will occupy a space of approximately 2,500-3,000 square feet will be built or leased. The upper parking lot will be redesigned to improve circulation. All new construction and remodeling would comply with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and all other applicable codes. The bus company will be asked to stagger the arrival of the buses so that use will be a little more evenly distributed. The maintenance shed and totem storage and tool sheds will be removed. The visitor entrance will be clearly identified by signs. ALTERNATIVE 1-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This alternative proposes the construction of a new wing behind the existing visitor center to include space for administrative functions. This new wing would contain a conference room, office space for eight permanent employees, a law enforcement office, office space for four seasonal interpreters, a library, a darkroom, archive storage, storage, and a restroom. New sales and mechanical (heating) areas would also be in the new wing (see Alternative 1 map). Architecturally, the new wing would reflect the existing building style, with similar exterior finishes, and‘ overall roof heights. An open "courtyard” area would be formed between the two areas. This area'could be used for interpretation, cultural center staff, or park staff purposes. The existing cultural center area would be expanded into the existing sales‘area to provide staff office space. The existing restrooms would be expanded and made handicap-accessible. The existing temporary maintenance/curatorial facility would be redesigned into an environmentally controlled curatorial services area, and the area between this facility and the visitor center would be converted into a totem display area. The information desk would be relocated to the existing mechanical room so that visitors entering the building would have direct visual contact with the information desk and crowding near the door would be reduced. Visitors would enter through the lobby, circulate through the audiovisual/exhibit rooms and into the cultural center area, and exit through the totem display area. For exact square footages of areas within the buildings, refer to table 2. A new 3,000-square-foot maintenance building would be constructed on park land at the top of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) road north of the visitor center (see Site Plan A). Access to this facility would be via the existing gravel road, with the permission of the Sheldon Jackson Museum. This facility would contain a carpentry shop, lumber storage, secure storage, paint/flammable storage, general storage, office space, a welding area, a restroom, and parking for three vehicles. Architecturally, the building would be designed to fit into the forested environment with minimal intrusion. Ta PAFHHHO Am This alternative also proposes the expansion of the audiovisual room and redesign of the upper parking lot to more efficiently use the space. Parking spaces for waiting tour buses would be provided. A shelter would be constructed at the upper parking lot for visitors who are waiting for their buses. The lower lot would remain as is (see Site Plan A). The total construction cost for this alternative would be $3,499,912. For a comparison of costs among the alternatives, refer to table 3. / PAR—Hr“; AFEPi T0 5% cu Hiram/M, LLJLJTLJF—AL 5W ................. SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ALTERNATIVE 1 (PREFERRED ALT.) ALASKA 90H topaz; MHTEHAHI/E DUILVIHCJ -:aoo 53F (FCFEFTOWL onset-1 mum) ALLE‘JD PW 'U‘SC “FD-”HG GFAVEL FOAD . r ,é’ ' , _. ~ , 74.— - ~ 9" W} I x % ‘Mrv ‘ i ' ~01 .' .',-:..W‘ ': ' ‘ , _ _.‘ .r ‘fi‘: v' 4" ”E‘s? - V ' t ‘ o-v' . 4 f" (if y' UI I I ‘15 La ' ~ ..t 5“ ' ...’ ; $s¢&?‘m - I, ‘w ‘ “"‘N‘g' z i . I I '- mummmm 1. a ’1‘»? r ! ~~-‘---------__-II‘IIE ‘ ‘ i-IIII' ”www—J. MAHT‘NANGI ' ‘ ‘ ‘ \ "‘qu mm. m. muffin 6%?“ \ 91.15 EDTAOIHG ELEVATWN A PP'EA - LOHEJTF— [LT UflfAJEF EXISTING WT: mp 'F-CTNH r0!— orFm. PAH-WK; EXEDTIHG WHO PFC/5 '1 (Nb VlblTaF— GENT EF— (Harzr- T0 PFCFEF-FLP ALWIVE.) T0 WNHTONH SITKA SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK SITE PLAN A ALASKA 10 m ALTERNATIVE 2—No ACTION The no-action aiternative would leave the visitor center area as it currently exists, with waiter activities, interpretive exhibits, and iaicimiz‘isstrative offices in the same area. The maintenance buiiding i would continue to house curatoriai and limited maintenance staff office space. Tour bus parking and drop-off would continue as is in the upper parking lot, with continued automobile parking m front of the visitor center. None of the aforementioned issues wouid be resolved with implementation of the no—action alternative. ' ' -- » 15* PAH—«w- was There would be no additional costs tor this alternative. Wit —l ht," PWM‘Q Q'jf.’ . i . ' ‘ ' ~2- . ‘ : Li- iiiif "‘cs" :35?” 1’5" n" t 5:: - a; N . M’ ,‘-'1"’-".‘-."k.v‘;.‘«"-_‘.~. ~. .‘91-15..-:';.'.-"{.-"3:'.‘. Fr" . - AVMIHI‘dl MI W , BxHibrr‘ m4 A4710 . 1 Yi‘7H/N/ SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ALTERNATIVE 2 (No Action) ALASKA E‘ \3 i ‘4” i 1* \ SYN . m I‘ mar-5'5" 11 12 ALTERNATIVE 3 This alternative proposes the construction of a new two-story administrative wing. In addition, the existing temporary maintenance/curatorial facility would be converted into an environmentally controlled curatorial services facility. Adjacent to the redesigned curatorial services area would be a new two-story totem display area, which would also house office space for cultural center staff (see Alternative 3 map). New handicap-accessible restrooms would also be constructed on the first floor of the redesigned curatorial area. Visitors would enter through the lobby and flow through the building, exiting through the new totem display area. As in alternative 1, a new maintenance building would be constructed at the end of the BPR road, with access by way of the existing gravel road. For exact square footages of areas within the buildings, refer to table 2. As in the preferred alternative, this alternative proposes expansion of the auditorium and redesign of the upper parking lot for more efficient use. Parking spaces Would be provided for waiting tour buses. A shelter would be constructed at the upper lot for visitors who are waiting for their buses. The lower lot would remain as is (see Site Plan A). The total construction cost for this alternative would be $3,499,912. For a comparison of costs among the alternatives refer to table 3 under cost estimates. ”r0 PAR-Ht“: AFEA PAW! He AF—EA To sum SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK fizxfiLEb ALTERNATIVE 3 ALASKA ALTERNATIVE 4A This alternative proposes to relocate administrative and maintenance functions off site in leased space. The visitor center would contain visitor functions and exhibits and cultural center activities. The present maintenance/curatorial facility would be redesigned for curatorial services. As in alternative 1, the audiovisual area would be expanded, the cultural center area would be enlarged to provide office space for that activity, the restroom area would be expanded and made handicap-accessible, and the breezeway between the visitor center and the redesigned curatorial services building would house a new totem display area. Visitors would enter and exit as described in alternative 1. New mechanical (heating) and sales areas would be constructed east of the curatorial services/totem display area (see Alternatives 4A and 4B map and table 2 for specific square footages). In this alternative both parking lots would be redesigned to improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation. The lower parking lot would be removed, and the area would be revegetated. The existing concrete pad next to the maintenance/curatorial facility would be removed and revegetated. A bus drop-off area would be provided, which would enable visitors direct and easy access to the visitor center. The upper parking lot would be redesigned to provide parking for automobiles and buses (refer to Site Plan B). Total cost for this alternative would be $2,764,755 (not including rental costs). For a comparison of costs among the alternatives refer to table 3. ALTERNATIVE 4B This alternative proposes construction of a new administration building (2,500 square feet) adjacent to the upper parking lot. Architecturally the new building would reflect the existing visitor center, with similar exterior finishes and roof lines. As in alternative 1, the existing maintenance/ curatorial facility would be redesigned for curatorial services, the audiovisual area would be expanded, the cultural center area would be enlarged to provide office space for that activity, the restroom area would be enlarged and made handicap-accessible, and the To 17».me LOT” MWH ILAL/ afar-1 [7|me LULTUF—Al/ org-fraz— ‘T‘O ‘bl'l‘F-A SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ALTERNATIVES 4a and 4b ALASKA 13 T“ " lh‘ Y r rat I 1‘: “I r’,-rt_,- __ _ w lv‘\|l 5". li \Ibfl-L’ i r/Ialinlxli II 7 “Wm“ an“ I . ,1 w x ._ F‘EHF T." L .J‘rti i t Mn . LIEf'T‘lHFl [‘Ffll’u‘lHL’W j 1-361 F ‘f’i.’ PCP“? A ‘) ‘ {1‘an t \i‘ffl’fifin :,~F’~A\’F,I M. like: " -,~ \\: .~—‘~.I'v""'|!?1]'“"T PAT KIM 1} 'ill 1"). A {Aquat Il‘fl " >r’ ‘ >I .v-fir _‘-‘ i'V’IFr‘lrlm AH,“ -- IZF-r-‘fmorl _ _ . ' '5 N’B MN (5 ii I" ’f’fiiil Vl/‘xrl /&.(fj.fi,w‘;} Ti?) V‘AFfLIH,’ , ‘ AFFA ”FIN/”IF 1 v’lhi‘rpp f")(]'[ f; Xl'dTIHCz C KTiLF‘f TL F7iL’" / 'F’F'. NC'VI' . FfVluGF-T/nl i '1 Vl‘blT/V' [AI l‘il’i F . ' ,va’gféf I" If? Algif-FHA'Y IV! ”(A x I ~ I'. my If»! I’ Kléflfili‘lfiv Ff/ap \ I": li' [ FYI ‘ ,“I I -r’F/\'Ir‘t I rd A'I'I {\Ff [A lg”? 3» fl 16“» If I , x more? f’AFar—Irritp mafia V! ‘r l/Vl , F” I ' ViJ‘IeE/TAT}: ‘1." Iraq: IL’L III ”,"JITF-A «am- “We?" WW? EHTFAHLE: \.A/ . x ,. a.» m e .SITKA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK SITE PLAN B ALASKA 14 “HELP”! mm. “AWN \ \ tM‘qu 39"?” 4,9 '0‘ “NTE‘ ELEVATION Q breezeway between the redesigned curatorial services building and the visitor center would house a new totem display area. Visitors would enter and exit as described in alternative 1. New mechanical (heating) and sales areas would be constructed east of the new curatorial services/totem display area (see Alternatives 4A and 4B map and see table 2 for specific square footages). As in alternative 1, a new 3,000-square-foot maintenance building would be constructed on park land at the top of the BPR road. Access to this facility would be via the existing gravel road. This alternative proposes redesigning both parking lots to improve circulation. The lower parking lot would be removed, and the area would be revegetated. The existing concrete pad next to the maintenance/curatorial faciiity would be removed and revegetated. A bus drop-off area would be provided, allowing visitors direct and easy access to the visitor center. The upper parking lot would be redesigned to provide parking for automobiles as well as buses (refer to Site Plan B). The total construction costs for this alternative would be $3,506,947. For a comparison of costs among the alternatives refer to table 3. EA‘JT ELEVATION eouTH ELEVATION . HT. 6- . NI-‘z 6H0? “HM 0 HIQHT) MOK 1’ LAN arr. ‘2. SITKA NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - MAINTENANCE FACILITY ° ALASKA 6" H’aame 7/4 do" [*7 15 16 Administration Curatorial Services Maintenance Parking Audiovisual Area Restrooms Sales Cultural Center Alternative 1 Located in new wing behind visitor center Existing maintenance build- ing converted to environ- mentally controlled curatorial services New building constructed north of visitor center Upper parking lot reorganized Expanded into existing administrative location Expanded in current location Relocated to new wing Expanded into existing sales area Table 1. Summary of Alternatives Alternative 2 Remains as is in locations throughout visitor center Remains in substandard condition in existing maintenance building Remains in building adjacent to visitor center Remains as is Remains as is Remains as is Remains in current location Remains as is Alternative 3 Located in new two-story wing adjacent to redesigned curatorial facility Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Existing remain; new rest- rooms provided on first floor of curatorial facility Expanded in current location Expanded into new totem wing Alternative 4A Located off site in rental space Same as alternative 1 Located off-site in rental space Lower parking lot removed and bus drop-off provided; upper parking lot redesigned Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Alternative 48 Located in new building in visitor center area bame as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 4A Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 PHASING To implement any of the action alternatives, it would be necessary to phase construction to mitigate adverse effects on both the visitor experience as well as park operations. The following sequence of implementation is suggested: 1. Remove remaining maintenance staff and storage from the existing location to facilitate protection of the artifacts stored in the building. Maintenance could either be located off-site in a rental space or a new maintenance building could be constructed. 2. Retrofit the curatorial area to an environmentally controlled area adequate for artifact storage and curatorial activities. 3. Construct the totem display area to protect these resources. 4. Expand and relocate administrative functions. 5. Improve parking and circulation. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS Square Footages The following table shows the allotted square footages in each alternative to allow for comparison. Table 2. Comparison of Square Footage Alternative 1 2 3 4A 4B Lobby 1, 232 1, 232 1, 232 1, 232 1, 232 Exhibit Room 960 960 960 960 960 Sales 640 320 640 480 480 Audiovisual 1, 700 576 1,700 1, 700 1, 700 Cultural Center 2,400 2,016 2,110 2,400 2,400 Restrooms 1 , 150 528 1 , 150 1 , 150 1,150 Administration 2,500 1,296 2,500 2,500* 2,500 Mechanical 340 280 280 320 320 Information 280 100 280 280 280 Curatorial Services 2,330 1,232 2,330 2,330 2,330 Totem Display 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 Maintenance 3, 000 1, 095 3,000 3,000* 3,000 *Administration and maintenance would be off-site. 17 — Cost Estimates Table 3. Comparison of Costs Alternative 1 3 4A 48 New Construction Administration $ 648,000 $ 648,000 $ 648,000 Maintenance 506 , 000 506 , 000 506 , 000 Remodel Visitor center 1,780,000 1,780,000 $1,780,000 1,780,000 Rental space 540,000 Site Improvements Bus drop-off 6,000 6,000 Parking 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 Road 19,000 19,000 19,000 Shelter 7,000 7,000 Walks 4,000 4,000 Shrubs 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 Gross Construction Costs $2, 985,000 $2, 985, 000 $2, 358, 000 $2, 991 ,000 Advance and Project Planning Costs 514,912 514,912 406,755 515,947 Total Project Costs $3,499,912 $3,499,912 $2,764,755* $3,506,947 *Does not include rental costs. This would be an additional $3-4/square foot/year (i.e., a 3,000-square-foot maintenance building would lease for approximately $12,000 per year). 18 Life-Cycle Cost Estimates To understand and evaluate the action alternatives, each was considered in terms of its full life-cycle funding implications. Estimates were calculated to compare the economic differences between new construction of both maintenance and administrative buildings to the cost of renting these facilities. To calculate present-day value to the structures over a 20-year life span of the building, certain assumptions were made. New Construction Rental Assumptions Assumptions 1. All costs are calculated at present-day value. All costs are calculated at present-day value. 2. Discount rate is 10 percent (OMB CIR A-94), except the percentage for energy, which is 7 percent. 3. Operations and maintenance costs, except energy, will be 1.0 percent of capital cost. Energy cost will be 0.5 percent of capital cost. Cyclic repair costs at years 5, 10, and 15 are at 10 percent of capital costs. 01-h New maintenance building (3,000 square feet) Construction cost $429,300 O&M cost/year $ 4,290 Energy cost/year $ 2,145 Cyclic repair/5 years $ 42,900 Present-value cost $525,628 1 New administrative building (3,000 square feet) Construction cost $549,550 O&M cost/year $ 5,495 Energy cost/year $ 2,747 Cyclic repair/5 years $ 54,955 Present-value cost $671,360 Discount rate is 10 percent (OMB CIR A-94). Energy is included in rent. O&M is 0.25 percent of remodeling costs. Lease costs increase 25 percent at years 5, 10, 15, and 20. mwa—B Rental maintenance building (3,000 square feet) Remodeling cost $257,600 Rent/year $ 12,000 0&M costs/year $ 644 Present-value cost $392,600 Rental administration building (3,000 square feet) Remodeling cost $240,000 Rent/year $ 12,000 0&M cost/year $ 600 Present-value cost $375,400 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs (Present-Day Value) Maintenance building New $525,600 Rental $392, 600 Administration building New $671 , 300 Rental $375 , 400 My ‘ ' "Art-FARE“ \x ‘-‘ w» AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The marine climate at Sitka National Historical Park is characterized by relatively heavy precipitation and mild temperatures, with little difference in temperature change between seasons. Most of the 96.6 inches average annual precipitation in the park occurs as rain, although the mountainous Indian River watershed develops a considerable snowpack. The highest average monthly precipitation rate is in October, with 15.3 inches, while the average rate for June is only 3.5 inches. Bald eagles, gulls, shorebirds, and ravens use the estuarine intertidal zone as a feeding area. Small mammals, such as squirrels, inhabit the forested areas of the park. Because of the development surrounding the park, larger wildlife seldom use the area. Vegetation in the park is typical of southeast Alaska. Fir and Sitka spruce make up the Overstory, with alder, dense ferns, and bushes making up the understory. The soft alluvial soil is covered with a thick mat of moss and lichens. The forest in the park is unique in that it has been protected from logging since the park was established in 1910. There are no species on any official state or federal threatened or endangered lists that reside or nest in or migrate through the area. Soon after the founding of the Russian-American Company in 1799, the company established its southern outpost in Sitka. In 1802, however, driven by Russian usurpation of native hunting grounds and several acts of Russian brutality, an estimated several hundred Indians from various clans attacked the Russian outpost at Sitka. The Russians were driven out and their post was destroyed. In the fall of 1804, the company returned to Sitka with an armada of four ships and 800 men. The Tlingits had prepared for their arrival by constructing a fort on the mouth of the Indian River. Built in the shape of a trapezoid, with its longest side towards the sea, it was constructed of wooden logs stacked on the ground, reaching a height of 6 feet. Two embrasures for cannons faced the sea, and two gates faced the forest. Within the fort were 14 large huts. After seven days of interspersed negotiations, bombardment from the Russian ships, and an unsuccessful attempt to storm the fort, the Tlingits abandoned the fort overnight. It was burned to the ground, and the Russian-American Company was able to reestablish its post at Sitka. Although little remains of the actual fortifications, the potential for undisturbed underground archeological resources remains high. The fort site and the role the fort played in early Russian/native relations was the primary reason for the establishment of the national monument in 1910. Until World War II, members of the Kiksadi clan of Tlingits held commerative ceremonies at the site, in remembrance of their ancestors who died defending their native land against the Russians. Sitka National Historical Park, in its entirety, is on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service provides space in the visitor center for the Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center. The center is under contract to the Park Service to provide interpretation and programs about the Tlingit heritage, way of life, values, and philosophy, as well as demonstrate Tlingit arts, including silverwork, beadwork, and woodworking. Approximately 98,885 people visited Sitka National Historical Park in 1987, and by August over 100,000 people had visited the park in 1988. In the past 10 years, visitation has fluctuated between a low of 72,000 in 1972 to a high of 121,000 in 1985. The majority of visitor use occurs during the summer season when the cruise ships come into Sitka Sound. Visitation generally is concentrated during the few hours the ships are in port. Locally, the park provides a scenic, peaceful area for walking and jogging. The serenity of the forest, its proximity to the city, and the loop trail system are very appealing to Sitka residents. Table 4. Annual Visitation 1976—1988 Sitka National Historlcal Park Year Vishs 1976 81,600 1977 87,200 1978 86,300 1979 72,100 1980 75,681 1981 90,521 1982 90,832 1983 88,261 1984 112,167 1985 121,067 1986 114,664 1987 98,885 1988 100,000+ (as of August 1988) Most of the visitors come from the cruise ships, with the average visitor age being 67. There are some school groups in the spring and fall, but commercial tours account for most of the group visitors. Most local people visit the park two or three times a year, ~— IMPACTS There would be several common impacts on natural and cultural resources, visitor use, and park staff as a result of the implementation of all action alternatives. These common impacts are discussed below, and other impacts associated with specific alternatives are addressed in table 5. Impacts on Natural Resources As a result of construction activities, some vegetative clearing and subsequent loss of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) would occur. Specific acreages and numbers of trees are discussed under each alternative (see table 5). ~ Machinery emissions and increased airborne dust resulting from construction activities would decrease air quality in the vicinity of construction activities. Impacts on air quality would be temporary; normal conditions would return once construction was completed. There would be no additional impact on the Indian River or its fish population as a result of any of the alternatives. Impacts on Cultural Resources Sitka National Historical Park is on the National Register of Historic Places, and there is evidence of substantial archeological resources throughout the park. Where there is potential impact to any archeological site, investigation/testing is required. Such investigations would define the boundaries of subsurface cultural deposits and provide data necessary to assess the integrity and significance of those resources. Consultations with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office and further archeological excavation might be required to mitigate any impacts on significant cultural resources. It is not anticipated that any of the alternatives would have any adverse effects on cultural resources; however, in all cases an archeological clearance would be obtained before construction activities would begin. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in positive effects on the artifacts and totems in the park's care because of proper environmental storage and curation activities. implementation would also accomplish several of the current management objectives--to obtain adequate facilities for storage, protection, and preservation of totem poles, and to preserve intact the physical remnants of the culture and history of the Tlingit and Russian residents of the area. Impacts on Visitor Use and Park Operations As a result of the implementation of any of the action alternatives, impacts on visitor use and park operations would be positive. Circulation throughout the visitor center would be improved. Additional audiovisual room and displays and the new totem display area would provide greater opportunity for interpretation. The removal of maintenance activities from the curatorial area would reduce conflicts between these two functions. Lastly, the new administration wing would improve park operations and provide adequate working conditions for park staff. During construction activities, visitors and staff would be subject to noise, disruption of circulation patterns, and visual intrusions. 21 22 Resource Concerns Alternative 1 Impacts on Natural Resouces Vegetation Anadromous Fish Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animals and Plants Wildlife Floodplain/wetland Five trees removed for new visitor center wing; 10 trees removed for maintenance building; .2 acre understory disturbed No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected Impacts on Cultural Resources Archeological Artifact Storage No impacts expected; clearance would be obtained prior to construction Artifacts would be stored and protected in a secure and environmentally control- led area. Table 5. Summary of Impacts Alternative 2 No-Action Alternative No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected The’collections would continue to be stored in a nonenvironmentally controlled situation and be at risk. Alternative 3 13 trees removed for admin— istrative wing; 10 trees removed for maintenance building; .2 acres of understory disturbed No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Alternative 4A No adverse impacts expected; positive impacts because of revegetation of the lower parking lot No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Alternative 48 .1 acre of understory disturbed for administrative building; 10 trees removed for maintenance building; .1 acre of understory disturbed; .05 acre of vegetation restored (because of removal and revegetation of lower parking lot) No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected No impacts expected Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Alternative 1 Impacts on Visitor Use and Park Operations Visitor Use Park Operations Increased interpretive opportunities (i.e., audio- visual, totem display, visual access to curation activities); less congestion; additional restroom facilities would reduce lines and create more time to see exhibits; positive impacts resulting from the separation of maintenance activities and curatorial services functions. New Administrative Wing: Concentrating administrative functions in one place would improve park operations; adequate space would exist for staff. New Maintenance Buildings: Adequate space for current maintenance activities; some outside storage for vehicles could cause damage to vehicles; maintenance activities separated from the visitor/curatorial area would eliminate present incompat- ible activities. Curatorial: Curators would have adequate work space. Table 5. Summary of Impacts Alternative 2 No-Action Alternative Visitors would continue to Same as be frustrated by congestion; interpretative opportunities would continue to be lost. Administration: There would Same as continue to be less than adequate space for staffing needs; administrative functions in different wings would continue to create operating difficulties. Maintenance: Conflicts between maintenance staffs and curatorial activities would continue; inadequate storage and operating space would continue. Curatorial: Staff would continue in crowded conditions. Alternative 3 alternative 1 alternative 1 Alternative 4A Same as alternative 1 Administration Off-Site: This would increase operational costs and create some opera- tional difficulties due to distance and duplication of some services; there would be adequate space for staff. Maintenance Off-site: This could create some operational difficulties due to distance; there would be adequate space for maintenance functions. Curatorial: Same as alternative 1 Alternative 48 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 23 — CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION PREPAREFIS AND CONSULTANTS Alaska Native Brotherhood Preparers State Historic Preservation Officer, Anchorage, Alaska U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Denver Service Center Nancy S. Arkin, Team Captain, Landscape Architect Ed Nieto, Architect Jo Wahbeh, Architect REFERENCES Consultants NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1966 Master Plan 9i Sikta National Monument, Western Regional Office, San Francisco. Park Ernie Suazo, Superintendent Gary Candelaria, Chief Ranger 1968 Alternatives Study, San Francnsco Servnce Center. Scott Taylor, Ranger 1976 Outline 9_f_ Planning Requirements, Sitka National Historical Park. , , Alaska Re '0 al Off' 1976 Interpretive Plan, Denver SerVIce Center, Western Team. 9' n ice Linda Nebel, Chief, Division of Planning Larry Beal, Outdoor Recreation Planner Jean Swearingen, Regional Curator Glenn Clark, Division of Interpretation 1981 Interpretive Prospectus, Harpers Ferry Center, Falls Church, Virginia. 1983 Statement f_o_[ Management, Denver Service Center, Western Team. 1985 Land Protection Plan, Sitka National Historical Park. Washington Office Jacob Hoogland, Chief, Environmental Compliance Division Denver Service Center Frank Williss, Historian 24 As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and water, department also has major responsibility for American U.S. administration. Publication services were provided by the editorial staff of the Denver Service Center. NPS D-20 energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under October 1988