National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed

Conditions

Kenai Fjords National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/192
ON THE COVER

Top left: Bear Glacier; top right: Holgate Glacier; bottom left: Nature center at Exit 

Glacier area; bottom right: Aialik Cape. Photographs by S. Nagorski.
______________________________________________________________________________

Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and 

Watershed Conditions 

Kenai Fjords National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/192

Sonia Nagorski, Eran Hood, and Sanjay Pyare

Environmental Science Program

University of Alaska Southeast

Juneau, AK 99801

Ginny Eckert

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Juneau, AK 99801

This report was prepared under Task Order J9W88050014 of the

Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (agreement CA90880008).

May 2010

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the audience, and is

designed and published in a professional manner.

The Natural Resource Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results

of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of

science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide

contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals

because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that

addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring

activities; resource assessment reports; scientific literature reviews; and peer reviewed

proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.

Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

policies of the National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service.

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Natural Resource

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM), or by

sending a request to the address on the back cover.

Please cite this publication as:

Nagorski, S., E. Hood, G. Eckert, and S. Pyare. 2010. Assessment of coastal water resources and

watershed conditions: Kenai Fjords National Park. Natural Resource Report

NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/192. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 186/102086, May 2010
iii

Contents

Figures............................................................................................................................................ vi

Tables.............................................................................................................................................. x

Appendixes ................................................................................................................................... xii

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................xiii

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... xxii

Commonly Used Abbreviations.................................................................................................xxiii

1. Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. Park Description and History...................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Setting............................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1. Geographic Setting ................................................................................................... 1

2.1.2. Human Utilization..................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Hydrologic Information.................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1. Oceanographic Setting.............................................................................................. 6

2.2.2. Climatic Setting......................................................................................................... 9

2.2.3. Streams and Streamflow ......................................................................................... 11

2.2.4. Lakes and Ponds..................................................................................................... 18

2.2.5 Groundwater............................................................................................................ 18

2.2.6. Snow, Ice, and Glaciers.......................................................................................... 19

2.3. Biological Resources...................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1. Marine Biological Resources.................................................................................. 25

2.3.2. Freshwater Biological Resources........................................................................... 58

2.3.3. Uplands................................................................................................................... 62

3. Water Resources Assessment ................................................................................................... 67

3.1. Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 67
iv

3.1.1. Intertidal and Marine.............................................................................................. 67

3.1.2. Freshwater.............................................................................................................. 75

3.1.3. Water Quality Impairments and Effects on Biological Resources.......................... 85

3.2. Availability of Geographic Datasets .............................................................................. 85

4. Threats to Water Resources...................................................................................................... 86

4.1. Sources of Past, Current, and Potential Future Pollutants.............................................. 86

4.1.1. Oceanographic Sources.......................................................................................... 86

4.1.2. Atmospheric Sources of Pollution........................................................................... 95

4.2. Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 98

4.3. Physical Hazards: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Tsunamis................................................ 105

4.3.1.Volcanic Activity .................................................................................................... 105

4.3.2. Coastal Change: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Subsidence, and Uplift ...................... 107

4.4. Visitor Impacts............................................................................................................. 111

4.4.1. Visitor Boat Traffic ............................................................................................... 112

4.4.2. Backcountry Camping........................................................................................... 113

4.4.3. Hiking.................................................................................................................... 113

4.4.4. Public Use Cabins................................................................................................. 114

4.4.5. Development on Native-Owned Lands.................................................................. 114

4.5. Historic Mine Sites....................................................................................................... 114

4.6. Exit Glacier Area Flooding .......................................................................................... 115

4.7. Nuka River Diversion................................................................................................... 117

4.8. Exotic Species .............................................................................................................. 118

4.9. Insect Outbreaks and Disease Concerns....................................................................... 120

4.10. Harmful Algal Blooms............................................................................................... 121

5. Condition overview and recommendations ............................................................................ 123
v

5.1 Condition Overview ...................................................................................................... 123

5.2 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 124

5.2.1. Interagency Management...................................................................................... 125

5.2.2. Data and Mapping Availability, Access, and Management.................................. 125

5.2.3. Water Quality........................................................................................................ 126

5.2.4. Biological Resources and Habitats....................................................................... 127

5.2.5. Hydrology and Oceanography.............................................................................. 128

6. References............................................................................................................................... 129
vi

Figures

Figure 1. Location of Kenai Fjords National Park and other SWAN NPS units in Alaska.......... 2

Figure 2. Bays and fjords along the KEFJ coastline...................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Land status map of KEFJ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 4. Predominant currents in the Gulf of Alaska ................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Annual precipitation for SWAN units............................................................................ 9

Figure 6. Mean monthly temperature and monthly precipitation in Seward (1949–2005).......... 10

Figure 7. Map of weather stations in and adjacent to KEFJ........................................................ 11

Figure 8. Watersheds fully or partially within KEFJ, as identified by hydrologic unit codes..... 12

Figure 9. Streams and lakes in KEFJ. .......................................................................................... 13

Figure 10. Location of Exit Creek and Resurrection River in KEFJ. .......................................... 14

Figure 11. Streamflow data for the USGS gaging station on the Nuka River, for the entirety of 

its record (September 1984–September 1985).............................................................................. 15

Figure 12. Streamflow data for the Resurrection River at Seward .............................................. 17

Figure 13. The Harding Icefield and major glaciers in KEFJ...................................................... 20

Figure 14. Change in areal extent of glacier in the Harding Icefield and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier 

Complex........................................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 15. Rate of elevation change (m/yr) and volume change for the Bear glacier between 

2001 and 2007............................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 16. Distribution and abundance of sea otters in 2007....................................................... 27

Figure 17. Distribution and abundance of harbor seals in 2007 .................................................. 29

Figure 18. Numbers of harbor seals, including pups, counted near Aialik Glacier from 1979 to 

2003............................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 19. Five remote cameras observe harbor seals and relay images to the Alaska Sea Life 

Center............................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 20. One of the remote cameras located on Squab Island near the face of Aialik Glacier 

relays live video of harbor seals adjacent to the glacier ............................................................... 32

Figure 21. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions ............................................................................ 33
vii

Figure 22. Distribution, abundance, and density of Barrow’s goldeneye, black, surf, and whitewinged scoters in June 2007 ...............................................................................37

Figure 23. Distribution, abundance, and density of common merganser, greater scaup, harlequin 

duck, and mallard in June 2007 .................................................................................................... 38

Figure 24. Distribution, abundance, and density of black oystercatchers in June 2007 .............. 39

Figure 25. Distribution, abundance, and density of pelagic and red-faced cormorants in June 

2007............................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 26. Distribution, abundance, and density of double-crested and unidentified cormorants 

in June 2007. ................................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 27. Distribution, abundance, and density of black-legged kittiwakes, herring and mew 

gulls in June 2007 ......................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 28. Distribution, abundance, and density of glaucous, glaucous-winged and unidentified 

gulls in June 2007 ......................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 29. Distribution, abundance, and density of horned, tufted, and unidentified puffins in 

June 2007 ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 30. Distribution, abundance, and density of pigeon guillemots, common murres, and an 

unidentified murre in June 2007 ................................................................................................... 45

Figure 31. Distribution, abundance, and density of ancient, Kittlitz’s, marbled, and 

brachyramphus murrelets in June 2007 ........................................................................................ 46

Figure 32. Seabird breeding colony locations along the KEFJ coast........................................... 47

Figure 33. Habitat classes within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone ......................................... 50

Figure 34. Salt marsh vegetation within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone ................................ 51

Figure 35. Sea grasses within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone................................................. 51

Figure 36. Canopy kelps in the nearshore of KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone ......................... 52

Figure 37. Locations of intensive soft substrate and rocky intertidal sites.................................. 53

Figure 38. Density of clams at five sites in KEFJ........................................................................ 54

Figure 39. Biomass of clams at five sites in KEFJ. ..................................................................... 54

Figure 40. Sites visited by the soft-sediment intertidal reconnaissance survey in KEFJ in 2004 55

Figure 41. Amphibian occurrence on the Kenai Peninsula.......................................................... 60
viii

Figure 42. Map of ecological systems in KEFJ........................................................................... 63

Figure 43. Map of landcover classes in KEFJ ............................................................................. 64

Figure 44. Nunataks on the northern Harding Icefield ................................................................ 65

Figure 45. Locations of the 2005/2006 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program sites for 

monitoring petroleum in mussels.................................................................................................. 68

Figure 46. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons measured in mussel tissue from 1996 to 2006.. 68

Figure 47. Sites sampled by EMAP in southcentral Alaska in the summer of 2002................... 69

Figure 48. Sediment polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations at sampled 

stations across the EMAP study area............................................................................................ 71

Figure 49. Surface salinity contours estimated from the 54 sampled stations during the June–

August 2002 sampling of the EMAP study. ................................................................................. 72

Figure 50. Surface temperature contours estimated from the 54 stations (triangles) sampled as 

part of the EMAP program.................................................................................72

Figure 51. Oceanography stations sampled with a conductivity-temperature-depth profiler in 

2007............................................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 52. Early and late season temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll a within the upper 40 m

of the water column at distal and glacial stations sampled in 2007.............................................. 74

Figure 53. Depth profile of Pederson Lagoon, showing temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, 

and turbidity.................................................................................................................................. 75

Figure 54. List and locations of proposed Tier 1, 2, and 3 lakes and rivers for monitoring aquatic 

resources in SWAN units.............................................................................................................. 76

Figure 55. Locations of water quality samples taken by Bennett (2005) in May–July 2004 and 

August 2003.................................................................................................................................. 78

Figure 56. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profile of Delight Lake on June 27, 2004.......... 84

Figure 57. Geographical extent of the Exxon Valdez oil spill through time ................................ 87

Figure 58. Booms were placed in three location to protect salmon streams from the EVOS...... 87

Figure 59. KEFJ is located adjacent to a large oil and gas basin................................................. 89

Figure 60. Geographic Response Strategies for the KEFJ coast (map 1 of 2)............................. 90

Figure 61. Geographic Response Strategies for the KEFJ coast (map 2 of 2)............................. 91
ix

Figure 62. Potential Places of Refuge along KEFJ...................................................................... 92

Figure 63. Oil residency index within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone.................................... 93

Figure 64. Sample locations of the eight lakes where surface sediments and sockeye salmon 

were collected for PCBs................................................................................................................ 95

Figure 65. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface 

temperature. .................................................................................................................................. 99

Figure 66. Annual anomalies of land-surface air temperature in the Arctic (60 ̊ to 90 ̊ N) for the 

period 1900 to 2003 .................................................................................................................... 100

Figure 67. Seasonal trends in streamwater temperature and turbidity for six watersheds in 

southeastern Alaska .................................................................................................................... 102

Figure 68. Visualization of new modeled glacier size in the Swiss Alps for Equilibrium Line 

Altitude upward shifts................................................................................................................. 104

Figure 69. Volcanoes in the vicinity of KEFJ............................................................................ 106

Figure 70. Regional cumulative post-seismic uplift from GPS measurements and tide gauges 108

Figure 71. Relative coastal change-potential for KEFJ ............................................................. 110

Figure 72. Social trails leaving from the Glacier Overlook along the Harding Icefield Trail... 113

Figure 73. Air photo of the Exit Glacier area taken in 1993...................................................... 116

Figure 74. View of the terminus of the Nuka Glacier................................................................ 117

Figure 75. Map of spruce bark beetle mortality extent (1989–2004) ........................................ 120

Figure 76. Location of PSP outbreaks in Alaska.. ..................................................................... 122
x

Tables

Table 1. Streamflow measurements............................................................................................. 16

Table 2. Flood categories and historical crests for the Resurrection River ................................. 18

Table 3. Summary of the extent of the Harding Icefield, the Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex 

and surrounding glaciers as measured using Landsat data ........................................................... 23

Table 4. Nearshore fish species, relative abundance, and size (fork length, mm) collected with a 

beach seine in KEFJ during 2007 ................................................................................................. 34

Table 5. Pelagic fish species, size (fork length, mm) and frequency of occurrence (FOC) at 

Isaacs-Kidd midwater trawl stations in KEFJ in 2007.................................................................. 35

Table 6. The 25 most frequently occurring species of zooplankton sampled in 2007 by Arimitsu 

et al (2008).................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 7. Common and scientific names of bivalves observed in soft-sediment intertidal 

reconnaissance surveys in KATM, KEFJ, and LACL.................................................................. 56

Table 8. Major bivalve species, as a function of substrate, observed at soft-sediment intertidal 

sites in KATM, KEFJ and LACL ................................................................................................. 57

Table 9. List of species found in the SWAN monitoring............................................................. 58

Table 10. Anadromous fish species present in KEFJ streams...................................................... 59

Table 11. Mean (±SD) of nutrient levels at KEFJ stations .......................................................... 74

Table 12. Water quality data retrieved from USGS records from Nuka River, Exit Creek, and 

Resurrection River ........................................................................................................................ 79

Table 13. Water quality data collected for the Resurrection River watershed............................. 80

Table 14. Summary data for water temperature, pH, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 

turbidity, and stage, measured in Exit Creek ................................................................................ 80

Table 15. Stream discharge and physico-chemical measurements taken at two sites on the upper 

Nuka River.................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 16. Physical and biological attributes of Delight and Desire Lakes. ................................. 83

Table 17. Increases in mean annual surface air temperature in the Arctic (60 ̊ to 90 ̊ N) for the 

period 2011-2090........................................................................................................................ 101

Table 18. Visitor use statistics for KEFJ.................................................................................... 111

Table 19. Most recent (2008) visitor statistics for KEFJ. .......................................................... 112
xi

Table 20. Water resources-related indicators and current/potential stressors of aquatic resources 

in Kenai Fjords National Park..................................................................................................... 123

Table 21. List of recommendations............................................................................................ 125
xii

Appendixes

Appendix A. Core Vital Signs................................................................................................... 147

Appendix B. Non-Indigenous Species....................................................................................... 148
xiii

Executive Summary

This assessment of coastal water resources and watershed conditions in Kenai Fjords National

Park (KEFJ) is provided in response to the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Resource

Challenge, initially funded by the U.S. Congress in 2003 to assess the environmental conditions

of NPS units. KEFJ is part of the Southwest Alaska Network (SWAN), which also includes the

Alagnak Wild River (ALAG), Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve (ANIA), Katmai

National Park and Preserve (KATM), and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (LACL). The

SWAN units are currently implementing a Vital Signs Monitoring Program, part of the NPS

Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program, in which baseline inventories and long-term

monitoring are being designed and conducted.

Physical, Oceanographic, and Climatic Setting

The 271,132 hectare (669,983 acre) Kenai Fjords National Park (KEFJ) is located along the

southeastern side of the Kenai Peninsula in southcentral Alaska. Accessible by road only to the

Exit Glacier, approximately 15 km (9 mi) from the town of Seward, the snow- and icedominated park is largely seen and accessed from the coast via tour boats and kayaks. The

coastline is characterized by extensive fjords, numerous offshore islands and sea stacks, and

abundant marine wildlife. The park lies along an active continental margin, making it highly

prone to earthquakes, sudden sea level changes, and resulting tsunamis. KEFJ includes a large

portion of the Harding Icefield, which covers large portions of the eastern slope of Kenai

Mountains and is the second largest icefield entirely within U.S. borders. Coastal streams

terminate in bays, fjords, and lagoons that deeply indent the southwest to northeast-trending

coastal boundary of the Kenai Peninsula. Most of the watersheds are at least partially of glacial

origin, and some include substantial lakes. The offshore islands, sea stacks, and rock spires

(including Chiswell, Harbor, and Pye island group) are part of the Alaska Maritime National

Wildlife Refuge and not under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Additionally, Alaska

Native corporations Port Graham Corporation and English Bay Corporation hold title to

approximately 49,000 ha (122,000 acres) of Native-owned land, which is mostly along the coast.

The State of Alaska owns approximately 7,700 ha (19,000 acres) of land within KEFJ.

KEFJ has a maritime climate characterized by frequent cloudiness and precipitation, strong

winds, and relatively mild temperatures. Annual precipitation increases dramatically toward the

interior of KEFJ and can exceed 380 cm (150 in) in the Harding Icefield. There are a number of

weather stations in and around KEFJ, and the SWAN I&M Program now has remote automated

weather stations (RAWS) at two sites within KEFJ—McArthur Pass and Harding Icefield.

Hydrologic Information

Most streams in KEFJ are unnamed, short (<5 km), and either carry glacier runoff or drain small,

rugged coastal watersheds that rim the fjords and bays. Watersheds extend from sea level to

greater than 1,500 m (~5,000 ft) in elevation on the Harding Icefield. Exit Creek is the main

water body targeted for long-term monitoring by the SWAN. Several U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) gages have historically been operational on streams whose watersheds are at least

partially contained within KEFJ (on the Nuka and Resurrection rivers), and currently only river

stage is continuously recorded (by the National Weather Service River Forecast Office) at two

sites: on Exit Creek (in KEFJ) and the Resurrection River (outside the NPS boundaries). Exit

Creek is being developed for seasonal streamflow gaging under the I&M Program. Several dozen
xiv

small lakes dot the coastal landscape of KEFJ, but there are no major lakes such as those in

LACL and KATM. No known studies have been conducted on the physical or chemical

attributes of these lakes. No groundwater resources in KEFJ have been inventoried or described

except for an isolated survey of groundwater conditions in the Exit Creek glacier area.

The majority of glaciers in KEFJ are part of the Harding Icefield, which is about 80 km long and

50 km wide and contains glaciers that cover approximately 1800 km2 (695 mi2). Most of the

glaciers in KEFJ have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age (~250 yrs ago) and

continue to retreat today. Early glaciological studies estimated a 5% decrease in glacial ice

coverage for the Harding Icefield between the early 1950s and mid-1980s, and an average retreat

rate of 27 m/yr during the 20th century for six land-terminating glaciers on the west flank of the

Harding Icefield. The SWAN I&M Program has identified glacier extent as an important vital

sign to monitor and is using satellite imagery (primarily Landsat) to monitor changes in glacial

coverage. Data indicate that glacial area within the boundaries of KEFJ decreased by 21.7 km2

(8.4 mi2) or 1.6% between 1986–2000 and that nunataks on the Harding Icefield have shown a

30% increase in mean increase in area between the 1950s and 2005. Current monitoring efforts

include repeat center line laser altimetry surveys conducted in 1994, 2002, and 2007 that provide

information about rates of glacier elevation and volume change. Kenai Fjords National Park is

also cataloging repeat photographs that document changes in glacier extent and is measuring the

surface velocity of the ice at the terminus as well as the terminus position of Exit Glacier. In

2009, KEFJ initiated mass-balance monitoring on Exit Glacier, and two other glaciers are

planned.

Biological Resources

The NPS I&M Program’s inventories completed in 2001 listed 660 vascular plant species (136

confirmed as present), 40 fish species (30 confirmed as present), 210 bird species (188 confirmed

as present), and 54 mammal species (42 confirmed as present) as occurring in KEFJ. Several of

the marine mammal species, including Steller sea lions and harbors seals that haul out in and

near the park, have experienced precipitous population declines. Diverse and numerous species

of marine fishes occur off the KEFJ coast. Coastal KEFJ hosts abundant seabird populations that

include tufted and horned puffins, black-legged kittiwakes, glaucous-winged gulls, common

murres, Kittlitz’s murrelets (a candidate species for listing as threatened), and many others. The

National Park Service cooperates with the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in

surveying bird colonies along the Kenai Peninsula coast. Marine nearshore vital signs monitoring

by the SWAN I&M Program include marine water chemistry, kelp and eelgrass, marine

intertidal invertebrates, marine birds, black oystercatcher, and sea otters.

The SWAN I&M Program’s freshwater fishes inventory process confirmed the presence of 13

freshwater fish species within KEFJ, although other studies identified an additional 11 species

with ranges that included KEFJ. The I&M Program predicted (but did not confirm) another 29

species considered tidepool or estuarine. Information on aquatic invertebrates is limited to

Delusion Creek, where taxa were largely represented by chironomids, mayflies, and stoneflies.

Studies in the Delusion Creek and Lake system included measurements of zooplankton densities

and chlorophyll-a concentrations. The biological development of this stream-lake system in

response to glacial retreat followed the same general patterns as observed in watersheds in

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
xv

Upland areas have been inventoried and described according to ecological systems, landcover

classes, and plant associations. In recently deglaciated watersheds or those with actively

retreating glaciers, a predictable sequence of vegetative succession occurs along age gradients of

newly exposed soils, as described for the outwash plain formed in front on the retreating Exit

Glacier. As part of the I&M Program, vegetation composition and structure are being monitored

in the SWAN using Landsat TM/ETM+ satellite images, orthorectified aerial photos and highresolution IKONOS imagery, as well as ground-based monitoring.

A mammal inventory conducted throughout the SWAN in 2003–2004 provided confirmation of

many species in KEFJ, from cinereus and montane shrews to mountain goats and moose, as well

as recording of four new species. A summer landbird inventory detected 101 species of birds,

including 62 species of landbirds—most commonly hermit thrush, orange-crowned warbler, and

Wilson’s warbler. The Nuka and Resurrection river corridors are particularly important habitats

for regional landbirds.

Water Quality Assessment

Water, sediment, and biologic quality in marine waters was surveyed in 2002 by the State of

Alaska as part of the nationwide Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, which

showed that water and sediment quality conditions in the Gulf of Alaska region were very high.

Pedersen Lagoon and Quicksand Lagoon were surveyed by SWAN staff in 2003/2004. Water

quality specifically in KEFJ fjords and lagoons was studied in 2007 by the USGS and again

showed healthy conditions. Spatial variations in temperature, salinity, turbidity, chlorophyll-a,

and nutrients were evaluated in terms of distance from glacial sources.

Vital signs monitored by the SWAN I&M Program were chosen based on ecological significance

and relevance to SWAN resource management issues. Those that are directly related to the

marine nearshore include marine water chemistry, kelp and eelgrass, marine intertidal

invertebrates, marine birds and mammals, black oystercatchers, bald eagles, and sea otters. Vital

signs related to freshwater resources include surface water hydrology, freshwater chemistry, and

landscape processes. Results of an NPS water quality review found no 303(d) impaired waters

present within KEFJ, and concluded that although water quality collection has been sporadic,

conditions appear to be generally good with low nutrient levels and little evidence of

anthropogenic impacts. For future long-term monitoring of water quality, SWAN streams and

lakes were categorized into three tiers by using a ranking procedure that considered access, level

of use/management issues, and ecological and spatial cover. In KEFJ, Exit Creek/Resurrection

River was identified as Tier 1 (targeted for annual monitoring), and the Nuka River and Delusion

Lake were designated as Tier 2 (targeted for sampling every 2–5 years).

Very few water quality data exist for streams within KEFJ. The largest source of information is

an inventory of 62 sites in streams, lakes, and lagoons that was conducted in the summers of

2003 and 2004 by the National Park Service. Parameters measured were temperature, pH,

conductivity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity, and results showed very

high water quality throughout the surveyed area. Other sources of information include historical

USGS sampling of the Nuka and Resurrection rivers and Exit Creek, a study on

macroinvertebrates and salmonids in three lake systems on the McCarty Peninsula, a hydrologic

and biologic survey of the uppermost reach of the Nuka River, and some unpublished

geochemical reconnaissance work in the historic mining areas of the Nuka River region.
xvi

Generally, all water quality and biologic investigations showed the streams to be within normal

ranges for glacial streams. The only exception was in the historic mining area, where an

anomalously high arsenic reading was found downstream of the Little Creek Prospect. Follow-up

reconnaissance of the area led to the remediation of the mine tailings site in 1998. Information on

the water quality of lakes is limited to studies of Delight and Desire lakes by several different

researchers, and a single-event survey of eight lakes and ponds in the Harris Bay and Two Arm

Bay lakes area for basic parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity).

Threats to Coastal Resources

The release of petroleum poses a great environmental threat, whether as catastrophic spills or

from chronic discharges. In addition to physical impacts of large spills, the toxicity of many of

the individual compounds contained in petroleum is significant, and even small releases can kill

or damage organisms. Swift currents and large tidal ranges can quickly transport released

petroleum great distances and over wide coastal zones, as evidenced by the Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill (EVOS) in 1989. As a result of EVOS, oil affected approximately 20 mi (32 km) of coast

within KEFJ. Future oil spills similar in scale to that of EVOS continue to be possible in the

region. Potential source areas include the Valdez Marine Terminal (Prince William Sound); Drift

River Marine Terminal (Cook Inlet); Nikiski Oil Terminal and Refinery (Cook Inlet); and 17 gas

and seven oil producing fields within Cook Inlet. Several more oil and gas sales are currently

proposed for development over the next 5 years in the Cook Inlet region. Not only are these

activities subject to inevitable human error, but they are located along an extremely active

volcanic and seismic area.

The ShoreZone mapping program computed an “Oil Residence Index” (ORI) along coastal KEFJ

that was developed from data on wave exposure levels and substrate types. Geographic Response

Strategies (GRS) and Potential Places of Refuge (PPORs) are in place for certain areas of KEFJ.

The identification of these PPORs should reduce the response time and regional environmental

damage in the event of a spill from a distressed vessel, but it is also likely that the PPOR used in

such an event will experience a disproportionately large amount of impact.

Visitor tour boats and cruise ships travel in the immediate vicinity of KEFJ, and fishing vessels

of all sizes are abundant in the Gulf of Alaska in general. No analyses of marine vessel impacts

have been conducted for the KEFJ coast, but marine vessels have the potential to degrade water

quality by the accidental release of petroleum products, the release of wastewater or other

discharges, or by resuspension of sediments. The effects to water quality along coastal KEFJ are

most likely temporary and limited to the immediate area of vessel traffic.

Global atmospheric pollutants such as mercury (Hg) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

may enter KEFJ by atmospheric deposition and via transport and deposition by spawning salmon

that accumulate these toxins in the marine environment. These contaminants biomagnify up

trophic levels, and Hg has shown significant concentration increases over the last few decades.

Several studies in southern coastal Alaska (focusing on sea bird eggs, lake sediments, and

streambed sediment) indicate the region is being affected by these contaminants and deserves

further evaluation and monitoring. The recently published results of the Western Airborne

Contaminants Assessment Project, which were based on samples from three NPS units in

Alaska, showed that contaminants were found in all park units studied. Very low concentrations

of most current-use chemicals were found; however, the occurrence of historic-use compounds
xvii

in Alaska matching levels found in the lower 48 states further suggests that Alaska is being

affected by atmospheric transport from global sources. Contaminant monitoring has begun in the

SWAN, although most of the effort is focused in LACL and KATM. The only Mercury

Deposition Network stations in Alaska are in Kodiak (operated by the State of Alaska since

2007) and in Bartlett Cove (in GLBA; operation by the National Park Service beginning in

2009); these sites will be instrumental for tracking Hg levels in southern Alaska.

Climate change is increasingly being recognized as an important natural resource issue for

national parks in Alaska. Climate warming is amplified at higher latitudes, and Alaska’s climate

has warmed by approximately 2.2 oC (4o F) since the 1950s and is projected to rise an additional

2.8–10 oC (5–18 oF) by 2100. The environment and water resources of KEFJ are highly

susceptible to climate change in large part because more than half of KEFJ is covered by glacial

ice and permanent snowfields, the volume and extent of which are diminished by climate

warming. Recent research on the Lower Kenai Peninsula has shown that water temperatures in

salmon streams in this area regularly exceed 13 ̊C, which is the State of Alaska standard for egg

and fry incubation. The Harding Icefield, much of which is contained in KEFJ, has been

shrinking and thinning at a rate of approximately 0.61 ± 0.12 m/yr (2.00 ± 0.39 ft/yr) since the

1950s. Glacial runoff strongly influences the physical and biological characteristics of streams

within and around KEFJ; thus changing glacial coverage has important implications for aquatic

ecosystems (both freshwater and marine) in KEFJ. In the near term, it is likely that increased

runoff associated with glacial wastage will lead to the creation of new streams and lakes and alter

the sediment, streamflow, and temperature regimes in surrounding streams. Climate warming

also has the potential to affect the occurrence of lakes and ponds within KEFJ based on recent

research from the Seward and Kenai peninsulas that has demonstrated a substantial landscapelevel reduction in surface water area as well as the number of closed-basin ponds. However,

within KEFJ the formation of new lakes associated with continued glacier recession may offset

any loss of lakes associated with permafrost degradation.

Unlike the other SWAN units, KEFJ does not contain any active volcanoes, although regional

eruptions outside of KEFJ can impact park resources. Earthquakes have been a powerful force of

geomorphologic and ecologic change along the Kenai coast. The largest modern earthquake

occurred in 1964, when the largest earthquake in North America occurred in the northern Prince

William Sound and caused land around the Kenai Mountains to drop more than 2 m (6.6 ft), in

turn causing geomorphological and vegetative changes along the KEFJ coast. In the three

decades following the 1964 earthquake, the KEFJ coastline has been uplifted up to 40 cm, as

determined from GPS measurements and water level recorders. Current uplift rates currently

outpace the rise of global sea-level, which is approximately 1.8 mm/yr. In 2004, the USGS

created a map of the coastal change potential of the KEFJ shoreline to future sea-level changes

and concluded that overall, areas in KEFJ most susceptible to sea-level changes are tidewater

glaciers and outer coast shorelines of unconsolidated sediment.

Visitor use of KEFJ has increased nearly twenty-fold since 1982 and is concentrated in the Exit

Glacier area. Glacier and wildlife cruises are becoming an increasingly popular way of exploring

the coastline, with numerous tour boats departing from Seward daily during the summer. The

vast majority of visitors to the park do not overnight, although the campground and public use

cabins are in high demand. Winter snowmobiling at the Exit Glacier area is growing in

popularity as well. Potential impacts from visitor use include wildlife disturbance and
xviii

displacement; damage to soil and vegetation; spreading of exotic/invasive species; fuel spills

from motorized vehicle/airplane use; noise pollution from visitors and motorized vehicles; air

pollution from watercraft and snowmobiles; stress imposed on marine mammals targeted for

close viewing by tour boats and kayakers; damage of nesting sites along beaches; and humanbear interactions. One potentially vulnerable species, the black oystercatcher, nests on beaches;

however, its nesting success was not affected by recreational usage.

The vast majority of all backcountry camping occurs at about 30 sites in Aialik Bay and

Northwestern Lagoon. Monitoring of the impacts of camping on cultural and natural resources in

the park is currently being developed, although surveys to date have identified fire rings, charred

wood, cut stumps, root exposure, vegetation trampling, trash, human waste, soil erosion,

campsite proliferation, increased human-wildlife interactions, and social trails as some of the

impacts by camping activity in these heavily-used sites. The Harding Icefield Trail (HIT) at Exit

Glacier has been receiving increasingly heavy use during the summer months. For the past

several summers, KEFJ staff has been regularly flagging the trail to help prevent visitors from

hiking off the trail and causing vegetative damage and erosion.

In 2008, the only lodge within KEFJ was constructed on 10 acres of Native-owned (Port Graham

Corporation, PGC) land along the eastern shore of Pedersen Lagoon. The Kenai Fjords Glacier

Lodge, operated by Alaska Wildland Adventures, includes approximately 800 ha (2,000 acres) of

land surrounding the development that will be known as the Pedersen Lagoon Wildlife

Sanctuary. The development, maintenance, and operation of this lodge will undoubtedly provide

some level of disturbance to birds and marine and terrestrial wildlife in this biologically rich area

that contains the highest species diversity along the KEFJ coast.

Several mining sites are located in the Historic Mining District of Nuka Bay. Mining claims at

the Goyne (or Waterfield) prospect remain administratively active. Surveys of water quality

conditions in the area found detectable, and in some cases high, concentrations of metals. Mine

tailings were removed from the Beauty Bay site in 1998, and other remedial actions were

suggested and then retracted at the Sonny Fox Mine along Babcock Creek. A 2007 mine site

condition assessment report, which assessed the mines as cultural resources, categorized two of

six surveyed sites to be in good condition (Alaska Hills Cabin and Alaska Hills Mill &Mine); 

three to be in fair condition (Glass & Heifner Mine, Rosness Larson Mine Site, and Sonny Fox

Mine); and one site (Nuka Bay Mine) to be of unknown condition due to snow cover at the time

of the assessment. No further remediation of mining contaminants is currently planned. Two

mine openings were closed at the Nuka Bay Mine in 2008. Six mine openings are planned for

closure in 2010. The Surprise Bay No.1 is the only remaining active federal mining claim in the

District

The hydrologic setting of the Exit Glacier area (including the KEFJ nature center and trails) and

the road leading to it has proven to be complex in terms of flood prevention and abatement. The

primary source of flooding to the Exit Glacier area is a tributary stream to Exit Creek that easily

floods during the fall months when rainstorms are large and frequent. The foundation of the

nature center could be compromised following prolonged exposure to flow. The six channel

crossings present between the nature center and the end of the nature trail were identified as

being undersized for even small (two-year) flood events. Another unintended consequence to

these diversions is deprivation of flow to an adjacent wetland area, potentially producing
xix

deleterious effects on the wetland floral community. In addition to the flooding in the nature 

center area, flooding also occurs along the portion of the Exit Glacier access road that crosses

floodplain and wetland environments supported by both the Resurrection River and Exit Creek

as well as at the maintenance facility on Old Exit Road.

Water rights have been an issue in the uppermost section of the Nuka River. Concern for NPS

resources stems from the partial diversion of flow from this upper reach of the Nuka River

toward the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. However, by 2003 and as the Nuka Glacier has

retreated, its outflow was greatly shifted toward Bradley Lake, leaving the upper ~1 km of the

Nuka River dry during portions of the year. It was not clear if this change was entirely natural or

if it was intensified by the diversion structures. The National Park Service directed a habitat

assessment and biological inventory of the area, and currently there is little concern that the

natural hydrologic changes threaten the biological integrity of the Nuka River.

Exotic plants are a management concern to the National Park Service because they can hybridize

with native flora, can outcompete resident species for limited resources, and can change the

structure and function of ecosystems through alterations of biogeochemical and geophysical

processes. KEFJ has been following the Alaska Region’s Exotic Plant Management Team

protocol to try to eradicate exotic plant populations, which typically are concentrated along roads

and trails and at campsites and other places used by visitors. The main area of infestation by

exotic plants in KEFJ is along the Exit Glacier road and parking lot.

The continued northward migration of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon and other non-native

migrating species pose threats to indigenous salmon and trout and their stream communities. The

increase in visitor use along the coast may result in the import of exotic species to the area in the

near future. Concerns also include spruce beetle infestations and potential arrival of the avian

influenza (H5N1) virus in Alaska. Chytridiomycosis, a waterborne infectious disease

contributing to severe amphibian declines globally, has been detected in southcentral and

southeast Alaska. Wood frog populations are not known to occur currently within KEFJ, but it

remains unclear as to whether chytrid fungus could have impacted populations historically.
xx

Our condition assessment of water resources-related indicators and current/potential stressors of

aquatic resources in Kenai Fjords National Park is summarized in the table below.

Indicator Freshwater Intertidal, Bays,

Estuaries & Salt

Marshes

Coastal waters

Water Quality

Nutrients/ Eutrophication OK OK OK

Contaminants OK OK OK

Hypoxia OK OK OK

Temperature OK OK OK

Turbidity (non-glacial) OK OK OK

Pathogens OK OK OK

Habitat Disruption

Climate change EP EP EP

Oil spills NA EP EP

Aquatic/marine invasive species PP PP PP

Exotic plant species EP PP NA

Insect outbreaks and disease EP PP NA

Coastal development PP PP NA

Water quantity/ withdrawals OK NA NA

Natural geologic hazards IP IP IP

Natural coastal uplift and erosion OK IP OK

Historic mine sites EP PP OK

Logging in private inholdings OK OK OK

Flooding EP NA NA
xxi

Indicator Freshwater Intertidal, Bays,

Estuaries & Salt

Marshes

Coastal waters

Recreational usage

Coastal tour boats and kayaks PP PP PP

Backcountry camping, hiking PP PP NA

Other Indicators

Harmful algal blooms NA OK OK

Definitions: EP= existing problem, IP= Intermittent Problem, PP = potential problem, OK= no

detectable problem, shaded =limited data, NA= not applicable.
xxii

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to many people for their aid in the preparation of this report. We would like to

thank Cliff McCreedy, Kristen Keteles, and Mark Flora at the NPS Water Resources Division

who provided the funding and guidance which made this project possible. At the National Park

Service in Seward and Anchorage, we would like to thank Jeff Shearer, Bill Thompson, Meg

Hahr, Michael Shephard, Heather Coletti, Chuck Lindsay, Fritz Klasner, Deborah Kurtz, Alan

Bennett, Dorothy Mortensen, Jeff Mow, Russ Kucinski, Shelley Hall, and Michael Tetreau for

their meetings, discussions, and careful reviews of our draft report. Finally, we thank Mistee

Vinzant, Kathy Smikrud, Colin Shanley, and Logan Berner at UAS for providing assistance with

bibliographic organization and GIS map creation.
xxiii

Commonly Used Abbreviations

AC – Alaska Current

ACC – Alaska Coastal Current

ADEC – Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADFG – Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR – Alaska Department of Natural Resources

ALAG – Alagnak Wild River

AMNWR - Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

ANIA – Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve

ANILCA – Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act

AVO – Alaska Volcano Observatory

AWA – Alaska Wildland Adventures

BLHP—Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project

CWA – Clean Water Act

DENA – Denali National Park & Preserve

DNR – Department of Natural Resources

EMAP – Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (U.S. EPA)

ENSO – El Niño Southern Oscillation

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EVOS – Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

GAAR – Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve

GEM – Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council)

GLBA – Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

GRS – Geographic Response Strategies

HAB – Harmful Algal Bloom

HIT – Harding Icefield Trail

I&M – Inventory and Monitoring Program

KATM – Katmai National Park and Preserve (National Park Service Designation)

KEFJ – Kenai Fjords National Park (National Park Service Designation)

LACL – Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (National Park Service Designation)

LIA – Little Ice Age

LTEMP – Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program

MDN – Mercury Deposition Network

NADP – National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce)

NOAT – Noatak National Preserve

NPS – National Park Service (U.S. Department of Interior)

NS&T – National Status and Trends (NOAA)

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory (of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

NWS RFO - National Weather Service River Forecast Office

ORI – Oil Residence Index

PAHs – Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs – Polychlorinated biphenyls

PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PGC – Port Graham Corporation
xxiv

POPs – Persistent Organic Pollutants

PPOR – Potential Places of Refuge

PSP – Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

SRTM – Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

SQG – Sediment Quality Guidelines

SWAN – Southwest Alaska Network

UAS – University of Alaska Southeast

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of Interior)

USGS – U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Department of Interior)

WACAP – Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project
1

1. Purpose and Scope

This assessment of coastal water resources and watershed conditions in Kenai Fjords National

Park (KEFJ) in southwest Alaska is provided in response to the National Park Service (NPS)

Natural Resource Challenge, initially funded by the U.S. Congress in 2003 to assess the

environmental conditions of NPS units. Of particular interest are the threats posed by point

source and non-point source pollutants, nutrient enrichment, coastal development and tourism,

resource extractive uses, and the spread of exotic species. The Watershed Assessment Program

has been tasked with synthesizing existing data, formulating recommendations, and guiding

management actions to reduce factors that currently stress, or threaten to stress, the health of

NPS watershed resources.

This report provides a synopsis of existing knowledge about KEFJ watersheds, all of which are

coastal and drain into the Gulf of Alaska. KEFJ is part of the Southwest Alaska Network

(SWAN), which also includes the Alagnak Wild River (ALAG), Aniakchak National Monument

and Preserve (ANIA), Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (LACL), and Katmai National

Park and Preserve (KATM). These park units are currently implementing their Vital Signs

Monitoring Plan, in which baseline inventories and long-term monitoring protocols and plans are

being developed for climatic, biological, physical, hydrochemical, and other parameters that are

considered to be “vital signs,” or key indicators, of ecological and physical conditions within the

park units. The list of vital signs selected for the network is presented in Appendix A of this

report. Many products of the ongoing SWAN I&M Program are relevant to this Watershed

Assessment effort. Information, bibliographies, and other resources regarding the SWAN I&M

Program are found at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/.

2. Park Description and History

2.1. Setting

2.1.1. Geographic Setting

Kenai Fjords National Park is located 209 road km (130 mi) south of Anchorage along the

southeastern side of the Kenai Peninsula in southcentral Alaska (Figure 1). This 271,132-ha

(669,983 acres) park is bordered to the north by the Chugach National Forest, to the southeast by

the Gulf of Alaska, to the south by the Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park, and to the

northwest by the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The town of Seward, home to the park’s

headquarters, is located 5 km (3 mi) east from the park boundaries. Accessible by road only to

the Exit Glacier, approximately 15 km (9 mi) from Seward, the snow- and ice- dominated park is

largely seen and accessed from the coast via tour boats and kayaks. Protruding through the

massive Harding Icefield as nunataks, the mile-high Kenai Mountains form the spine of the park

along its north and western border. Glaciers emanating from the icefield carve deep U-shaped

valleys into partially metamorphosed muddy sandstones and shales (with intrusions of granite

and granodiorite) that dominate the underlying bedrock (Beikman 1980). The coastline is

characterized by deep and extensive fjords, numerous offshore islands and sea stacks, and

abundant marine wildlife. The park lies along the convergent plate boundary between the Pacific

and North American plates, making it highly prone to earthquakes, sudden sea level changes, and

resulting tsunamis (Mann et al. 1998).
2

Figure 1. Location of Kenai Fjords National Park and other SWAN NPS units in Alaska. 

The most striking physical feature within KEFJ is the Harding Icefield, which covers large

portions of the eastern slope of Kenai Mountains and an area of 483 km2 (300 mi2), not counting

the glaciers that emanate from it. Half of the Harding Icefield is within KEFJ, which also

includes a portion of the Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex located west of Nuka Bay. The

Harding Icefield is one of the four major ice caps in the United States and one of the largest

icefields entirely within U.S. borders (Cook and Norris, 1998). The Harding Icefield is a remnant

of the expansive ice sheets that covered southcentral Alaska during the Pleistocene glaciations.

The icefield has seen periods of glacial advances throughout the Holocene, most recently during

the Little Ice Age (AD 1200 to 1900) (Mann 1998, Wiles et al. 1995).

The coastal boundary of KEFJ extends along the mean high tide line from the southern end of

the Bear Glacier moraine in lower Resurrection Bay to just south of Yalik Point in Nuka Bay.

The coastline includes the main glacial fjords of Aialik Bay, Harris Bay, and Northwestern

Fjord, Two Arm Bay, McCarty Fjord, and West and North arms of Nuka Bay (Figure 2). Coastal
3

streams terminate in bays, fjords, and lagoons that deeply indent the southwest to northeasttrending coastal boundary of the Kenai Peninsula. Most of the watersheds are at least partially of

glacial origin, and some include substantial lakes. All watersheds in KEFJ drain into the Gulf of

Alaska and are therefore included in this coastal watershed assessment report.

The coastline is made up of an intricate system of fjords, drowned cirques, offshore islands, sea

stacks, and rock spires comprised of Cretaceous sedimentary rocks as well as Holocene granite

and granodiorite (Tande and Michaelson, 2001). Uncommon protected areas hold depositional

features such as sand and gravel floodplains, beaches, river deltas, tidal flats and salt marsh

systems (Tande and Michaelson 2001). The offshore islands, sea stacks, and rock spires

(including Chiswell, Harbor, and Pye Island group) are part of the Alaska Maritime National

Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) and not under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

Additionally, Alaska Native corporations Port Graham Corporation (PGC) and English Bay

Village corporation (EBVC) hold title to the majority of approximately 49,000 ha (122,000

acres) of Native-owned land, which is mostly along the coast (Figure 3). The State of Alaska

owns approximately 7,700 ha (19,000 acres) of land within KEFJ (Figure 3).
4

Figure 2. Bays and fjords along the KEFJ coastline.
5

Figure 3. Land status map of KEFJ. Map by Fritz Klasner, National Park Service, 2009.
6

2.1.2. Human Utilization

The earliest inhabitants of the Kenai Peninsula outer coast were one of the easternmost groups of

the Pacific Eskimos, who may have migrated from Kodiak Island or the Alaska Peninsula (Cook

and Norris 1998). There is almost no archeological information prior to approximately 800 years

ago, and this absence is likely due to the obscuration of sites as a result of tectonic subsidence

during a major earthquake about AD 1170 (Crowell and Mann 1996). Archaeological

investigations have resulted in little consensus over which subgroups of the Eskimos inhabited

the coastal region of the Kenai Peninsula, where Native inhabitants are known as the Alutiiq

Chugach. Archeological studies have shown conflicting evidence for habitation by the Chugach,

Unixkugmiut, and Unegkurmiut peoples along the Kenai coast. Archaeological investigations in

the region also suggest that the coastal peoples lived with little cultural exchange for

approximately 500 years prior to European contact.

At the time of Russian contact in about 1780, there were an estimated 600 inhabitants of the

southern Kenai Peninsula, of which an unknown number were from the coastal region (Oswalt

1967). There were an unknown number of villages along the coast, but the village of Yalik is the

only one within KEFJ boundaries (located in Yalik Bay) to survive by name into historic times,

being mentioned in a Russian census in 1880 (Cook and Norris 1998). With the arrival of

Russians to the Kenai Peninsula came tremendous suffering from disease, hostilities, forced

labor, and relocation that destroyed the structure of Native communities, and their populations

plummeted (Cook and Norris 1998). However, hunters and trappers continued to use the coast

for many decades thereafter, until the 1940s. An extensive history of European and American

hunting (particularly of marine mammals), trapping, hunting, gold mining, fishing, and early

tourism along the Kenai coast is provided in Cook and Norris (1998).

Attention by federal and state governments given to the Kenai Peninsula’s coastal fjord region

before the 1960s was limited to a handful of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Mines,

and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Fish and Wildlife Survey investigations (Cook and

Norris 1998). Then in 1968, the Alaska Field Office of the National Park Service evaluated the

Harding and Sargent Icefields and unsuccessfully recommended them for inclusion in the

National Natural Landmarks program. In the 1970s, much of the present KEFJ area was

recommended to be made a national recreation area with mixed land use provisions. However, in

1971, passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act put specific land designations on hold

until the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),

which designated KEFJ as a National Park (KEFJ became a national monument in 1978). The

park’s mandate was “to maintain unimpaired the scenic and environmental integrity of the

Harding Icefield, its outflowing glaciers, and coastal fjords and islands in their natural state; and

to protect seals, sea lions, other marine mammals, and marine and other birds and to maintain

their hauling and breeding areas in their natural state, free of human activity which is disruptive

to their natural processes.”

2.2. Hydrologic Information

2.2.1. Oceanographic Setting

The coast of KEFJ is characterized by a series of fjords and offshore islands along the edge of

the Gulf of Alaska. Fjords are deep, high-latitude estuaries that have been or are presently

excavated by land-based ice (Syvitski et al. 1987). Seismic surveys of the continental shelf off
7

the KEFJ coast indicate that bathymetric variations are the result of erosion, tectonism, and

proglacial deposition (von Huene 1966). Within fjords, water is often highly stratified along

density gradients resulting from strong temperature and salinity gradients. Little is known

specifically about the oceanography of the coastal waters bordering KEFJ, but information from

a nearby fjord, Resurrection Bay, provides insight. Recurring seasonal cycles drive flushing and

renewal of the deep basin water in Resurrection Bay with water from the Gulf of Alaska during

the summer months (Royer 1975). As upwelling occurs in the Gulf of Alaska onto the

continental shelf, dense water rushes into Resurrection Bay, renewing the deep water there. This

deep-water renewal begins in April–May and continues with multiple replacements through

September–October (Heggie and Burrell 1981). During the winter, between renewal periods,

Resurrection Bay basin is well stratified, with low dissolved oxygen in deep waters (Burrell

1983). Arimitsu et al. (2008) took measurements of currents and tidal discharge within two KEFJ

fjords. Measurements along cross sections in Aialik and Northwestern fjords showed low current

velocities at the faces of the glaciers, high velocities over submerged moraines, stratification

from freshwater input, and occasionally high tidal discharges (maxima occurred on 8/15/07 and

were 12,300 m3

/s and 10,100 m3/s in Aialik and Northwestern fjords, respectively). Complex

flow patterns in the fjords were efficient at inducing mixing of sediment-laden freshwater with

waters from the Gulf of Alaska.

The Gulf of Alaska is bordered by the Alaska Peninsula to the northwest and the Canadian

mainland at Queen Charlotte Sound to the southeast (Figure 4). Dominant habitats include

continental shelf, slope, and abyssal plain. The continental shelf area of the Gulf of Alaska

represents more than 12% of the continental shelf holdings of the United States (Hood and

Zimmerman 1986). The width of the continental shelf ranges from 5 km in the southeast to

nearly 200 km around Kodiak Island (Weingartner 2005). Abyssal depths (>7,000 m) occur in

the northwest portion of the Gulf of Alaska within the Aleutian Trench. Fjords, convoluted

shorelines, underwater canyons and ridges, and multiple islands create a mosaic of geological

features that contribute to a complex oceanographic domain. Offshore circulation is dominated

by a cyclonic subarctic gyre. The sluggish, easterly-flowing North Pacific Current bifurcates near

52° N and becomes the Alaska Current (AC) northward (Figure 4) and the California Current

southward. The Alaska Coastal Current (ACC), inshore of the AC, is a low-salinity, cyclonic

(counter-clockwise), fast-moving (13–133 cm/s) current driven by winds and density gradients

established through freshwater input (Hood and Zimmerman 1986). Precipitation within the Gulf

of Alaska ranges from 2 to 6 m per annum (Weingartner et al. 2005). The region is affected by

intense winter storms that frequently become trapped or stalled by the surrounding rugged

coastal topography (Royer 1998; Wilson and Overland 1986). Persistent cyclonic winds, coupled

with onshore surface Ekman transport (movement of surface waters from the wind and Coriolis

effect), promote downwelling favorable conditions for much of the Gulf of Alaska; however,

episodic and local upwelling may be generated by eddies or other local geography. Despite

predominant downwelling, the Gulf of Alaska is a productive ecosystem. Nutrients are supplied

from small-scale upwelling, eddies, shear, Ekman transport, resuspension of shelf sediments, and

river discharge (Stabeno et al. 2004). Eddies are frequently generated off the British Columbia

coast (Crawford et al. 2002) and in Southeast Alaska near Sitka and propagate through the Gulf

of Alaska along the ACC. Eddies in the Gulf of Alaska range from 10 to 50 km and normally

persist for one to four weeks (Bograd et al., 1994). The arrival of eddies to the shore may

increase larval recruitment via entrainment of fish and shellfish larvae within water conditions
8

favorable to survival (Incze et al. 1989, Schumacher et al. 1993), whereas the generation of

eddies may decrease larval recruitment via advection (Sinclair and Crawford 2005).

Figure 4. Predominant currents in the Gulf of Alaska (Reed & Schumacher 1986).

The Gulf of Alaska is meteorologically active and dominated by a persistently located area of

low pressure known as the Aleutian Low (Mundy and Olsson 2005). Winter storms,

characterized by low sea-level pressures, can routinely produce >15 m waves and gale-strength

winds (Wilson and Overland 1986). The Aleutian Low oscillates in strength and location

throughout the year but maintains its influence on the regional climate (Wilson and Overland

1986, Mundy and Olsson 2005). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño

Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are global-scale atmospheric and oceanic conditions that influence

climate, weather events, circulation, and, ultimately, the biology of the Gulf of Alaska. The time

scale of the PDO and ENSO are quite distinct; the PDO describes variability on interdecadal

time scales, while the ENSO describes variability on intradecadal time scales. The sea surface

temperature anomalies arising from the PDO are smaller magnitude but geographically larger

than those occurring during ENSO (Weingartner 2007). The PDO is characterized by descriptive

weather indices that track anomalies of sea surface temperature, wind stress, and sea level

atmospheric pressure (Hare et al. 1999). During the warm (or positive) phase of the PDO, sea

surface temperatures are above normal in the Gulf of Alaska, with the opposite pattern during the

cold phase (Mantua et al. 1997). ENSO has its largest effects in the equatorial Pacific. During an

ENSO warming event, sea levels rise, upwelling shuts off, and water temperatures in the 

equatorial Pacific near Peru may rise as much as 5.4° C. During a cool phase (La Niña), cooler

surface waters (< 20° C) extend offshore of Peru and intensify upwelling currents in that region.

These effects alter global atmospheric circulation and propagate to the Gulf of Alaska, with

maximal ENSO signals in the Gulf of Alaska in fall and winter (Weingartner 2007).
9

2.2.2. Climatic Setting

KEFJ has a maritime climate characterized by frequent cloudiness and precipitation, strong

winds, and relatively mild temperatures. Low pressure systems that form in the western

Aleutians region frequently move into the Gulf of Alaska where they can become stationary and

intensify. This pattern produces strong southeasterly circulation of moist, maritime air into the

coastal mountains within KEFJ (Bailey 1977) and results in a strong orographic precipitation

gradient within KEFJ. Annual precipitation increases dramatically toward the interior of KEFJ

and can exceed 380 cm (150 in) in the Harding Icefield, based on PRISM models and KEFJ

snowpit data (C. Lindsay, NPS, written communication, 2009) (Figure 5). A National Weather

Service station in Seward at sea level on the eastern border of KEFJ has climate data available

back to 1949. The mean annual temperature in Seward is 4.4°C (40° F) with a range of -3.7 to

13.4°C (Figure 6). Annual precipitation at Seward is 173 cm (68.1 in) and peaks during fall at 25

cm (10 in) per month during September and October (Figure 6). Annual snowfall averages 211

cm (83.1 in) with an average of 25–50 cm (10–20 in) per month between December and March.

Snow on the ground typically averages less than 25 cm (10 in) in depth and persists from

November through April.

Figure 5. Annual precipitation for SWAN units, as compiled by the National Park Service. Taken from

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm?theme=climate.
10

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

16

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Monthly Mean Temp. (C)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Monthly Precipitation (cm)

Temp

PPT

Figure 6. Mean monthly temperature and monthly precipitation in Seward (1949–2005). Data from the

Western Regional Climate Center (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?aksewa).

There are a number of weather stations in and around KEFJ, and the SWAN I&M Program now

has remote automated weather stations (RAWS) at two sites within KEFJ—McArthur Pass and

Harding Icefield (Figure 7). The RAWS sites are fully automated, solar-powered stations that

record temperature, wind speed and direction, precipitation, snow depth, relative humidity, and

solar radiation on an hourly basis. The data for these sites are archived by the Western Regional

Climate Center. The McArthur Pass site is located in the southern region of KEFJ at 400 m

(1,300 ft) elevation and has been in operation since June 2008 (http://www.raws.dri.edu/cgibin/rawMAIN.pl?akAMCA) (Figure 7).

The Harding Icefield site is located on a nunatak in the northeast portion of the icefield at 1,280

m (4,200 ft) elevation and has been in operation since July 2004 (http://www.raws.dri.edu/cgibin/rawMAIN.pl?akAHAR) (Figure 7). Data from the Harding Icefield site characterize the

extreme climate of the icefield with peak monthly wind gusts that typically exceed 22 m/s (50

mph) and average daily low temperatures of less than -12°C (10°F) during winter months. The

highest wind speed measured at the site is 52 m/s (117 mph) and the lowest recorded temperature

is -29.5°C (-21.1°F).

Current and historic data from weather stations in an around KEFJ including Exit Glacier, Nuka

Glacier, Seward Airport, and Harding Icefield are summarized in Lindsay and Klasner (2009).
11

Figure 7. Map of weather stations in and adjacent to KEFJ. The McArthur Pass site began collecting data

in June 2008 (Lindsay and Klasner 2009).

2.2.3. Streams and Streamflow

Most streams in KEFJ are unnamed, short (<5 km), and either carry glacier runoff or drain small

coastal rugged watersheds that rim the fjords and bays. Watersheds extend from sea level to

greater than 1,500 m (~5,000 ft) in elevation on the Harding Icefield. Hydrologic unit codes for

watersheds within KEFJ are shown in Figure 8.
12

Figure 8. Watersheds fully or partially within KEFJ, as identified by hydrologic unit codes.

The majority of streams are fed by meltwater from glaciers and snowfields, although there are a

number of small, low-elevation watersheds along the coast where streamflow is derived

primarily from rainfall and intermittent snowmelt. The named KEFJ streams include (from north

to south): Resurrection River (with tributaries: Exit, Moose, Placer, Cottonwood, Redman, and

Paradise Creeks); Lowell, Spruce, and Tonsina creeks along western Resurrection Bay; Delusion

Creek (and lakes, draining into McCarty Fjord); Babcock Creek (draining into Surprise Bay);

and the Nuka River and adjacent Ferrum Creek (Figure 9). Exit Creek, which is the main water

body targeted for long-term monitoring by SWAN, flows from the terminus of Exit Glacier (on

the northeast end of the Harding Icefield, near the visitor center and Seward) for 3.2 km (2.0 mi)

to the confluence with the Resurrection River (Figure 10).
13

Figure 9. Streams and lakes in KEFJ.
14

Figure 10. Location of Exit Creek and Resurrection River in KEFJ. The star denotes the Exit Creek

monitoring location, and grey areas represent glacial ice cover. From Shearer and Moore (2009).

Several USGS gages have historically been operational on streams whose watersheds lie at least

partially within KEFJ boundaries, although the gages themselves have not been within the park:

three on the Nuka River and two on the Resurrection River. Several reports provide limited data

on streamflow in other KEFJ streams. For example, a recent water quality inventory of KEFJ

stated that discharge measurements were taken in most of the streams sampled, but no discharge

data are provided in the final report (Bennett 2005). Also, a study of salmonid and

macroinvertebrate colonization of Delusion Creek, a newly formed stream in McCarty Fjord,

included discharge measurements. Discharge measured 2.4–17.3 m3/s (84–610 cfs) between

8/3/92 and 9/1/92, and 4.8–18.0 m3/s (168–636 cfs) between 6/5/93 and 7/27/93 (York and

Milner 1999). The steepness of the watershed and the intensity of rainfall events indicated that

the upper watershed lakes did little to buffer flow variations in Delusion Creek (York and Milner

1999).

One of the USGS gages on the Nuka River (site number 15238650; “Nuka River nr Homer”)

reports only two discharge measurements: 0.13 m3/s (4.7 cfs) on 3/12/1960 and 0.13 m3/s (14

cfs) on 1/7/1961. However USGS site 15238648 (“Upper Nuka River nr park boundary nr

Homer AK”; operated in conjunction with the Alaska Energy Authority) has a 25-year record of

continuous streamflow measurements (beginning on 09/01/1984 and continuing to the present).

The lower site (USGS Station 15238653; “Nuka River nr Tidewater nr Homer”) has continuous

discharge for thirteen months, from 9/1/1984 to 9/30/1985 (Figure 11). The streamflow pattern

for this single study year clearly shows the large contribution of glacial meltwater to the stream

during the summer months, when streamflow was two to three orders of magnitude greater than
15

during the winter months. Short-term spikes in flow from rainstorm events are apparent

throughout the water year.

Figure 11. Streamflow data for the USGS gaging station on the Nuka River, for the entirety of its record 

(September 1984–September 1985). Data from USGS

(http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/uv/?site_no=15238653).

The other two historical USGS gaging stations were on the Resurrection River. The one in the

upper watershed (USGS station1523767500, “Resurrection R at Exit Glacier C nr Seward”)

reports only 11 field measurements; one was from June 1993, but the other 10 all were taken 

between August and October 1986 (Table 1). Therefore, no seasonal or time-series trends are 

discernable from the site. However, the lower Resurrection River was gaged continuously from 

10/1/01964 to 6/30/1968 (USGS station 15237700, “Resurrection R at Seward AK”). These four 

years of gage data show a classic glacier-influenced streamflow trend characterized by a sharp 

and sustained increase in discharge during the summer months when glacial meltwater 

contributions dominate, and low flows in the winter and early spring, when groundwater sustains 

relatively low levels of streamflow that are punctuated by short term spikes from rainfall events 

(Figure 12).
16

Table 1. Streamflow measurements reported for the Resurrection River above Exit Glacier Creek. Data 

from http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/water/index.php

Date Streamflow

(cfs)

Streamflow

(m3 s-1)

6/23/1993 1420 40.21

10/14/1986 2620 74.19

10/8/1986 345 9.77

9/30/1986 319 9.03

9/24/1986 526 14.89

9/19/1986 783 22.17

9/12/1986 816 23.11

9/5/1986 764 21.63

8/29/1986 1890 53.52

8/21/1986 670 18.97

8/15/1986 736 20.84
17

Figure 12. Streamflow data for the Resurrection River at Seward. (USGS stream gage 15237700) for the 

period of record: 10/1/01964– 6/30/1968. Data from USGS 

(http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/uv/?site_no=15237700).

Although there are no longer any continuously gaged rivers in KEFJ, stage level is recorded at 

both the Resurrection River and Exit Creek by the National Weather Service River Forecast 

Office (NWS RFO). Hourly stage data for the Resurrection River (at Exit Glacier Bridge) is at 

available at http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=pafc&gage=resa2, and daily 

summer stage is available for Exit Creek (near the visitor center) at 

http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=pafc&gage=exta2. This monitoring effort 

provides stage data, which are converted to estimated discharge, and rates flood risk (Table 2).

Flooding of the Resurrection River onto the Exit Glacier Road has occurred many times in the 

recent past and is a visitor access concern for the Park (Table 2). Resurrection River stage is also 

monitored by the National Weather Service River Forecast Office (NWS RFO) at a site lower in 

the watershed, at the Seward Highway Bridge. 
18

Table 2. Flood categories and historical crests for the Resurrection River at Exit Glacier Bridge. Data from

the National Weather Service River Forecast Office.

Flood forecasts are not available for the Exit Creek site. This site had been monitored only once

per day, and only during the summer months, when the Exit Glacier visitor center was open.

However, in 2008, the National Park Service placed a water level pressure transducer at the site

to record hourly stage readings, and, in 2009, the National Park Service resurveyed the channel

cross-section and started to work on rebuilding the stage-discharge rating (Jeff Shearer, NPS,

written communication, 2009). Exit Creek is slated to be gaged regularly as part of the NPS I&M

Program.

2.2.4. Lakes and Ponds

Several dozen small lakes dot the coastal landscape of KEFJ, but there are no major lakes such as

those in LACL and KATM. The largest lakes (all <5 km2 [2 mi2]) are on the east side of the East

Arm of Nuka Bay: Upper and Lower Delusion Lakes, Desire Lake, and Delight Lake. Addison

Lake (draining into Pederson Lagoon) and Bear Glacier Lake (an estuarine lagoon connected to

Resurrection Bay) are the only other lakes in the park bearing official names (Figure 9). No

known studies have been conducted on the physical or chemical attributes of these lakes;

however, bathymetric maps made by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1981 are

available for Delight and Desire Lakes (Mortenson et al. 2005). The maximum depth of Delight

and Desire Lakes are shown as 40 m and 27 m, respectively.

2.2.5 Groundwater

No groundwater resources in KEFJ have been inventoried or described except for an isolated

survey of groundwater conditions in the Exit Creek glacier area (Sloan 1985). This study

identified three principal geologic units in the area as bedrock, glacial till, and fluvial sand and

gravel, and it reported that an ample supply of groundwater at a depth of <15 m (50 ft) was

available for visitor services.

Flood category Stage (ft) Stage (m)

Major flood stage 20.00 6.10

Moderate flood stage 18.50 5.64

Flood stage 17.50 5.33

Action stage 16.00 4.88

Historical crests

10/9/2006 19.85 6.05

9/20/1995 19.36 5.90

10/23/2002 18.50 5.64

9/9/1995 17.90 5.46

10/1/2003 16.32 4.97

9/14/2002 16.20 4.94

10/3/2004 15.86 4.83

9/15/2006 15.67 4.78

9/14/2008 15.37 4.68

12/16/2005 15.05 4.59

6/17/2004 13.94 4.25

6/11/2007 10.80 3.29
19

Despite the lack of groundwater surveys throughout KEFJ, some general features of groundwater

systems in glaciated environments likely pertain to the park. Glacial outwash deposits in general

are characterized by broad, extensive groundwater systems that are well connected through

highly conductive sands and gravels. In contrast, till deposits and lenses of fine-grained clays

may produce perched aquifers and regions of low hydraulic conductivity (Stephenson et al.

1988). Groundwater flow in the steep, high, mountainous areas of KEFJ is likely limited to

relatively shallow soil zones and fraction flow through faults and fissures in the bedrock.

Through wetland areas, groundwater is abundant, and the water table intersects the land surface.

Wetlands, lakes, ponds, and streams are likely closely connected by groundwater in such areas.

Considering the rapid retreat of most glaciers within KEFJ and the uncovering of new stream

valleys, it is also likely that the dimensions of groundwater reservoirs are expanding and shifting

in sync with the changes in surface hydrology. Storage and routing of meltwater through

floodplain aquifers likely result in significant contributions of flow to the streams. During

periods of low precipitation and during times of subfreezing temperatures, groundwater flow into

streams may sustain thawed channel conditions, thereby creating refuges for fish and other

biological resources that require above-freezing temperatures.

2.2.6. Snow, Ice, and Glaciers

There are more than 20 named glaciers that are totally or partially within KEFJ, including a

number of tidewater glaciers that deliver ice to bays and lagoons within the park (Figure 13). The

majority of glaciers within KEFJ are part of the Harding Icefield. In total, Harding Icefield is

about 80 km long and 50 km wide and contains glaciers that cover approximately 1,800 km2

(695 mi2

; Hall et al. 2005; VanLooy et al. 2006). About half of the Harding Icefield lies within

the boundaries of KEFJ and glacial ice, icefields, snowfields, and late-lying snow, cover

approximately 56% of the total area of KEFJ (Boggs et al. 2008) (Figure 13). There have been

repeated glacial advances from the Harding Icefield during the late Holocene. The most

significant late Holocene advance occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA), which lasted from

approximately AD 1200 to 1900 (Mann 1998, Wiles and Calkin 1990). Glaciers in KEFJ varied

in the timing of their LIA maxima by as much as 250 years. For example, the Aialik and Holgate

glaciers reached maxima and begin retreating by the late 1600s, whereas the McCarthy and

Northwestern glaciers reached maxima closer to AD 1900 (Mann 1998). Most of the glaciers in

KEFJ have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age (~250 yrs ago) and have continued

to retreat in recent decades (Figure 14). The effects of climate change on glaciers in KEFJ are

discussed in more depth in Section 4.2. Unlike the other units within SWAN that exclusively

contain glaciers with grounded termini, KEFJ contains a mixture of grounded and tidewater

glaciers. The major tidewater glaciers along the eastern side of the park include the Aialik, Bear,

Holgate, Northwestern, and McCarty glaciers. The largest glaciers in KEFJ drain the Harding

Icefield in the northeastern portion of the park. The largest glacier contained entirely within

KEFJ is Bear Glacier, which extends more than 30 km (19 mi) from the center of the Harding

Icefield to Resurrection Bay (Figure 13). Despite the widespread occurrence of glacial ice, KEFJ

is free of permafrost because of the mild, maritime climate. Maps of permafrost extent in Alaska

are available through the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute at:

http://nrm.salrm.uaf.edu/%7Edverbyla/bnz_synthesis_CD/chapter3/statewide_permafrost_distrib

ution.jpg.
20

Figure 13. The Harding Icefield and major glaciers in KEFJ.
21

Figure 14. Change in areal extent of glacier in the Harding Icefield and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex 

for the period 1986 (shown in white) to 2000 (shown in grey) (Giffen et al. 2009)
22

Glaciers within KEFJ have profound effects on the landscape, including erosion and deposition

that produce moraines and eskers as well as pro-glacial lakes. Additionally, meltwater flowing

from glaciers creates broad outwash zones and braided stream channels such as those seen in the

Nuka and Resurrection rivers. Runoff from glaciers produces extremely high yields of water and

sediment in pro-glacial rivers and streams (Lawson 1993). The hydrologic system of a glacier

determines the rate at which the glacier transmits and discharges freshwater. In addition, glacial

hydrology can control the occurrence of outburst floods and rates of glacier sliding and surging,

both of which are enhanced by the presence of meltwater at the glacier base.

The hydrology of glaciers is relatively complex and not well understood. Meltwater channels can

develop on the glacier surface (supraglacial) and beneath the glacier (subglacial), as well as

within the glacier (englacial). Recent research suggests that the hydrologic system of temperate

glaciers like those found in KEFJ is dominated by networks of fractures within the glacier ice

that convey water at relatively slow speeds (Fountain et al. 2005). These fractures are

regenerated seasonally and are the primary conduit through which water moves from the surface

of a glacier to the glacier bed.

Early glaciological studies including native observations of glacial landscapes and early

European explorations in KEFJ are reviewed in Rice (1987). This study also estimated a 5%

decrease in glacial ice coverage for the Harding Icefield between the early 1950s and mid-1980s

and reported results from an early ice coring project on the icefield. The late-Holocene glacial

history of KEFJ has been examined using a combination of radiocarbon dating of ice-marginal

trees and measurements of lichen diameters (Wiles and Calkin 1990). Results from this study

indicated that glacial retreat rates averaged 27 m/yr during the 20th century for six landterminating glaciers on the west flank of the Harding Icefield. Similar analyses on icebergcalving glaciers on the east side of KEFJ reported that fjord depth, sediment supply, and fjord

geometry are strong controls on glacier stability in tidewater glaciers (Wiles et al. 1995). As a

result, these periods of advance in tidewater glaciers within KEFJ may not be well correlated

with climate. For example, the Aialik and Holgate glaciers were climatically insensitive during

the Little Ice Age and remained that way until at least the mid-1990s (Wiles et al. 1995).

During the 1990s, there were a number of studies that evaluated changes in glacier elevation and

volume on the Harding Icefield (Adalgeirsdottir et al. 1998, Echelmeyer et al. 1996, Sapiano et

al. 1998). These studies used airborne surface elevation profiling to evaluate changes in the

volume of Harding Icefield glaciers since the 1950s when the original USGS topographic maps

were surveyed. Recent investigations into glacier extent within KEFJ have used satellite images

to track changes in glacial coverage for the Kenai Peninsula. Hall et al. (2005) used Landsat

images to create GIS shapefiles to estimate glacier area and terminus changes for the period

1973–2002. Additionally, classification of 1986 and 2002 Landsat scenes for the Harding

Icefield and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex found that there was a 3.7% or 78 km2 (30 mi2)

decrease in ice extent during this period (Hall et al. 2005). The SWAN I&M Program has

identified glacier extent as an important vital sign to monitor and is using satellite imagery

(primarily Landsat) to monitor changes in glacial coverage in SWAN parks. Glacier monitoring

on the Harding Icefield in and around KEFJ is ongoing in collaboration with Dr. Dorothy Hall

from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Currently, glacier extent data for Harding Icefield

and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex for 1986 and 2000 (Table 3) are available through the

SWAN website. These data indicate that glacial area within the boundaries of KEFJ decreased
23

by 21.7 km2 (8.4 mi2

) or 1.6% between 1986 and 2000. Coincident with the decrease in glacial

area, an analysis of aerial imagery indicates that nunataks on the Harding Icefield have shown a

30% increase in area during the period between the 1950s and 2005 (Miller et al. 2006). In

addition to glacial extent, the laser altimetry group at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has an

ongoing program to monitor changes in the volume of Alaskan glaciers. Current monitoring

efforts, including repeat center line laser altimetry surveys conducted in 1994, 2002, and 2007,

cover a number of KEFJ glaciers including the Bear, Aialik, Holgate, and Exit glaciers. These

laser altimetry surveys provide information about rates of glacier elevation change and volume

change between survey dates (Figure 15).

Table 3. Summary of the extent of the Harding Icefield, the Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex and

surrounding glaciers as measured using Landsat data (in sq km) (Giffen et al. 2009)

1986

(sq km)

2000

(sq km)

1986 to 2000

Change in

Glacier

Cover

(sq km) % Change

Harding Icefield main body** 1828.41 1786.38 -42.03 -2.3%

Harding Icefield and surrounding glaciers 1935.03 1902.79 -32.24 -1.7%

Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex main body 423.37 411.69 -11.68 -2.8%

Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex and surrounding

glaciers 444.81 424.32 -20.50 -4.6%

Harding Icefield and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex

and surrounding glaciers 2379.84 2327.11 -52.73 -2.2%

Glacier Ice within park boundary 1388.20 1366.52 -21.68 -1.6%
24

Figure 15. Rate of elevation change (m/yr) and volume change for the Bear glacier between 2001 and

2007. Data are derived from laser altimetry surveys done by the University of Alaska Fairbanks Laser

Altimetry Group and are available at

http://gps.alaska.edu/chris/images/Mass%20Balance%20Curves/index2.html

In addition to mapping efforts, the SWAN I&M Program is cataloging repeat photographs that

document changes in glacier extent within KEFJ. In 2004, Phillips and Molnia (2004) also reestablished 40 photo stations in and around KEFJ from the 1909 glacier survey done by the

USGS (Phillips and Molnia 2004). The 2004 photographs duplicate the field of view from the

1909 survey photos and document dramatic changes in glacier thickness and extent as well as

landcover. The repeat photographs have been used to create short time-lapse videos for seven

glaciers within KEFJ and are available through the Ocean Alaska Science and Learning Center

at: http://www.oceanalaska.org/research/rptglacier-video.htm. Aerial photography is also being 

used to monitor the terminus of the Exit Glacier in the eastern portion of KEFJ. Aerial 

photographs taken regularly during fall since 2004 are being used to calculate the annual change 

in terminus position (Klasner 2008b). The surface velocity of the ice at the terminus of the Exit 

Glacier is also being monitored using a radio transmitter in conjunction with a differential GPS. 

Results from this study ongoing since 1995 indicate that ice flow rate averaged 25 cm/day (10 
25

in/day) and 93 m/yr (306 ft/yr) during 1995–2007 (Klasner 2008a). Glacier terminus position is 

also irregularly monitored at Exit Glacier (Fritz Klasner, NPS Seward, written communication, 

2009). In 2009, KEFJ initiated mass-balance monitoring on Exit Glacier, and two other glaciers 

are planned (Fritz Klasner, NPS Seward, written communication, 2009).

None of the glaciers within KEFJ have ongoing, field-based mass balance programs; however,

the Wolverine Glacier, which is located on the Kenai Peninsula approximately 40 km (25 mi)

northeast of KEFJ, has been designated as one of three USGS Benchmark Glaciers and has

continuous annual mass balance records dating to 1966 (http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology).

The Wolverine Glacier mass balance record is a useful indicator of likely mass balance trends

within KEFJ because it is at a similar latitude and elevation range compared to glaciers within

KEFJ.

2.3. Biological Resources

The National Park Service is active in extensive inventory and monitoring efforts at KEFJ and

other units. The SWAN I&M Program currently includes the most extensive effort to describe,

catalog, and assess the condition of biological resources in KEFJ (see 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm/.) As part of the NPS I&M Program,

species lists have been compiled for vascular plants, fish, birds, and mammals within each of the

SWAN units (Lenz et al. 2002). The data compilation completed in 2001 listed 660 vascular

plant species (136 confirmed as present), 40 fish species (30 confirmed as present), 210 bird

species (188 confirmed as present), and 54 mammal species (42 confirmed as present) as

occurring in KEFJ (Lenz et al. 2002). A bibliography of the sources of information used to

develop these lists is available through the I&M Program (Lenz et al. 2001). The full species lists

are provided by the National Park Service (NPS 2004a, b, c) and online at the NPSpecies

webpage (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/).

2.3.1. Marine Biological Resources

Estuarine and marine regions of KEFJ are primarily outside the jurisdiction of the National Park 

Service. Only those regions above the high tide zone are managed by the National Park Service.

Marine mammals: Marine mammals are well represented in KEFJ. The NPS species list for

KEFJ includes northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus),

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), sei whales

(Balaenoptera borealis), fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whales (Magaptera

movaeangliae), Pacific white-sided dophins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), killer whales

(Orcinus orca), grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus), sea otters (Enhydra lutris), and Dall’s

porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) (NPS 2004b). In a 2002 survey from Cape Resurrection to Gore

Point, six humpback whales, two Pacific white-sided dolphins, one harbor porpoise and four 

Dall’s porpoise were observed (Van Pelt and Piatt 2003). Historical accounts of marine

mammals in the vicinity of KEFJ indicate that their abundances may have been higher than they

are today, and declines have been documented in Steller sea lions and harbor seals.

Sea otters: Sea otters are not evenly distributed in the KEFJ region; rather they are found in

discrete locations. Historically, sea otters were most abundant in Harris Bay, with 90 observed

(~1.3 sea otters/observed mile), and second most abundant in McCarthy Fjord, with 63 observed

(~1.2 sea otters/observed mile) by Vequist (1990). In a 2002 survey from Cape Resurrection to
26

Gore Point, 144 sea otters were observed; Harris Bay was the only location with aggregations of

more than 10 sea otters (Van Pelt and Piatt 2003). In a more recent and thorough survey in June

2007, the estimated sea otter population size in KEFJ was 1,511 with an average density of 1.02

otters/km2 (Figure 16). Sea otter carcass surveys in 2007 revealed one carcass, although limited

haul-out areas in KEFJ make it difficult to implement the otter carcass survey protocol there

(NPS 2009a).
27

Figure 16. Distribution and abundance of sea otters in 2007 from the SWAN nearshore monitoring

program (Bodkin et al. 2008).
28

Harbor seals: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently modified harbor seal

survey methods. Previously (1996–2007) harbor seals in each of five different regions of Alaska

were surveyed every five years (National Marine Fisheries Service et al. 2003). Under this

survey protocol, harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska were surveyed by NMFS in 2006 and would

not be resurveyed until 2011. Under a revised survey protocol using new technology, lowelevation photos are taken to survey harbor seals. An estimated seventy percent of the harbor

seals in Alaska were photographed in 2008 and will be surveyed annually (National Marine

Fisheries Service 2009). The SWAN nearshore monitoring program conducts nearshore marine

bird and mammal surveys in KEFJ on an annual basis (Coletti et al. 2009). The 2007 SWAN

survey estimated harbor seal density in KEFJ as 5.4/km2 (se=1.6) (Figure 17), (Bodkin et al.

2008). The Alaska Sealife Center has conducted harbor seal studies in the vicinity of KEFJ.

Harbor seals in Aialik Bay have undergone a drastic decline (Hoover-Miller 2004) (Figure 18),

similar to that observed in other locations within the Gulf of Alaska (Mathews and Pendleton

2006). Numbers of seals in Aialik Bay declined more than 85% between 1980 and 1989. From

1989 to 2003, numbers of seals remained low but relatively stable. A harbor seal video

monitoring program (Figure 19) was established in 2002 to observe harbor seals in their native

habitat. These remotely controlled cameras observe harbor seals in the wild without potential for

human influence on their behavior (Figure 20). These cameras are also thought to have reduced

vessel interactions with harbor seals, with a decline in the number of vessel interactions resulting

in large numbers (>20) of seals entering the water in the years after camera installation (HooverMiller 2004).
29

Figure 17. Distribution and abundance of harbor seals in 2007 from the SWAN nearshore monitoring

program (Bodkin et al. 2008).
30

Figure 18. Numbers of harbor seals, including pups, counted near Aialik Glacier from 1979 to 2003

(Hoover-Miller 2004)
31

Figure 19. Five remote cameras observe harbor seals and relay images to the Alaska Sea Life Center.

http://www.oceanalaska.org/research/sealrvm-images.htm
32

Figure 20. One of the remote cameras located on Squab Island near the face of Aialik Glacier relays live

video of harbor seals adjacent to the glacier. http://www.oceanalaska.org/research/sealrvm-images.htm

Steller sea lions: The U.S. western stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) located

westward of Cape Suckling, 144o W, and including the KEFJ region, is federally listed as

endangered due to declining populations throughout the western Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea

regions (Sease and Loughlin 1997). Critical habitat for Steller sea lions exists offshore of KEFJ

around Chiswell Islands, Seal Rocks and Pye Islands (Figure 21, 50 CFR 226.202 available at

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/habitat.htm). Sea lions appear to be

declining in the vicinity of KEFJ. Vequist (1990) observed a 66% decline from 1976 to 1986

(from 3,700 to 1,258 sea lions) and a 41% decline in pups (from 400 to 237) at the Outer Island

rookery. A video monitoring system at the Chiswell Islands rookery (outside the park boundary)

has been used to observe sea lion pupping success and predation by killer whales (Maniscalco et
33

al. 2002, Maniscalco et al. 2007). During the NPS SWAN nearshore monitoring program survey

in 2007, sea lions had the highest density of marine mammals at 7.7/km2 (se=3.7) (Bodkin et al.

2008).

Figure 21. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions. Fishing is restricted in the blue zone (20 nm Aquatic Zone)

around rookeries and haulouts. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/habitat.htm

Marine fishes: An NPS fish inventory lists the following species as occurring in KEFJ: Pacific

herring (Clupea pallasii), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), saffron cod (Eleginus

gracilis), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus), Alaska

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), burbot (Lota lota), Alaskan stickleback (Gasterosteus

aculeatus), salmon shark Lamna ditropis), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Alaskan ronquil

(Bathymster caeruleofasciatus), blackbelly eelpout (Lycodopsis pacifica), Pacific lamprey

(Lampetra tridentata), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias), rex sole (Glyptocephalus

zachirus), flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis),

English sole (Parophrys vetulus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), curlfin sole

(Pleuronichthys decurrens), longnose skate (Raja rhina), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria),

whitespotted greenling (Hexagrammos stelleri), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruber), and piked

dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (NPS 2004a). A more recent survey conducted by the USGS in 2007
34

listed additional species occurring in the nearshore and pelagic environments adjacent to KEFJ,

as listed in Table 4 and Table 5 (Arimitsu et al. 2008).

Table 4. Nearshore fish species, relative abundance, and size (fork length, mm) collected with a beach

seine in KEFJ during 2007. Species are arranged in order of relative abundance. Taken from table 5 in

Arimitsu et al. 2008.
35

Table 5. Pelagic fish species, size (fork length, mm) and frequency of occurrence (FOC) at Isaacs-Kidd

midwater trawl stations in KEFJ in 2007. Species are arranged in order of decreasing frequency of

occurrence. From Arimitsu et al. (2008).

This 2007 survey (Arimitsu et al. 2008) found that fish biomass (measured by acoustic 

backscatter) as well as primary productivity were higher in glacial areas of Northwestern Lagoon 

than in glacial areas of Aialik Bay. Although no significant difference in zooplankton abundance 

was found between or within fjords, euphausiid density in trawls was negatively associated with 

distance to tidewater glaciers (Arimitsu et al. 2008). The study also found that capelin likely 

spawn in Pederson Lagoon, where high densities of marine birds congregate during the summer. 

Beach seine sampling found a numerical dominance of Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes

hexapterus) and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) in nearshore areas. Trawl surveys found saffron 

cod (Eleginus gracilis), walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), and spinyhead sculpin 

(Dasycottus setiger) were the most abundant species (Arimitsu et al. 2008). 

Marine birds: Seventy-one shorebird species—one-third of the known shorebird species in the

world—occur along coastal Alaska (Andres and Gill 2000). Coastal KEFJ hosts abundant

seabird populations. Marine birds are one of the vital signs designated by the SWAN nearshore 

monitoring program, and as a result, summer and winter seabird surveys were conducted along
36

KEFJ in 2007 and 2008 (Bodkin et al. 2008, Coletti and Bodkin 2009). Objectives of the surveys

included characterization of species composition, density, and distribution for over-wintering sea

ducks prior to their migration to breeding grounds, and further studies are planned as part of the

long-term monitoring protocol. Distribution maps of the most common marine bird species are

presented from this SWAN nearshore monitoring program (Figures 22–31).
37

Figure 22. Distribution, abundance, and density of Barrow’s goldeneye, black, surf, and white-winged

scoters in June 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
38

Figure 23. Distribution, abundance, and density of common merganser, greater scaup, harlequin duck,

and mallard in June 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
39

Figure 24. Distribution, abundance, and density of black oystercatchers in June 2007 (Bodkin et al.

2008).
40

Figure 25. Distribution, abundance, and density of pelagic and red-faced cormorants in June 2007

(Bodkin et al. 2008).
41

Figure 26. Distribution, abundance, and density of double-crested and unidentified cormorants in June

2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
42

Figure 27. Distribution, abundance, and density of black-legged kittiwakes, herring and mew gulls in June

2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
43

Figure 28. Distribution, abundance, and density of glaucous, glaucous-winged and unidentified gulls in

June 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
44

Figure 29. Distribution, abundance, and density of horned, tufted, and unidentified puffins in June 2007

(Bodkin et al. 2008).
45

Figure 30. Distribution, abundance, and density of pigeon guillemots, common murres, and an

unidentified murre in June 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
46

Figure 31. Distribution, abundance, and density of ancient, Kittlitz’s, marbled, and brachyramphus

murrelets in June 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).
47

Older studies include a marine bird and mammal survey conducted between 19 June and 14 July

1976 along almost 970 km (600 mi) of southern Kenai Peninsula and offshore Islands (Point

Adam to Cape Resurrection), which counted a total of 174,000 seabirds of 30 species (Bailey

1977). An estimated half of the breeding pairs were tufted puffins (Lunda cirrhata); black-legged

kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucoscons), common murres

(Mergus merganser), and horned puffins (Fratercula corniculata) were the next most common

nesting species. Abundance and diversity was highest in the Chiswell Islands, home to 42% of

the total birds recorded in the survey. In 2007, the National Park Service (in conjunction with the

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, or AMNWR) resurveyed 14 of the seabird colonies

visited by Bailey (1977) (Hahr 2008b) (Figure 32). The three-day survey in July 2007 found that

the relative abundance of colony counts of all species except glaucous-winged gulls appears to

have declined. Generally, the most abundant species were the same in the re-survey as in 1976,

but red-faced cormorants (Plalacrocorax urile) and arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea) were not

seen in the 2007 survey. Nonetheless, NPS staff observed nesting red-faced cormorants nesting

on the Chiswell Islands in the summer of 2009 (Bill Thompson, NPS Seward, written

communication, 2009). However, double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were

observed at seven colonies in 2007 but were not found in 1976. KEFJ and the AMNWR plan to

continue cooperatively surveying seabirds along the Kenai Peninsula coast (Hahr, 2008b).

Figure 32. Seabird breeding colony locations along the KEFJ coast. From Hahr (2008b).
48

Additional surveys of seabirds were conducted in 1989 in response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,

including a survey of most of the KEFJ coast (Vequist and Nishimoto 1989) as well as a survey

focused on the Chiswell and Pye Islands (and specifically on black-legged kittiwakes and

common murres) (Nysewander 1989). Another study investigated the deaths of approximately

11,000 pigeon guillemots (Uria aalge) along the south coast of the Kenai Peninsula (Piatt and

Van Pelt 1997). The cause of death was inconclusive, but the researchers surmised that starvation

(potentially due to conditions made responsible by the prolonged 1990–1995 El Nino-Southern 

Oscillation event) may have been the cause.

The Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevitostris, Alcidae), a candidate for threatened species

listing, has received special attention in KEFJ. This species was particularly heavily impacted by

the EVOS (van Vleit and McAllister. 1994). One study on Kittlitz’s murrelets along the southern

Kenai coast (including KEFJ) estimated a population decline of 83% since 1976 (Van Pelt and

Piatt 2003). This study also listed data on abundance and distribution of other seabird species

encountered in the July 2002 murrelet survey (see Van Pelt and Piatt 2003 for details). A more

recent study in 2007 estimated that there were 346 Kittlitz’s murrelets and 3,229 marbled

murrelets in the KEFJ nearshore waters in mid-summer 2007 (Arimitsu et al. 2008). Kittlitz’s

murrelets were found to occur only in the upper ends of glacial fjords (Arimitsu et al. 2008).

Nesting habitats of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in KEFJ and elsewhere in

southcentral Alaska have been found to be tied to low-elevation locations near the heads of bays

with extensive forest cover and large, old-growth trees (Kuletz et al. 1995), although the 2007

survey (a broad-scale distribution and abundance study of murrelets and other species that used a

systematic sampling design along the coast) found them to be widely distributed along glacial

areas (Arimitsu et al. 2008).

Chlorophyll-a and Zooplankton: A 2007 survey of seabirds along the KEFJ coast included

oceanographic measurements and sampling (Arimitsu et al. 2008). Chlorophyll-a was higher at

distal stations (south of submerged glacial moraines) compared with glacial stations (north of

submerged glacial moraines) in early June but not significantly different in late July/early

August, and it was higher in glacial areas of Northwestern Fjord than in Aialik Bay. Zooplankton

samples were dominated by small copepods such as Pseudocalanus spp., Oithona similis, and

Acartia longiremis (Table 6), and there generally was no pattern of copepod abundance by

species in glacial and distal areas, except for Eucalanus bungii, which was more abundant at

distal stations (Arimitsu et al. 2008).
49

Table 6. The 25 most frequently occurring species of zooplankton sampled in 2007 by Arimitsu et al

(2008). FO= frequency of occurrence. Table excerpted from Arimitsu et al (2008).

.

Marine intertidal resources

Intertidal mapping: ShoreZone is a coastal mapping project that provides a comprehensive and

recent source of information on the KEFJ nearshore environments, descriptive overviews of

coastal habitat, and classifications of physical and biological attributes. The purpose of the

project is to provide a tool for oil spill response and not to serve as a mechanism for quantifying

coastal resources. ShoreZone aerially surveyed intertidal and shallow subtidal areas during

extremely low tides in the summer in order to identify shoreline morphology, substrate, wave

exposure, and biota of intertidal and nearshore habitats. This multi-agency-funded mapping

effort is accessible online through a database with interactive GIS layers, digital maps, aerial

images and video of the KEFJ coastline. At the Gulf of Alaska Imagery website

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm), users can generate maps of

habitat and substrate types (Figure 33), as well as those of many other coastal ecological and

geological features (e.g., salt marsh vegetation [Figure 34], sea grasses [Figure 35], or canopy

kelps [Figure 36]) by turning on various layers available through the internet browser. Additional

information on the ShoreZone mapping program for coastal Alaska is available at

http://www.coastalaska.net.
50

Figure 33. Habitat classes within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm).
51

Figure 34. Salt marsh vegetation within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm).

Figure 35. Sea grasses within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm).
52

Figure 36. Canopy kelps in the nearshore of KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm).

Marine invertebrates: Intertidal marine invertebrates in KEFJ can serve as an indicator of

disturbance, and are an important food source for migratory waterfowl and sea birds in the Gulf

of Alaska, a conduit between terrestrial and marine environments, and an important resource for

human harvest and recreation. The SWAN Vital Signs Monitoring program surveyed intertidal

invertebrates and algae at KEFJ in 2007–2008 (Figure 37). In the soft sediment intertidal, the

diversity, density, biomass and size class of clams were determined in 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008).

Clam diversity was dominated by Macoma sp. (Figure 38). Clam density was very variable

within and between sites and ranged from 0 to 109 clams per 0.25 m

2

, with a mean ± SD of 16.3

± 6. Clam biomass varied within and between sites as well. Mean clam biomass ranged from 0 to

11.4 g ash-free dry weight (AFDW) (Figure 39). Macoma sp. generally dominates biomass,

however not at all sites because of their small size. SWAN rocky intertidal sampling sites were

established in 2007 and surveyed once in 2008. The specific objectives of this sampling on rocky

shores are to assess changes in 1) the relative abundance of algae, sessile invertebrates, and

motile invertebrates in the intertidal zone; 2) the diversity of algae and invertebrates; 3) the size

distribution of limpets (Lottia persona) and mussels (Mytilus trossulus); and 4) the concentration

of contaminants in mussel tissue, and temperature (either sea or air depending on tidal stage).
53

Figure 37. Locations of intensive soft substrate and rocky intertidal sites sampled by the SWAN I&M 

Program.
54

Figure 38. Density of clams at five sites in KEFJ. Clam species abbreviations are: Hiatella arcticus (HIS),

Macoma spp. (MAS, pooled with M. nasuta (MAN), M. balthica (MAB)), Mya spp. (MYS, pooled M.

truncata (MYT) and M. arenaria (MYA)), Protothaca staminea (PRS), Pseudopythina compressa (PSC),

and Saxidomus gigantea (SAG), species occurring in low frequencies and pooled in the category other

clam (CLA). Source: Bodkin et al. (2008).

Figure 39. Biomass of clams at five sites in KEFJ. Clam species abbreviations as in Figure 38. Source:

Bodkin et al. (2008).
55

Lees and Driskell (2006) conducted a reconnaissance survey of marine/estuarine bivalves in soft

and gravel sediments in 2004 in KEFJ (Figure 40). Bivalves were surveyed using 0.25-m

2 (2.7

ft2) and macrobivalve excavations and 0.0625-m

2 (0.67 ft2

) microinfaunal core samples. The soft

sediment habitats in KEFJ were composed of sandy gravel (45%), gravelly sand (36%), sand

(10%), and gravel, silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey silt (2% each) (Lees and Driskell 2006).

Figure 40. Sites visited by the soft-sediment intertidal reconnaissance survey in KEFJ in 2004 (Figure 3

in Lees and Driskell 2006).

A variety of bivalve species were observed (Table 7) and examined to determine which species

might serve as sentinel species in a network-wide monitoring program. Bivalve diversity was

substantially richer at KEFJ than at LACL or KATM, and 21 of the major bivalve species were

observed (Table 7; Lees and Driskell 2006). Two species, the bay or foolish mussel (Mytilus

trossulus) and Baltic macomas (Macoma balthica), dominated (85%). Mussel beds were well

developed on gravel beaches in many areas in KEFJ. Several species were only observed in a

single park. The species only found within KEFJ include northern horse mussels (Modiolus
56

modiolus) and Arctic hiatella (Hiatella arctica) (Table 8) (Lees and Driskell 2006), although

Hiatella arctica was found in KATM in 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008). The SWAN Vital Signs

Monitoring program found 10 clam species/groups, compared to the 22 species found by Lees

and Driskell (2006) (Table 9);( Bodkin et al. 2008).

Table 7. Common and scientific names of bivalves observed in soft-sediment intertidal reconnaissance

surveys in KATM, KEFJ, and LACL (Table 1 in Lees and Driskell 2006).
57

Table 8. Major bivalve species, as a function of substrate, observed at soft-sediment intertidal sites in

KATM, KEFJ and LACL (Table 11 in Lees and Driskell 2006).
58

Table 9. List of species found in the SWAN monitoring compared to Lees and Driskell (2006).

2.3.2. Freshwater Biological Resources

Freshwater and anadromous fishes: Information on presence and types of anadromous fishes in

the coastal area is contained in the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or

Migration of Anadromous Fishes (Johnson and Weiss 2006), which is regularly updated by the

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and provides information on the presence and types of

anadromous fishes in streams in the whole state. According to this catalog, fish species that

occur in the main KEFJ streams are summarized in Table 10.

Information on species presence in numerous other streams in KEFJ is available through this

catalog. Many other streams are unnamed but are identified by way of a cataloged numbering

system and by geographic location (latitude and longitude, USGS quad map name).
59

Table 10. Anadromous fish species present in KEFJ streams according to Johnson and Weiss (2006).

The Delusion Creek data are from Milner and York (2001).

Stream Chinook

salmon

Sockeye

salmon

Coho

salmon

Pink

salmon

Chum

Salmon

Dolly

Varden

Moose Creek X

Placer Creek X

Resurrection River X X X X X

Tonsina Creek X X

Bear Lake X X

Babcock Creek X

Ferrum Creek X

Nuka River X

Delusion Creek X X X X

The SWAN I&M Program’s freshwater fishes inventory process confirmed the presence of 13

freshwater fish species within KEFJ (Jones et al. 2005), although other studies identified an

additional 11 species with ranges that included KEFJ (AKNHP 2000, Mecklenburg et al. 2002).

The I&M Program predicted (but did not confirm) another 29 species considered tidepool or

estuarine (Jones et al. 2005). The SWAN-wide inventory also stresses that the paucity of water

quality and streamflow data make ecological assessments of fish habitats and distribution

difficult or impossible (Jones et al. 2005).

Amphibians: Although no park-wide surveys of amphibians have been conducted in KEFJ and

there are is no published record of amphibian occurrences within the park boundaries, the wood

frog (Rana sylvatica) is a likely resident. This freeze-tolerant species, which is observed

throughout the Alaska Peninsula and occurs as far as the north side of the Brooks Range, inhabits

a wide variety of forest, muskeg, and tundra habitats, sometimes far from water (Hodge 1976).

The closest verified record of wood frogs occurs approximately 15km northeast of the

Resurrection River (Figure 41). There is also a very remote possibility that the boreal toad (Bufo

boreas), which has probably declined throughout most of their historic range in Alaska (Pyare

unpublished data), occurs in KEFJ. The northernmost observations of boreal toads occur

approximately 200 km east of KEFJ in the Prince William Sound area; however, the extent of

this species’ range beyond these observations has not been established.
60

Figure 41. Amphibian occurrence on the Kenai Peninsula.

Aquatic invertebrates, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, zooplankton: A small number of studies have

been conducted on aquatic invertebrates, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton in KEFJ.

One evaluated the colonization of a young (40-year-old) stream (Delusion Creek in McCarty

Fjord) formed since glacial recession and included evaluation of stream macroinvertebrates

(Milner and York 2001, York and Milner 1999). The study found that the invertebrate

community was mainly composed of chironomids, mayflies, and stoneflies, whereas other

groups (e.g., caddisflies, other dipterans, and noninsect taxa) had not yet colonized the stream

due to unsuitable conditions (e.g., unstable channels, high turbidity levels, and low primary

productivity) and insufficient time to cross land barriers. There was negligible growth of epilithic

algae and no filamentous algae in the stream except for during the late summer when there were

large rainstorms and salmon spawning in the upper lake. Additionally, zooplankton densities

were described as low in Upper and Lower Delusion lakes, and this in turn restricted sockeye

salmon counts in the watershed. Chlorophyll-a concentrations did not exceed 0.23 μg/L, and

most values at 1 m depth were <0.1 μg/L, which are exceedingly low concentrations. Mean

values of <1.0 μg/L and peak values of <2.5 μg/L are indicative of ultraoligotrophic (very

unproductive) waters (Mason 1996).

In a study of sockeye salmon productivity in 36 study lakes in southcentral Alaska, Edmundson

and Mazumder (2001) included measurements of chlorophyll-a in Delight and Desire lakes as

well as zooplankton biomass in Delight lake. Chlorophyll-a in Delight and Desire lakes was 0.7

and 0.5 μg/L, respectively, values which were on the low end of the range of values for the 18

clear-water lakes in the study (mean chlorophyll-a for clear lakes was 1.3 μg/L). Zooplankton

samples, collected from the surface to a depth of 0.5 m above the lake bottom using a 153-μm
61

mesh conical net and integrated over all sampling stations, indicated a zooplankton biomass in

Delight Lake of 70 mg/m2. This value was only 10% of the mean biomass (719 mg/m2)

measured in the 18 clear-water study lakes, but no specific discussion for the reason for these

low values was provided (Edmundson and Mazumder 2001).

Finally, an unpublished study conducted in 2007 included a survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates

and diatoms in the upper Nuka River, just below the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project’s water

withdrawal site, at N 59.67955°, W 150.69476° (Rinella and Bogan 2007). The study found that

the number of invertebrate taxa found in the Nuka River was similar to those in regional

reference streams, and the most dominant taxa were the mayflies Cinygmula sp. and Baetis

bicaudatus, stonefly Plumiperla diversa, and several genera of chironomid midges. Eighteen

taxa of diatoms were identified, and this fairly low diversity level was deemed representative of a

glacier-fed subalpine stream.

Stream development following deglaciation: The biological development of a young stream

(Delusion Creek in McCarty Fjord) in KEFJ formed in response to glacial retreat has been

studied by Milner and York (2001). This ca. 40-year-old stream was found to have highly

unstable stream channels, episodes of turbidity level spikes, and variable discharge during the

summer months. The physical instability limited primary production and abundance and

diversity of invertebrate communities in the stream channel. Nonetheless, dolly varden and three

species of salmon (coho, pink, and sockeye) have successfully colonized the stream, the latter

using kettle ponds as important rearing areas for juveniles. Nitrogen was identified as a limiting

nutrient to primary production, and the researchers suggested that marine-derived nutrient

contributions (through spawning anadromous salmon) likely provides a positive feedback system

for stream productivity (Milner et al. 2008, Milner and York 2001).

Many other research investigations on the development of stream ecosystems following

deglaciation have been conducted in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GLBA), which is

similar to KEFJ in that rapid glacial retreat is exposing and developing new watersheds.

Research on Delusion Creek in KEFJ (Milner and York 2001) generally follows the same

general patterns seen in evolving watersheds in GLBA (Milner et al. 2007). The literature on the

topic of watershed development in GLBA, succinctly summarized in Milner et al. (2007)

includes macroinvertebrate succession (Milner 1987, Milner 1988, Milner 1993, Milner 1994,

Robertson and Milner 1999, Milner et al. 2000, Flory 2000, Robertson and Milner 2001, Milner

et al., 2008); succession effects on streamwater chemistry (Stottlemyer 1988) and stream

geomorphology (Sidle and Milner 1989); salmonid colonization (Milner and Bailey 1989); and

soil, microbial, and vegetative succession patterns following deglaciation in watersheds (Cooper

1931, Crocker and Major 1955, Crocker and Dickson 1957, Lawrence et al. 1967, Hitchcock and

Cronquist 1973, Binkley 1981, Stottlemyer and Rutkowski 1987, Chapin 1994, Fastie 1995,

Hobbie 1998, Bardgett and Walker 2004). The youngest and most rapidly developing streams are

those closest to glaciers. These stream systems are constantly changing and are characterized by

high rates of sediment transport, variable flows, high turbidity, and poor-quality salmonid habitat

(Milner et al. 2007). Milner et al. (2000) demonstrated that the successional development of

plant and animal communities in streams is closely connected with the growth and maturation of

adjacent terrestrial plant communities. Biological development in streams advances after stream

sediment load is decreased, temperatures rise, and flow rates become less erratic—processes that

accelerate where there are upstream lakes that can temper flow rates and sediment inputs (Milner
62

1997). Stream invertebrates colonize streams after dissolved organic carbon inputs by colonizing

stream bank vegetation reach adequate levels. As plant succession continues, woody debris may

accumulate in streams, providing shelter for fish and promoting the colonization by anadromous

salmonids (Milner et al. 2000).

GLBA has also been the site of several investigations of lake evolution with specific focus on

limno-terrestrial connections in the control of lake development (Engstrom and Fritz 1988, Fritz

and Engstrom 1993); on chemical and biological trends during lake evolution (Engstrom et al.

2000, Fritz et al. 2004); and on aquatic community colonization (Olson 1993). Although lake

development in KEFJ has not been studied directly, the work in GLBA is likely a valid analog to

lake development in KEFJ.

2.3.3. Uplands

Plants and forest types: As part of the I&M Program, SWAN has conducted a vascular plant

inventory of all units (Carlson et al. 2005). The inventory documented an estimated 77% of taxa

in KEFJ and includes lists of rare species (of which there were seven) and range extensions (for

which there were 11 species in KEFJ). A more recent study provides descriptions and detailed

evaluation of ecological systems (Figure 42), landcover classes (Figure 43), and plant

associations in KEFJ (Boggs et al. 2008). This report provides quantitative data on the numbers

of hectares (and in terms of percent of the vegetated land) covered by each type of landscape;

detailed descriptions of each landscape class and ecological system (including information on

distribution, environment, succession dynamics, classification, and plant associations);

photographs; and maps (Boggs et al. 2008). In the summer of 2008, the National Park Service

and Alaska Natural Heritage Program documented short-term vegetation change in KEFJ by remeasuring inventory plots established in 1993 (Klasner 2009). Preliminary results of the survey

showed an increase in shrub cover in both forested and non-forested areas over the 15-year

period; a full report of the results is pending (Klasner 2009).

Briefly, forests in snow- and ice-free KEFJ upland areas are composed predominantly of Sitka

spruce and mountain hemlock (Boggs et al. 2008). Shrubs include devil’s club, Sitka alder, rusty

menziesia, Alaska spirea, trailing black current, northern red and black currents, high bush

cranberry, Pacific red elder, Sitka mountain ash, Pacific serviceberry, blueberry, salmonberry,

and rose (Bailey 1977, Boggs et al. 2008). Shoreline plants include cow parsnip, hemlock

parsley, beach lovage, and beach rye, while sand beaches host beach pea oysterleaf, grounsel,

and seabeach sandwort (Bailey 1977). Along the coast, mountains are composed of a mix of

barren rocks along steep sections to bands of conifer forests and dense alder shrub thickets along

avalanche paths (Tande and Michaelson 2001).
63

Figure 42. Map of ecological systems in KEFJ according to Boggs et al. (2008).
64

Figure 43. Map of landcover classes in KEFJ according to Boggs et al. (2008).

In recently deglaciated watersheds or those with actively retreating glaciers, a predictable

sequence of vegetative succession occurs along age gradients of newly exposed soils (Boggs et

al. 2008). Primary succession generally consists of lichens, mosses, grasses, and alder
65

(progressing seaward), with many of the recently deglaciated watersheds being covered with

nearly pure stands of nitrogen-fixing alder (Bailey 1977). Specifically, the vegetative

chronosequence has been described for the outwash plain formed in front of the retreating Exit

Glacier near Seward. Successional stages were identified as Barren, Isolated Plant, Patchy,

Alder, Cottonwood, Spruce-Cottonwood, and Spruce-Hemlock (Helm and Allen 1995). Black

cottonwood was the most abundant colonizer in the outwash plain, although the forested

hillslopes above were dominated by the more typical Sitka spruce and mountain hemlock (Helm

and Allen 1995).

As part of the SWAN Vital Signs program, vegetation composition and structure are beginning

to be monitored using Landsat TM/ETM+ satellite images, orthorectified aerial photos and highresolution IKONOS imagery, as well as ground-based monitoring (Miller et al. 2009b). As part

of the program, 15-year-old inventory plots in KEFJ were revisited in 2008 as part of the groundbased monitoring, and measurable changes were found (Miller et al. 2009b). Ongoing work is

quantifying the type and magnitude of landscape conversion (ice to barren, barren to shrum,

shrub to tree) in upper and lower Aialik Bay, Northwest Arm, and East Arm (Boucher et al.

2009). Sensitive plant communities such as those found on nunataks are also targeted for longterm monitoring. Nunatak communities are particularly sensitive to climate because they are

geographically isolated, include rare species that are sensitive to climatic shifts, and are potential

seed sources for recently deglaciated areas (Miller et al. 2009a) (Figure 44). Baseline monitoring

has begun on five nunatak sites in KEFJ as part of the Vital Signs program (Miller et al. 2006).

Figure 44. Nunataks on the northern Harding Icefield. Photo by Amy Miller, National Park Service.
66

Animal communities: A mammal inventory conducted throughout SWAN in 2003–2004

provided confirmation of many species in KEFJ as well as a recording of four new species (Cook

and MacDonald 2005). The survey, which focused primarily on small mammals, found that

cinereus shrews (Sorex cinereus), montane shrews (Sorex monticolus), northern red-backed vole

(Clethrionomys rutilus), and tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus) were the most frequently

captured species (comprising 92% of all specimens) at the ten KEFJ trapping sites. Also

documented (either through specimens, sign, or reported sightings) were coyotes (Canis latrans),

wolves (Canis lupus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), northern river

otter (Lontra canadensis), American marten (Martes americana), ermine (Mustela erminea),

American mink (Mustela vison), American black bear (Ursus americanus), brown bear (Ursus

arctos), moose (Alces alces), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), hoary marmot (Marmota

caligata), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), American beaver (Castor canadensis),

porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Among the

documented species, black bears and mountain goats are particularly common in KEFJ (Cook

and MacDonald 2005). Coastal river otters have been the subject of detailed genetics-based

studies on their abundance and distribution, especially in relation to habitat destruction caused by

the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Ben-David et al. 2005, Ott and Ben-David 2004). Black bear activity,

especially in terms of the bears’ interaction with humans, is a management concern for KEFJ

(Hahr 2008a, Hall et al. 2007). Although mammals have been reported to use the Harding

Icefield and its emanating glaciers on occasion, the most apparent dwellers of these regions of

the park are annelid ice worms (Mesenchytraeus solifugus: Enchytraeidae), whose optimal

elevational range is at about 1,100 m and actively forage on the glacier ice (Thomas 2006).

Landbirds: A summer inventory conducted in KEFJ as part of the SWAN I&M Program detected

101 species of birds, including 62 species of landbirds (Van Hemert et al. 2006). Commonly

observed species included hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), orange-crowned warbler

(Vermivora celata), Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), varied

thrush (Ixoreus naevius), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and yellow warbler

(Dendroica petechia). Species detected exclusively in near-coastal habitats included

northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), rufous

hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The report

highlighted the important habitats provided by the Nuka and Resurrection river corridors for

regional landbirds.
67

3. Water Resources Assessment

3.1. Water Quality

3.1.1. Intertidal and Marine

SWAN I&M nearshore marine monitoring: At the core of the I&M Program is the selection of a

suite of vital signs (Appendix A) that were chosen based on ecological significance and

relevance to SWAN resource management issues (Bennett et al. 2006). Protocols for the

monitoring of vital signs associated with the marine nearshore (including marine water

chemistry, kelp and eelgrass, marine intertidal invertebrates, marine birds and mammals, black

oystercatchers, and sea otters) have been or are in the process of being developed (Bennett et al.

2006). Most parameters are expected to be monitored annually based on a stratified systematic or

stratified generalized random-tessellation (GRTS [Stevens and Olsen 2004]) design. The GRTS

is a spatially balanced probability sampling method that allows units to be easily added to

existing samples and that can incorporate stratification and units with unequal probabilities of

selection (Bennett et al. 2006, Stevens and Olsen 2004). The nearshore monitoring protocol was

field-tested at KATM in 2006 and 2007 and implemented in KEFJ in 2007.

In 2009 the SWAN nearshore monitoring program will complete installation of two salinity

sensors, re-visit five different eelgrass beds initially surveyed in 2008 to look for changes in

eelgrass distribution and density, and complete a third year of intertidal sampling in rocky

substrate and second year of sampling in the soft substrate. Sampling includes invertebrate

species composition and density; percent algae cover; limpet (Lottia persona) size distribution; 

clam and foolish mussel (Mytilus trossulus) distribution and density; sea otter foraging behavior

(quantity, species composition, and size); black oystercatcher breeding pair density, nest

productivity, and diet surveys; and marine bird and mammal surveys (Klasner 2009). As this

program continues to collect data, it will provide valuable information on water quality and

water resources. More information on the nearshore marine vital signs monitoring plan is

provided in Bennett et al. (2006), in the 2007 (Bodkin et al. 2008) and 2008 (Coletti and Bodkin

2009) reports, and at the SWAN I&M website at

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm?theme=marine.

Long-term environmental monitoring program (LTEMP) in Prince William Sound and the Gulf

of Alaska: Since 1993, the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council

(PWSRCAC) has collected mussels and sediments at 10 sites in Prince William Sound and the

Gulf of Alaska for monitoring petroleum hydrocarbons (http://www.pwsrcac.org) (Payne et al.

2008). One site is located at Aialik Bay within KEFJ (Figure 45). Mussel and sediment samples,

collected in summer and late winter, provide a benchmark for assessing the ongoing impacts of

routine tanker and terminal operations in Prince William Sound and the surrounding region.

Mussels are used because they are an indicator species, an important prey of sea birds and sea

otters, and commonly found throughout Prince William Sound and downstream habitats. The

PWSRCAC LTEMP mussel sampling results demonstrate decreasing concentrations of total

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (TPAH) since 1999 to the stable, trace-level concentrations of

biogenic and petroleum hydrocarbons from 2003 to 2006 (last available data), which currently

represent excellent water quality and a near-pristine condition (Figure 46) (Payne et al. 2008).

Any new inputs of hydrocarbons should be easily detected against this low background.
68

Figure 45. Locations of the 2005/2006 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LTEMP) sites for

monitoring petroleum in mussels (Payne et al. 2008).

Figure 46. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (TPAH = total PAH, soluble, particulate and

pyrogenic fractions) measured in mussel tissue from 1996 to 2006. Dotted connecting lines without

symbols indicate questionable data (Payne et al. 2008).
69

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in southcentral Alaska: Under this

program, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),

samples were collected at 55 sites (at 3–352 m [10–1,150 ft] depth) located throughout

southcentral and southwest Alaska. Sites were located in Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and 

Shelikof Strait, and along the Alaska Peninsula (Figure 47). The program sampled dissolved

oxygen concentration, salinity, water depth, pH, temperature, total suspended solids,

fluorescence, chlorophyll-a concentration, transmittance, secchi depth, and nutrient

concentrations (nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, and phosphate) in the water; organic and inorganic

contaminants, total organic carbon, grain size, and toxicity in the sediment; and infaunal and fish

species composition, infaunal and fish abundance, infaunal and fish species richness and

diversity, fish tissue contaminants, histopathology specimens, and external pathological

anomalies in fish on the benthos. EMAP information is available at

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqamp/emap.htm).

Figure 47. Sites sampled by EMAP in southcentral Alaska in the summer of 2002 (Saupe et al. 2005).

The two-digit numbers reflect the last two numbers of each station. Prince William Sound is inset. Stations

closest to KEFJ are #s 63 and 64.

Results from this sampling effort comprise the most comprehensive dataset available on the

physical and biological conditions in the marine waters adjacent to KEFJ and are presented in

Saupe et al. (2005). Overall, water quality conditions in the region were very good. For example,
70

100% of the study area met Alaska water quality standards for dissolved oxygen for all marine

water uses. Water clarity (measured by Secchi depth and total suspended solids) indicated high

light transmittance except for areas near inputs of glacial rivers, which contribute massive

volumes of glacial flour. Surface and bottom chlorophyll-a concentrations indicated that waters

in the study region were not eutrophic and were less than the NOAA value of 5 μg/L for low

eutrophication (Bricker et al. 1999) at 100% of the sampled sites. Although measured only once

at each station, dissolved nitrogen (nitrate-N, nitrite-N, and ammonium), which may vary

significantly over short time scales, was below the NOAA threshold value (Bricker et al. 1999)

of 1.0 mg/L for nitrate-N and nitrite-N (no State of Alaska or national EPA standards exist for

coastal waters for nitrate-N and nitrite-N), and far below both the acute and chronic Alaska water

quality standards for ammonium at all sample sites. Except for one outlier, identified as likely

due to contamination, all phosphate-P concentrations fell below the NOAA threshold value of

0.1 mg/L (Bricker et al. 1999). Ninety-five percent of the study area had sediment total organic

carbon concentrations that were between 0.5 and 3%; concentrations lower and higher than this

range have been linked with adverse effects on benthic communities (Hyland et al. 2005).

In terms of contaminants, the EMAP project found few indications of levels of concern (Saupe et

al. 2005). The project tested for 25 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 21

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDTs and 13 other chlorinated pesticides, and 15 metals in

fish tissues and sediments. Sediment data were compared to sediment quality guidelines (SQGs)

developed by NOAA’s National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program (Long et al. 1995) and to

Washington State Sediment Quality Standards (Washington State Legislature 1995). The

concentrations of almost all metals (Ag, Al, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, Sb, Sn, Zn) and

arsenic in the sediments collected off the KEFJ coast were all below the Effecs Range Median

(ERM) and Effects Range Low (ERL), as established by the Washington state guidelines, and

almost all samples from the EMAP southcentral region were as well. Two metals—Cr and Ni—

fell slightly above the ERL but not as high as the ERM. Saupe et al. (2005) provide detailed

graphical and tabular presentations of the metal concentrations in the samples distributed across

the sampling area.

Sediment hydrocarbon concentrations were generally low and within acceptable levels based on

existing but limited standards (Figure 48) (Saupe et al. 2005). High concentrations may be

indicative of natural sources (e.g., oil seeps, eroded source petroleum sedimentary rock, coal,

terrestrial and marine plants and animals, peat, and forest fire deposits) and/or anthropogenic

sources (e.g., petroleum industry discharges, municipal wastewater treatment discharges, nonpoint source runoff from urban zones, small spills from marine vessels, and large-scale spills

such as the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill). Total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

concentrations were below (and 90% were one order of magnitude below) the Effects Range

Low (ERL) of 4,020 ng/g for 100% of samples in the study region (Long et al. 1995). Not all

PAH analytes have associated ERL and Effects Range Median (ERM) values; however, for those

with such standards, none exceeded the ERMs.
71

Figure 48. Sediment polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations (μg/g) at sampled stations

across the EMAP study area, with low and high molecular weight PAHs shown as a fraction of total PAH.

From Saupe et al. (2005).

No persistent organic pollutants were detected in sediments (Saupe et al. 2005). Sediment

toxicity tests (bioassays based on a 10-day Ampelisca abdita amphipod survival test) showed

only two stations (representing 1.1% of the study area) with amphipod survival rates of <80%,

and these were not in the KEFJ coastal vicinity. Benthic infaunal communities near KEFJ were

dominated by polychaetes and bivalves (Saupe et al. 2005). Fish tissue analyses (95 samples

from the 55 stations) of metals and organic pollutants showed that 100% of samples fell below

the EPA’s Risk Guidelines for Recreational Fishers and also below the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration’s “Action Limits” for commercial fish.

The EMAP survey also included measurements of salinity and temperature, although the

resolution was coarse along the southern Kenai coast. Surface temperature and salinity contours

generated from the survey are shown in Figure 49 and Figure 50, where it is visible that the

lowest salinities and temperatures occur closest to major inputs of principal rivers and glaciers.
72

Figure 49. Surface salinity contours estimated from the 54 sampled stations (triangle) during the June–

August 2002 sampling of the EMAP study. From Saupe et al. 2005.

Figure 50. Surface temperature contours estimated from the 54 stations (triangles) sampled as part of the

EMAP program. Sampling occurred between June and August 2002. From Saupe et al. 2005.
73

Water quality of estuaries, lagoons, and fjords: A study of seabirds along the KEFJ coast in 2007

(Arimitsu et al. 2008) included more detailed nearshore oceanographic measurements and water

quality sampling (Figure 51) than provided by the EMAP study (Saupe et al. 2005). Water

column profiles generally showed statistically significant colder temperatures and lower salinity

in glacial stations (north of submerged moraines) compared with distal stations (south of

submerged moraines) (Figure 52). However, nutrient analyses from samples at 10 m depth

showed similar concentrations in glacial and distal stations, except for ammonium, which was

higher in close proximity to tidewater glaciers (Table 11). Phosphate, nitrite, and dissolved

inorganic nitrogen (DIN) were higher, and silicic acid was lower, at glacial stations in Aialik

than in Northwestern Fjord. In Aialik Bay, primary productivity was higher in distal areas, and

the authors credited this to relatively high suspended sediment loads inhibiting light penetration

in glacial areas.

Figure 51. Oceanography stations (red circles) sampled with a conductivity-temperature-depth profiler in

2007. Yellow lines are boundaries of submerged glacial terminal moraines. From Arimitsu et al. (2008).
74

Figure 52. Early and late season temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll a within the upper 40 m of the

water column at distal and glacial stations sampled in 2007. From Arimitsu et al. (2008).

Table 11. Mean (±SD) of nutrient levels at KEFJ stations sampled by Arimitsu et al. (2008).
75

As part of a water quality inventory conducted in 2003/2004, Bennett (2005) profiled Pedersen

Lagoon with measurements of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity to a depth of

37 m (Figure 53). The profile showed a colder, more turbid, and better oxygenated layer at one

meter compared with the surface. Temperature and dissolved oxygen declined steeply to 4.1°C

and 7 mg/L between 10 and 20 m (Bennett 2005). All of these parameters met Alaska DEC water

quality standards for estuarine waters (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2008).

Figure 53. Depth profile of Pederson Lagoon, showing temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and

turbidity. From Bennett (2005).

Another Aialik Bay area lagoon sampled by Bennett (2005) was Quicksand Lagoon, which had a

pH of 6.23, slightly below the regulatory limit of 6.5 (Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation 2008).

3.1.2. Freshwater

Overview of SWAN water quality component of I&M Program: Several vital signs were selected

for the SWAN I&M Program that are directly related to freshwater resources, including surface

water hydrology, freshwater chemistry, and landscape processes (including snow cover) (Bennett

et al. 2006). The water quality monitoring design components are fully integrated into the

SWAN vital signs monitoring program (Bennett et al. 2006). Results of water quality monitoring

project review found no 303(d) waters present within KEFJ (or any other SWAN unit), and

concluded that although water quality collection has been sporadic, conditions appear to be

generally good with low nutrient levels and little evidence of anthropogenic impacts (Bennett et

al. 2006).
76

The Network has developed a strategy for long-term monitoring of freshwater aquatic resources

within the SWAN units. Streams and lakes were categorized into three tiers by a ranking

procedure that considered access, level of use/management issues, and ecological and spatial

cover (Bennett et al. 2006). Tier 1 lakes and streams are of the highest priority, have the easiest

access, are heavily used by visitors, are of greatest management concern, and will be monitored

annually. Tier 2 lakes are streams of medium priority, are less accessible, and will be randomly

sampled for less frequent monitoring (every 2–5 years). Finally, Tier 3 lakes and streams (low

priority) will be sampled every ~10 years, if at all (depending on funding constraints), for the

purpose of expanding the scale of inference of Tier 1 and 2 water bodies. Vital sign metrics at

Tiers 2 and 3 waterbodies may also be collected by seasonal park staff on an opportunistic basis.

In KEFJ, the Exit Creek/Resurrection River was identified as Tier 1, and the Nuka River and

Delusion Lake were designated as Tier 2 (Figure 54).

Figure 54. List and locations of proposed Tier 1, 2, and 3 lakes and rivers for monitoring aquatic

resources in SWAN units. Within KEFJ, the Resurrection River was designated as Tier 1, and the Nuka

River and Delusion Lake were selected as Tier 2 (Bennett et al. 2006).

Water quality of streams: Extremely little water quality data exist for streams within KEFJ. The

largest source of information is an inventory of 62 sites in streams, lakes, and lagoons that was

conducted in the summers of 2003 and 2004 by the SWAN I&M Program (Bennett 2005)

(Figure 55). Bennett (2005) compared the measurement results with state water quality

regulations, although we note that the State of Alaska recognizes that some conditions naturally

exceed state water quality criteria and are not subject to the same regulations as criteria

violations caused by human activity (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2008).
77

Other sources of information include historical USGS sampling of the Nuka and Resurrection

rivers and Exit Creek; a study on macroinvertebrates and salmonids by York and Milner (1999)

in three lake systems on the McCarty Peninsula that also yielded some limnological and

hydrochemical data; a study of the upper Nuka River diversion area; and lastly, some

geochemical reconnaissance work in the Nuka River region in the early 1990s, for which there

were no final or published reports.

Exit Creek: Exit Creek was sampled six times in the fall of 2001 at two locations (at 0.1 and 0.6 

miles) by the USGS (Table 12). Samples from the creek turned up no detectable fecal coliform, 

E. coli or Enterococci.

From the inventory conducted by Bennett (2005), all three samples were collected in Exit Creek 

in 2004 met water quality criteria for parameters measured (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH) 

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2008) (Table 13). High turbidity at two of 

three of the sites is typical of glacial-fed streams.

Because Exit Creek is a Tier 1 priority water body targeted by the SWAN I&M Program, longterm monitoring plans for the stream are currently being finalized (Jeff Shearer, NPS SWAN, 

written communication, 2009). At the same site where the NWS RFO and National Park Service 

are monitoring stage (and will be monitoring discharge), a continuous water quality meter that 

measures pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity is targeted for 

summertime deployment. This deployment was tested in the summer of 2008, and plans are 

currently being worked out to streamline instrument retrieval and sensor drift correction in order 

to continue and improve the monitoring (Jeff Shearer, 2009, NPS SWAN, written 

communication). Water quality monitoring on Exit Creek is expected to be fully operational by 

June 2010 (Jeff Shearer, NPS Anchorage, written communication, 2009). Results of the 2008 

trial monitoring, which occurred between June and September 2008, indicated little temporal 

change in the values of the parameters measured, except for turbidity, and agreement with the

findings reported in Bennett (2005) (Shearer and Moore 2009) (Table 14). Hourly sampling

suggested minimal diel variation in the glacial stream, except again for turbidity, which varied by

up to 709 NTU in one 24-hour period (Shearer and Moore 2009) (Table 14).

Resurrection River: USGS records show that the Resurrection River was sampled between 1–6 

times/year for most years between 1952 and 1968 as well as once in 1995 (Table 12). These data 

indicate expected, normal values for glacial rivers: cold temperatures, low- to mid-range specific 

conductance, high dissolved oxygen, circumneutral pH, and occasionally high suspended

sediment concentrations (Table 12).

The KEFJ water quality survey by Bennett (2005) showed that the Resurrection River met

ADEC standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH (Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation 2008) (Table 13).

Nuka River and vicinity: Retrieval of USGS records indicates that the Nuka River was sampled 

once in 1960 and once in 1961 (Table 12). Results show similar water quality characteristics on

both events, with slightly lower specific conductance, acid-neutralizing capacity, Na, and sulfate 

in January 1961 when discharge was higher than on the March 1960 sampling event (14 cfs vs. 5

cfs). Dissolved oxygen levels were not reported.
78

Figure 55. Locations of water quality samples taken by Bennett (2005) in May–July 2004 and August

2003. Figure from Bennett (2005).
79

Table 12. Water quality data retrieved from USGS records from Nuka River, Exit Creek, and Resurrection 

River, the only water bodies in KEFJ with available data. Data retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/.

Site USGS Sample Water Q Spec. DO DO pH ANC Hard. N Ca Mg Na K Cl Sulfate Si Susp.

site ID Date temp Cond. mg/L as sed.

°C cfs μ S/cm mg/L %sat CaCO 3 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Nuka R. 15238650 03/02/60 4.6 110 7.5 43 56 0 17 3.3 2.4 0.2 4 14

nr Homer 01/07/61 14 98 7.5 37 51 0.02 15 3.3 1.6 0.2 6 9

Exit Gl C Tr at 601105149 07/27/01 3.5 21 43 13.5 7.2

Mi 0.1 Harding 382400 08/06/01 2 25 24 12.5 92 7.5

Trail nr Seward 08/20/01 3 11 52 13.2 101 7.8

09/11/01 4 1.1 83 12.2 95 7.6

09/25/01 4 3.8 87 7.9

10/02/01 5 1.5 112 12.4 98 7.8

Also sampled but below detection: fecal coliform, E.Coli, Enterococci

Exit Gl C Tr at 601105149 07/27/01 7.1 8.4 89 12.1 102 7.9 38 42 0.028 15.5 0.854 1.23 0.11 0.68 5.91 4.52

Mi 0.6 Harding 385100 08/06/01 7.5 5.7 85 10.3 87 7.7

Trail nr Seward 08/20/01 6.5 7 91 12.1 8.1

09/11/01 6 3 113 12.8 7.9

09/25/01 5.5 4.2 109 9.4 78 7.8

10/02/01 4.5 3 112 12.5 99 54 0.068 20 0.991 1.52 0.19 0.59 7.95 5.16

Also sampled but below detection: ammonia, nitrate, P, orthophosphate, F, Fe, Mn, fecal coliform, E.Coli, Enterococci

Resurrection 15237700 04/22/52 3.5 158 7.2 59 72 0.16 26 1.7 5 15 4.9

R. at Seward 05/20/52 6 149 7.4 61 73 0.16 26 2 3.8 17 4.4

06/19/52 6 137 7.4 53 66 0.18 24 1.6 4.2 15 3.9

07/24/52 80 6.9 33 40 0.05 13 1.8 1.1 0.4 1 12 4.9

08/21/52 9 82 33 42 0.14 15 1.2 0.9 0.6 1 9.5 8

09/16/52 6.5 159 7.2 57 80 0.27 25 4.1 2.5 0.8 3.5 23 4.5

08/01/53 6.5 83 6.1 34 38 0.11 14 0.8 1.2 0.5 1.2 6.7 3.5

09/08/55 109 6.7 40 48 0.14 18 0.7 1.5 0.4 1.5 12 5

05/01/56 137 7.7 52 62 0.25 23 1.2 3 0.8 1.8 11 4.3

07/03/56 106 7.8 42 46 0.14 17 1 2.1 0.4 2.8 8.8 6.2

10/03/57 4.5 131 6.6 48 63 0.14 21 2.6 2 0.7 2.5 13 3.8

11/06/57 3.5 121 7.4 48 56 0.27 20 1.3 2 0.3 1.5 10 8.1

12/11/57 1 152 7.4 62 72 0.18 26 1.8 2.6 0.7 2.5 14 4.5

01/22/58 0 150 7.5 61 71 0.14 25 2.1 2.5 0.4 4 12 5.8

02/18/58 148 7 57 70 0.25 22 3.5 2.4 0.4 3.5 11 5.6

05/21/58 4.5 129 7.3 53 65 0.18 22 2.5 2.9 0.4 4 14 4.7

07/16/58 4.5 102 6.6 38 48 0.05 17 1.2 1.4 0.5 3 10 4

08/20/58 7 95 6.9 38 46 0.05 14 2.8 1.4 0.9 2.5 9 3.3

07/28/59 5.5 2070 300

04/16/65 4 275 12

06/20/65 6 1660 30

07/20/65 5.5 2300 97

08/29/65 9.5 1230 42

09/28/65 5 2270 350

09/28/65 5 2270 104 8 43 48 0.07 19 0.1 4.8 0.8 1.8 9.1 4.3

12/17/65 0 114 67

04/05/66 3 107 14

06/10/66 9 2310 237

07/16/66 2890 322

08/20/66 9 2250 157

08/23/66 5 7790 1120

11/11/66 1 395 150 10

01/16/67 1 128 150 8

04/06/67 5.5 99 153 8

06/15/67 5.5 2180 100 172

08/03/67 8 2660 83 7.2 31 38 0.32 14 1 1.5 0.3 0.4 8 2.2

08/03/67 8 2660 90 396

09/09/67 5.5 2800 101 529

09/09/67 5.5 2800 101 7.2 40 50 17 1.3 1.5 0.7 2.5 9 4

10/17/67 4 781 140 7.7 53 65 0.36 23 1.3 1.8 0.3 2.8 14 4.2 9

11/16/67 4 522 145 7.6 56 69 0.29 25 1.5 1.9 0.5 2.5 15 3.8 6

02/14/68 1.5 292 137 7.8 48 60 0.14 20 1.1 2.5 0.3 3.2 14 4.8 12

04/17/68 1.5 169 155 7 59 68 0.16 25 1.4 1.8 0.6 2.8 11 3.8 5

06/21/95 5 1990 107
80

Table 13. Water quality data collected for the Resurrection River watershed by Bennett (2005) as part of 

the KEFJ water quality inventory.

Temp Spec Cond DO DO pH Turbidity

Site Descrip. °C uS/cm % mg/L NTU

Exit Cr. 001 glacial 0.05 131 96.1 12.32 7.75 144

Exit Cr. 002 clear 4.5 158 86.7 11.21 7.53 5.1

Exit Cr. 003 glacial 4.82 126 95.7 12.28 7.69 107

Resurrection R. clear 8.27 68 88.9 10.45 6.74 2.7

Resurrection R. glacial 4.03 46 11.69 7.07 0.6

Resurrection R. glacial 4.03 71 12.57 7.29 14

Table 14. Summary data for water temperature, pH, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and

stage, measured in Exit Creek with the multi-parameter sonde. From Shearer and Moore (2009).
81

An investigation into the possible effects of historic mines on water quality in the Nuka Bay

region provided some information on base cations and heavy metals in several streams (Cieutat

et al. 1994). Water was collected from a tributary to Ferrum Creek (in the vicinity of Little Creek

Prospect, aka Beauty Bay mine); Ferrum Creek itself; a tributary to Babcock Creek (in the

vicinity of the Sonny Fox mine); and a tributary from three small streams draining into Surprise

Bay (by the Goyne prospect). The report found that during the summer high runoff season, no

adverse impact was detected for heavy metals about 500 m from the mine workings (Cieutat et

al. 1994). However, the report failed to define what was considered an adverse impact, and no

comparisons with water quality standards were made. The report did point out that one sample

(from immediately downstream of the main workings of the Little Creek Prospect) had

anomalously high arsenic, at 130 ppb. In fact, this value is 13 times the EPA drinking water

criterion of 10 ppb for the metalloid (EPA 2001). Indeed, this site was found to have excessive

arsenic concentrations in mine tailings, and a clean-up of the tailings site occurred in 1998

(Shannon & Wilson Inc. 2006). Additionally, although many of the heavy metals measured by

Cieutat et al. (1994) were below detection in most or all samples (e.g., Ag, Cd, Co, Cu, Mn, Pb,

and Se), they were analyzed with fairly high detection limits (1–10 ppb, except for Ag, 50 ppt).

The report’s methods description does not indicate that special clean-techniques (Horowitz et al.

1994), which greatly minimize contamination of metals samples and is now standard in federal

and state water quality surveys, were used and as a result the accuracy of the report’s data is

questionable.

The recent KEFJ water quality survey included five clearwater and two glacial streams (the Nuka

River, its tributaries, and nearby Ferrum Creek) in Nuka Bay (Bennett 2005). Water quality

standards set by the Alaska DEC for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH were met for all

samples. However, some indications of lower-than-expected levels of dissolved oxygen were

found at sites NUKD (9.09 mg/L or 75% saturation), NUKP (an estuarine pond with 6.64 mg/L),

and in a portion of the glacial NUKR (6.32 mg/L or 51%) (full site names not provided in the

report). Bennett (2005) suggested that these sites be revisited for future study.

Finally, a study on the Nuka River diversion area (see Section 4.7) included measurements of

physico-chemical parameters, aquatic macroinvertebrates, diatoms, and stream discharge in the

upper Nuka River on August 3, 2007 (Rinella and Bogan 2008). Samples were taken of glacier

outflow and of a lower river section, and water samples indicated substantial groundwater input

between the two, as indicated by higher flows, warmer temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen,

and higher specific conductance (Table 15). Macroinvertebrate analyses showed that 15 taxa

were present, all of which were expected and which were similar to those found in clearwater

reference streams of the Cook Inlet basin (Rinella and Bogan 2007, 2008). Taxonomic diversity

was expected to be relatively low in glacial streams, and Rinella and Bogan (2008) report that

the taxonomic composition in the Nuka River was typical for a glacial stream and similar to that

of Wolf Point Creek, a well-studied glacial stream in GLBA. The dominant taxa were the

mayflies Cinygmula sp. (34% of total) and Baetis bicaudatus (15% of total); the stonefly

Plumiperla diversa (11% of total); and several genera of chironomid midges (20% of total)

(Rinella and Bogan 2008). The number of diatom taxa (18 in the 600-valve count and 12 in the

rare taxa scan) found in the upper Nuka River was on the low end of the range of taxa counts in

clearwater reference streams in the Cook Inlet basin but typical for glacial systems (Rinella and

Bogan 2008). The dominant diatom encountered was the Gomphonema pumilum, which

accounted for 79.3% of the sample and is common in streams with neutral pH and low nutrient
82

levels. The Rinella and Bogan report (2008) also provides information on substrate

embededness, canopy cover, channel slope, wetted width, bankfull width, depth, thalweg depth,

filamentous algae, overhanging vegetation, and number of boulders.

Table 15. Stream discharge and physico-chemical measurements taken at two sites on the upper Nuka

River. Coordinates for the sites are N 59.6859°, W 150.707° for the glacier outflow site, and N 59.67955°,

W 150.69476° for the Sample Reach. From Rinella and Bogan (2008).

Location

Discharge 

(cfs)

Water 

temperature 

(°C) pH

Specific 

conductance 

(μs/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

oxygen (% 

saturation)

Glacier outflow 6.0 3.9 7.32 16.0 12.53 95.4

Sample reach 10.8 10.9 7.75 46.4 10.03 90.6

As a Tier 2 priority water body, the Nuka River is slated for occasional (every 2–5 years)

sampling by the SWAN I&M Program (Jeff Shearer, NPS SWAN, written communication, 

2009).

Aialik Bay streams: Streams sampled in the Aialik Bay area by Bennett (2005) met Alaska DEC

water quality standards for temperature (range: 2.85–10.25°C), dissolved oxygen (range: 11.12–

14.44 mg/L) and pH (6.6–8.5).

Harris Bay and Two Arm Bay streams: Five streams in Harris Bay/Northwest Fjord were

sampled as part of the KEFJ water quality survey (Bennett 2005). Although sample locations are

shown on a broad map (Figure 55), site names are not specifically described (using coordinates)

and site names are given only in abbreviation for most streams, and so it is unclear which

streams were included. Yet, all streams sampled met Alaska DEC standards for temperature and

dissolved oxygen, although not all pH values did. The pH in BOCR (Boulder Creek,

unofficially) was 6.23, or below the lower limit of 6.5. Also, the pH of DOBC (Dropoff Beach

Creek, unofficially) was relatively high, at 9.26. Nonetheless, both streams supported salmonids

(Bennett 2005).

McCarty Fjord: Four clear water and three glacial streams were sampled in the McCarty Fjord

by Bennett (2005). Most sites met Alaska DEC standards for temperature, pH, and dissolved

oxygen. Exceptions included James Lagoon Creek with low temperatures and site DELC (full

name not provided but likely Delight Creek) with pH values lower than the 6.5 minimum

standard (at 6.06–6.13).

A more detailed study of the Delusion Creek drainage was conducted during1992–1994, with a

focus on salmonid and macroinvertebrate colonization in the stream formed approximately 40

years prior due to glacial retreat (York and Milner 1999). (Limnological results from the study

are presented in the next section of this report, and aquatic invertebrate, chlorophyll, and

zooplankton results are presented in Section 2.3.1). However, the study provided little specific

data on water quality parameters in Delusion Creek itself. The available data show that Delusion

Creek had variable temperatures and degrees of stability depending on its location. Leaf retention

experiments indicated fast and efficient flushing of organic matter in the stream. Two stream

sites were measured for water chemistry in August 1992. Results of this effort showed the
83

following for the two sites: pH= 6.5 and 6.7; alkalinity=2.0 mg/L; turbidity=0.4 and 0.5 NTU,

color=4 and 3 Pt units; Ca=1.0 mg/L; Mg=0.7 mg/L, Fe=388 and 606 μg/L; Total P=23.4 and

25.6 μg/L; Total N= 65.8 and 70.6 μg/L N (York and Milner 1999).

Water quality of lakes: A study on sockeye salmon growth in various southcentral Alaskan lakes

included basic physical information on Delight and Desire Lakes (area, depth, volume); water

temperature; chlorophyll-a concentration; and zooplankton biomass (Table 16) (Edmundson and

Mazumder 2001). The study also noted that the length of growing season in these two lakes

specifically was 175 and 215 days, respectively, and the summer heat budget was 12.6 and 7.2

kcal/cm2

, respectively.

Table 16. Physical and biological attributes of Delight and Desire Lakes, as reported by Edmundson and

Mazumder (2001).

Mean Max Mean water Mean surface Zooplankton

Lake Area depth depth Volume column temp water temp Chloroph.-a Biomass

km 2

m m 10 6 m 3 °C °C μ g/L mg/m 2

Delight 2.8 22 40 60 7.8 14.2 0.7 70

Desire 1.8 14 27 25 7.4 16.0 0.5 (no data)

Bennett (2005) included several lakes in her inventory of water quality in KEFJ. Depth profiles

(at 1 m intervals for the first 5 m, and every 5 m thereafter) were taken near the deepest areas of

Delight Lake and Pederson Lagoon. Surface temperatures at Delight Lake were 15.3°C (59.5°F)

and 15.6 C (60.1°F), which are above state limits for the growth and propagation of fish,

shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

2008) but consistent with the high measurements reported by Edmundson and Mazumder (2001).

Temperature decreased and dissolved oxygen increased with depth in Delight Lake (Figure 56).

For both profiles taken of Delight Lake, pH levels at depths of more than 20 m (66 ft) did not

meet state standards (i.e., they were <6.5), although dissolved oxygen levels were passable. In

Pederson Lagoon, temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen were relatively high at 1 m (3 ft)

depth, but together with dissolved oxygen, it declined sharply with depth (Bennett 2005)

In addition, eight lakes and ponds were sampled for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and

turbidity by Bennett (2005) in the Harris Bay and Two Arm Bay lakes area. Although several

cases were found in which levels were outside of water quality standards for temperature and pH

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2008), presence of fish indicated that this

was a rare occurrence.

A more detailed limnological investigation was conducted in Upper and Lower Delusion lakes in

the McCarty Fjord (Milner and York 2001, York and Milner 1999). They found that both lakes

had low specific conductance (typically <20 μmhos/cm), sub-neutral pH (between 5.5 and 6.5),

variable turbidity and light penetration, and no color staining (color <20 Pt units). Clarity

decreased and turbidity increased during the summer months due to an increase in glacial runoff

from the remnant ice sheet, and there was no indication of thermal stratification. Total N values

were relatively high during large August rainstorms, and this was attributed to surface runoff

contributing N and P from eroding shallow soils. Primary productivity in the lakes was likely

light limited during such large rain events, consequently limiting zooplankton production as well.
84

Figure 56. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (mg/L) profile (#2) of Delight Lake on June 27, 2004. From

Bennett (2005).

Delusion Lake is ranked as a Tier 2 priority water body by the SWAN I&M Program, meaning it

may be monitored once every 2–5 years (Jeff Shearer, NPS SWAN, written communication, 

2009).

Groundwater: The lack of any information on groundwater resources in the KEFJ does not allow

for an assessment of groundwater quality in the area. However, there is no reason to believe that

groundwater quality is impaired by human factors due to the low level of use and disturbance in

KEFJ. The nearest evaluations of regional groundwater resources include an evaluation of

groundwater resources in the lower Kenai Peninsula (Nelson and Johnson 1981), a multi-agency

collaborative study of groundwater contamination from oil drilling wastes in the Kenai Peninsula

(Glass 1996, Kenai Peninsula Borough 1992), and more recently, from the USGS’s NAWQA

Program’s focus on the Cook Inlet Basin (Glass et al. 2001, 2004). However, information from

these studies is hardly applicable to KEFJ conditions due to the contrasting environmental

settings and the urban and industrial influences in the neighboring regions that are not present in

KEFJ.

Precipitation: At the current time, the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National

Trends Network (NADP/NTN) provides continuous measurement and assessment of the

chemical constituents in precipitation at more than 225 sites throughout the United States. This

long-term, nationally consistent monitoring program provides critical information for evaluating

the effectiveness of ongoing and future regulations aimed at reducing atmospheric emissions.

There are five NADP sites in Alaska, three of which are administered by NPS (Denali, Gates of

the Arctic, and SWAN [King Salmon-KATM]). The most representative NADP site for coastal

KEFJ with data currently available through the NADP website
85

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/ntnmap.asp?) is the Juneau site located on the east coast of the

Gulf of Alaska. However, the newly installed NADP site in King Salmon will provide better

information about precipitation chemistry in KEFJ when data become available. Five years

(2004–2008) of data from the Juneau site show a predominance of marine aerosols (chlorine,

sulfate, and sodium) and very low levels of nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate) compared to sites

in the contiguous United States.

3.1.3. Water Quality Impairments and Effects on Biological Resources

There are no water bodies in KEFJ that are listed as impaired under the 303d section of the Clean

Water Act, although this is based on extremely little available data. There are no obvious sources

of substantial pollutants to the park’s streams, lakes, and groundwater. A survey of water quality

conditions throughout the unit is required before making any definitive assessments of the effects

of water quality on biological resources.

3.2. Availability of Geographic Datasets

The following represent geographic data sets that are most relevant to coastal watershed

conditions and are currently archived at the NPS Alaska GIS clearinghouse

(http://www.nps.gov/akso/gis/), unless otherwise noted.

Biological

Ecological Subsections

Exit Glacier Area Vegetation

Landcover (1999)

Statewide Archaeological Inventory Datasets (SAIP) pertaining to: Biological Resources,

Ground Fish, Harbor Seals, Pacific Herring, and Shrimp

Shorebird Shoreline Segments

Cultural

Cabins

Coastal Camping Areas

Exit Glacier Infrastructure (Culverts, Waterbars)

Imagery

Topological-Map (DRG) Mosaics 1:250,000 and 1:63,360

Exit Glacier Aerial-Photo Sequence (1950 – 1998)

Landsat Satellite Imagery

Physical

Statewide 90m Digital Elevation Model

Shaded Relief Kenai

Geology

USGS / NHD Hydrological Data

Statewide Archaeological Inventory Datasets (SAIP) pertaining to: 19th Century Glacial Divide,

Glacial Extent - mid 1980's, Glacial Features (Limiting Age), Stream Deltas, Water Level

Changes, and Wave Energy

Exit Glacier features: Moraines, Subfossil Tree Sites

Shore-Zone Classification (http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm)
86

4. Threats to Water Resources

4.1. Sources of Past, Current, and Potential Future Pollutants

Pollutants to KEFJ can be categorized into oceanographic and atmospheric sources.

Oceanographic sources include oil spill pollution, marine vessel pollution, gas and oil

development in the Gulf of Alaska, and biological delivery of marine-derived toxic chemicals.

Atmospheric sources include air masses that have the ability to deposit mercury (Hg) and

persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

4.1.1. Oceanographic Sources

Oil spills: The release of petroleum poses a great environmental threat, whether as catastrophic

spills or chronic discharges. In addition to physical impacts of large spills, the toxicity of many

of the individual compounds contained in petroleum is significant, and even small releases can

kill or damage organisms. The impact of a release of petroleum would depend on the size of the

spill, the location of the spill, the type of petroleum product, and the effectiveness of the

response to the spill.

Swift currents and large tidal ranges can quickly transport released petroleum great distances and

over wide coastal zones, as evidenced by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) in 1989. The

grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound in March 1989

released 10.8 million gal (35,500 metric tons) of crude oil, which was transported through Prince

William Sound, along the northern Gulf of Alaska, and southwest into Shelikof Strait (Figure 

57). KEFJ was not immediately affected. It was not until two weeks after the spill that a storm

drove oil onto approximately 20 miles (32 km) of the KEFJ coastline, representing

approximately 5% of the total coastline in the park (NPS 2009b). Pony Cove, Verdant Cove,

Taroka Arm, Black Bay, Yalik Bay, and McArthur Pass were the most affected regions within

KEFJ (NPS 1990). Booms were placed in three locations to protect salmon streams, and oil did

not reach these streams (Figure 58). Patches of unweathered oil mousse have persisted and

retained their toxicity along exposed, rocky shorelines with boulder-armored beaches in KEFJ

(Irvine et al. 1999, Peterson et al. 2003). The nearshore I&M Program continues to monitor areas

oiled by EVOS. One of the positive outcomes of EVOS was the purchase of 31,190 acres

(12,622 ha) of private land within the boundaries of KEFJ that was paid by the Exxon Valdez Oil

Spill Trust and the criminal restitution fund (NPS 2009b).
87

Figure 57. Geographical extent of the Exxon Valdez oil spill through time (24 March 1989 to 20 June

1989), from http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/

Figure 58. Booms were placed in three location (red dots) to protect salmon streams from the EVOS.

Park lands where oil washed ashore are indicated in black. (NPS 2009)
88

Oil and gas development: Future oil spills similar in scale to that of EVOS continue to be

possible in the region. Potential source areas include the Valdez Marine Terminal (Prince

William Sound); Drift River Marine Terminal (Cook Inlet); Nikiski Oil Terminal and Refinery

(Cook Inlet); Anchorage International airport jet fuel pipeline; and 17 gas and seven oil

producing fields (Figure 59). Several more oil and gas sales are currently proposed for

development over the next five years in the Cook Inlet region, and steady or rising demand for

these fuels may prompt further long-term development (2006–2011; information at

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/index.htm). Many billions of barrels of oil and gas are

potentially releasable into the environment from these petroindustrial areas, posing major

pollution threats to the marine, estuarine, tidal, and intertidal environments in the region (Andres

and Gill 2000). The Valdez terminal receives approximately 24 billion gallons (1.1x1011 L)

annually via the TransAlaska Pipeline; the privately owned Drift River Marine Terminal (with an

offshore oil loading platform and onshore storage facility) stores approximately 1 million barrels

of crude oil received via the 68-km-long (42 mi) Cook Inlet Pipeline (which in turn has an

annual capacity of 82 million barrels); the Nikiski station has an annual capacity of 260 million

barrels (averages 183 million barrels); and the subsurface pipeline that runs beneath the intertidal

zone between the Port of Anchorage and the Anchorage International Airport funnels 13 million

barrels of jet fuel annually (Alaska Division of Oil and Gas 2003, Andres and Gill 2000,

Chevron Corporation 2006, Kozlowski (in preparation), Weeks 1999). Not only are these

activities subject to human error, but they are located along an extremely active volcanic and

seismic area. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis may destabilize any of these petroleumrelated infrastructure and cause massive spills.

Currently, Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) are established within KEFJ (Figure 60 and

Figure 61). These spill response plans are tailored by a workgroup made up of local, state, and

federal agencies (including the National Park Service), spill response experts, oil spill

contingency plan holders, and the Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound Citizens’ advisory

councils. The GRSs are map-based strategies that locate sensitive areas where oil spill

responders should prioritize their efforts following a spill. GRS locations were selected based on

their levels of environmental sensitivity, risk of being affected from a water-borne spill, and

feasibility of successfully protecting the site with existing technology. Information is available at

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/grs/ki/mainland.htm. At this website, more specific

information on each GRS site is available, including site access, staging area, response resources,

and special considerations.

In addition, the agencies (ADEC, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department

of Fish and Game, EPA, NOAA, National Park Service, and others) in conjunction with private

industry (Alyeska Pipeline Service Company) and local groups (City of Kodiak, Cook Inlet

Regional Advisory Council, and others) have developed Potential Places of Refuge (PPORs)

(Figure 62). The PPORs are designated as sheltered areas with adequate water depth where

leaking or disabled vessels could dock, anchor, moor, and/or ground in order to minimize the

amount of spilled product while undergoing repair or being unloaded (ADEC 2008). Information

on the PPORs is available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/ppor/home.htm. The

identification of these PPORs should reduce the response time and regional environmental

damage in the event of a spill from a distressed vessel, but it is also likely that the PPOR used in

such an event will experience a disproportionately large amount of impact.
89

Figure 59. KEFJ is located adjacent to a large oil and gas basin.
90

Figure 60. Geographic Response Strategies for the KEFJ coast (map 1 of 2). From

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/grs/ci/cis/home.htm.
91

Figure 61. Geographic Response Strategies for the KEFJ coast (map 2 of 2). From

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/grs/ci/cis/home.htm.
Figure 62. Potential Places of Refuge along KEFJ, available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/ppor/home.htm.

92
93

The ShoreZone mapping program computed an “Oil Residence Index” (ORI) along coastal KEFJ

based on data on wave exposure levels and substrate types (Figure 63). Coarse sediments, unlike

rock or sheet piling, are highly permeable and can trap and retain large volumes of oil. The level

of wave exposure also regulates oil residence because wave action is the most effective process

for removing stranded oil from shore (Harper 2004). Through imagery of physical attributes of

the KEFJ coastline, ShoreZone identified areas particularly sensitive to oil spills, such as

estuaries and wetlands, which have fine and organic sediment and have a low amount of wave

exposure. ShoreZone also notes that cleanup in these areas is “difficult and can result in longterm damage if not conducted properly.”

Figure 63. Oil residency index within KEFJ as classified by ShoreZone

(http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/ShoreZone/viewer.htm).

Marine vessel impacts: No analyses of marine vessel impacts have been conducted for the KEFJ

coast, but based on an NPS study in GLBA in southeast Alaska, marine vessels have the

potential to degrade water quality by the accidental release of petroleum products, the release of
94

wastewater or other discharges, or the resuspension of sediments. Wastewater generated by

marine vessels may serve as a source of marine pollution, including graywater (laundry, shower,

and galley sink wastes); blackwater (treated sewage); hazardous waste; solid waste; and marine

debris (NPS 2003). Private vessels may not be able to treat their wastewater before it is

discharged; however the National Park Service (2003) reports that because of the small volumes

and large dilution factor, the effects of this wastewater would not be significant. An Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation report on the impact of marine vessels on Alaska

water quality reports that dilution levels for small marine vessels that treat and continuously

discharge their wastewater are extremely high, and the only contaminant likely to be measured

above ambient water levels would be fecal coliform bacteria (ADEC 2002). Another potential

pollution source is solid waste, including food waste, plastic and glass containers, and paper

products; however plastics and any garbage except dishwater, graywater, and fresh fish parts

cannot be legally dumped within 5 km (3 mi) of the coast. Finally, the National Park Service

(2003) suggests that vessels can affect water quality by resuspending sediments in marine waters

through vessel movement, which can cause increased turbidity that can interfere with filterfeeding organisms and decreased water quality by reducing light penetration. The amount of

sediment resuspension depends on the speed and size of the vessel, the sediment size, and the

stability of the water column (NPS 2003). The effects to water quality along coastal KEFJ are

unclear given the background wave action; effects are most likely temporary and limited to the

immediate area of vessel traffic. The types and frequency of vessels found in KEFJ are discussed

below in Section 4.4.1 Visitor Boat Traffic.

Marine-derived sources of pollutants: The benefits incurred by the contributions of salmon

carcasses to the nutrient levels in aquatic systems may be partially offset by another contribution

from the salmon: marine-derived contaminants such as mercury (Hg) and persistent organic

pollutants (POPs). Mercury, a strongly toxic heavy metal, is emitted primarily by fossil fuel

burning (Pacyna and Pacyna 2002). POPs comprise a long list of highly toxic and very stable

organic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

(DDT), dioxins, furans, and chlordane that are used as pesticides, industrial chemicals, and

industrial waste products (EPA 2002). As salmon develop their biomass (95% in the pelagic

environment), they incorporate marine contaminants such as Hg and POPs and transport them

into watersheds where they spawn (Ewald et al. 1998, Krümmel et al. 2003, Senkowsky 2004,

Zhang et al. 2001).

Krümmel et al. (2003) report strong correlations between the density of salmon runs with PCB

concentrations in lake sediments in southwestern Alaska. Eight lakes in the Alaska Peninsula and

on Kodiak Island, to the southwest of KEFJ, were studied (Figure 64). The researchers found that

the input of PCBs by spawning salmon can result in a 6-fold increase above atmospheric loading

in these remote areas with high-density salmon returns.

There is little published information on the direct contribution by spawning salmon to the Hg

concentrations in streams, but a study of Bering Sea salmon returning to spawn in the Bristol

Bay watersheds of southwestern Alaska (Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, Ugashik, Wood, Igushik,

Nushagak, and Togiak rivers) showed that salmon may be major transporters of marine-derived

Hg into freshwater environments (Zhang et al. 2001). This research combined analyses of

methylmercury concentrations in Bristol Bay salmon tissues with escapement data (ADF&G

1999) to conclude that biotransport of methylmercury by the salmon may have accounted for as
95

much as 21 kg (46 lb) of methylmercury transported into eight Bristol Bay watersheds over the

past 20 years. Another study more directly tested the effect of salmon carcasses on stream Hg

concentrations in several tributary streams of Lake Ontario (Sarica et al. 2004). Comparing

stream segments with variable salmon carcass densities, these researchers detected significantly

higher concentrations of nutrients, total aqueous Hg and methylmercury, particulate Hg, and Hg

in terrestrial invertebrates along stream segments with high salmon carcass densities compared to

areas with low salmon carcass densities.

Figure 64. Sample locations of the eight lakes where surface sediments and sockeye salmon were

collected for PCBs. Lake 1: Frazer; Lake 2: Karluk; Lake 3: Red; Lake 4: Olga; Lake 5: Spiridon; Lake 6:

Becharof; Lake 7: Iliamna; Lake 8: Ugashik (Krümmel et al. 2003).

The available data indicate a strong likelihood that salmon are an important contributor to both

the POPs and Hg budgets in streams where they spawn in areas such as KEFJ in southwest

Alaska. These contaminants are not only released into the waters where they spawn, but also 

they can enter the food chain. For example, a study on grizzly bears in British Columbia,

Canada, found that salmon delivered 70% of the organochlorine pesticides, up to 85% of the

lower brominated PBDE congeners, and 90% of PCBs measured in salmon-eating grizzly bears.

These pollutant levels in the salmon-eating bears were significantly higher than in their nonsalmon eating counterparts in inland areas (Christensen et al. 2005).

4.1.2. Atmospheric Sources of Pollution

Mercury and POPs are the two major subjects of concern for much of Alaska in terms of

atmospheric contaminants as well. They are global pollutants, crossing international borders and

reaching remote areas that should otherwise be pristine (AMAP 2004, Fitzgerald et al. 1998,
96

Nriagu and Pacyna 1988). Anthropogenic mercury deposition to Alaska appears to be similar in

magnitude to that in temperate latitudes (Fitzgerald et al. 2005). Mercury and most POPs are

carried to Alaska via long-range atmospheric pathways (Schroeder and Munthe 1998, Strand and

Hov 1996, Wania and Mackay 1996), and upon deposition can biomagnify as they pass up

trophic levels (EPA 2002).

Although there are no significant industrial sources of mercury (Hg) in southwest Alaska, Hg

deposition to Alaska as well as to virtually all remote places on the planet has at least doubled

since pre-industrial times (Engstrom and Swain 1997, Fitzgerald et al. 1998). Mercury deposition

(through dry or wet processes) is particularly favored in high altitude and high latitude regions

due to cold condensation mechanisms (Fitzgerald et al. 1998, Lindberg et al. 2002, Schindler

1999). Mercury and POPs have not been studied in KEFJ specifically, but several studies in

southern coastal Alaska indicate the region is being affected by these contaminants.

One study examined contaminants in sea bird eggs and showed that concentrations of POPs in

common murre eggs from two islands in the Gulf of Alaska (including East Amatuli Island,

between the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island and only 96 km [60 mi] from KEFJ) were

significantly higher than in eggs from three colonies in the Bering Sea (Kucklick et al. 2002,

Vander Pol et al. 2004). Mercury was also evaluated in the seabird egg studies (Day et al. 2006)

that indicated mercury pollution may also be more of a concern in Gulf of Alaska compared to

the Bering Sea region. The highest mean concentrations of mercury in murre eggs were from St.

Lazaria Island (in southeast Alaska), and East Amatuli Island near KEFJ had the highest

individual sample concentration (Day et al. 2006). The authors of these studies speculate that

higher mercury concentrations in the Gulf of Alaska sites may be due to the relatively warm

temperatures, abundance of organic matter in forested areas and wetlands in southern Alaska,

and presence of estuaries—all factors that stimulate mercury methylation processes—as well as

strong freshwater discharge and high erosion rates.

The NPS Air Resources Division, in cooperation with the EPA, USGS, U.S. Forest Service, and

several universities, has recently begun to address the issue of global pollutants through a project

called the Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP) that aims to

characterize the extent of airborne pollution to remote NPS units in the western United States 

and Alaska (NPS 2005). Snow, fish tissue, water, lake sediment, lichen, vegetation, and

subsistence native foods were collected by WACAP at eight NPS units, including three in

Alaska: Denali National Park and Preserve, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and

Noatak National Preserve. Samples were analyzed for a group of semi-volatile organic

compounds, which include a variety of POPs, and mercury and other trace metals (but not all

sample media received full analyses). Information from the three NPS units elsewhere in the

state provide important indications of the extent and magnitude of the contaminants’ threats to

park ecosystems. Results of the WACAP study showed that contaminants were found in all park

units studied (Landers et al. 2008). In the Alaska park units, very low concentrations of most

current-use chemicals were found; however, the occurrence of historic-use compounds in Alaska

matching levels found in the lower 48 states further suggests that Alaska is being affected by

atmospheric transport from global sources (Landers et al. 2008).

In DENA, the park closest to KEFJ in the WACAP study, notable findings (Landers et al. 2008)

include:
97

• Median mercury concentrations in both lakes sampled (Wonder and McLeod lakes)

exceeded contaminant health thresholds for piscivorous birds (kingfishers), and one lake

(Wonder Lake) also exceeded the thresholds for mammals (otter and mink).

• For current-use SOCs, median dieldrin concentrations in Wonder Lake fish and in some

individual fish in McLeod Lake exceeded contaminant health thresholds for subsistence

fishers.

• Primary contaminants detected in air were historic-use pesticides (HCB and a-HCH).

• In snow, contaminant deposition was among the lowest in all the parks.

• In vegetation, DENA had the lowest concentrations of SOCs, nutrients, metals, and

mercury among the parks, after NOAT and GAAR.

• In sediments, most SOCs were below detection in DENA lakes. PCBs were present but at

low concentrations. Wonder Lake showed enrichment of mercury and lead since the

1920s, probably due to rising global emissions.

The full report of the WACAP study is available online at

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Studies/air_toxics/wacap.cfm.

Contaminant monitoring has begun in SWAN parks as part of the SWAN I&M Program. Fish

were collected for analyses of heavy metals and organics in the drainage of Lake Clark (in

LACL) in 2005 (Dan Young, NPS Port Alsworth, personal communication, 2007). In addition,

the network has initiated a small pilot project to collect stair-step moss (Hylocomium splendens)

in LACL, KEFJ, and ANIA, with the goals of designing a larger project and getting a better

baseline of airborne contaminants across SWAN (Michael Shephard, NPS SWAN, personal

communication, 2008). Further, occasional sampling of intertidal mussels for mercury and other

heavy metal sampling has begun in KEFJ and KATM as part of the nearshore monitoring 

component of the Vital Signs Program.

The SWAN I&M Program is also currently conducting analyses of total Hg in sediment samples

from the following SWAN lakes (none of which is in KEFJ): Lake Clark, Naknek, Brooks,

Kontrashibuna, and Idavain (Munk et al. 2008). The age-dated cores are expected to produce

multi-decadal profiles tracking Hg accumulation over time in the lakes. Results will be

comparable to two published studies of dated sediment cores collected in southeast Alaska—

from lakes in Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA) and in neighboring Chichagof Island—which

show that Hg accumulation rates through the 1980s in sediments are two to three times preindustrial accumulation rates (Engstrom and Swain 1997, Fitzgerald et al. 2006). Additionally,

Hg deposition in GLBA did not show the recent declines (since the1960s) observed at sites in the

continental United States where regional mercury emissions have been reduced. An updated

study of mercury accumulation in sediment cores through the 1990s and into the 2000s, which

shows that mercury deposition continues to be on the rise in Alaska, is expected to be published

in 2009 (Dan Engstrom, St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Minnesota, personal

communication, 2008). These results suggest that southern Alaska is being affected by mercury
98

emissions from remote sources (e.g., in Asia), which are steadily increasing their output (Streets

et al. 2009).

Finally, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has recently established a

Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) stations in Kodiak (Heidi Strader, Alaska DECAnchorage, personal communication, 2008). The Kodiak site has been running since midSeptember 2007 and data from the site (“AK98”) are available through the MDN website

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/). There is also a possibility of a second site going up in Dutch

Harbor, although specific plans and timing for that site are currently unresolved (Cynthia

Dettmer-Shea, Alaska DEC-Anchorage, personal communication, 2009). Additionally, the

Southeast Alaska Network of the National Park Service is planning to establish an MDN site in

Bartlett Cove in GLBA in mid-2009 (Brendan Moynahan, NPS, written communication, 2009.)

The data generated by these future studies will be instrumental in tracking Hg levels in southern

Alaska.

4.2. Climate Change

Climate change is increasingly being recognized as an important natural resource issue for

national parks in Alaska. Recent scientific research suggests that changes in climate may

dramatically impact water resources in Alaskan parks (Kyle and Brabets 2001). On a global

scale, mean surface air temperature has risen by about 0.6 oC (1.1 oF) in the last century. Recent

climate change is dominated by human influences, and there is now a relatively broad scientific

consensus that the primary cause of climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric

composition (Karl and Trenberth 2003). In particular, there have been rapid increases in the

concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which absorb and

counter-radiate outgoing terrestrial longwave radiation. Over the last fifty years, there is

evidence of anthropogenic warming on every continent (Figure 65) (IPCC 2007). This warming

trend is projected to continue throughout the coming century. The best estimates of the

International Panel on Climate Change is that temperatures will rise by another 1.8–4.0 oC (3.2–

7.2 oF) by 2100, depending on trends in emissions of greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007).

Models and recent observations both suggest that climate warming is amplified at higher

latitudes (Hall 1988, Serreze et al. 2000), and future changes in temperature are projected to be

proportionally higher in high-latitude ecosystems (Chapin et al. 2002, Douglas et al. 1994,

Overpeck 1997). Over the past 50 years, Siberia, Alaska, and northern Canada, and the Antarctic

Peninsula have warmed more than any other regions on earth, and the 20th-century arctic is the

warmest of the past 400 years (Overpeck 1997, Serreze et al. 2000). Alaska’s climate has

warmed by approximately 2.2 oC (4o F) since the 1950s and is projected to rise an additional 2.8–

10 oC (5–18 oF) by 2100 (Parson et al. 2000). Moreover, stations north of 60o N indicate that the

average surface temperature have increased by approximately 0.09 oC/decade (0.15 oF/decade)

during the past century, which is 50% greater than the 0.06 oC/decade (0.11 oF/decade) increase

averaged over the entire Northern Hemisphere (Figure 66) (ACIA 2006). This analysis by the

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment team further suggested that climate models project greater

temperature increases at high northern latitudes than anywhere else in the world in the coming

century (Table 17) (ACIA 2006). Within Alaska, a compilation of mean annual and seasonal air

temperatures for19 first-order observing stations from across the state that have more than 50

years of climate records indicates that during the period 1949–2004, average air temperature

increased by 1.9 oC with most of the warming occurring in winter and spring (Molnia 2007). The
99

reasons for the larger temperature increases at high latitudes are not fully understood but are

thought to involve cryospheric effects such as the snow/ice albedo feedback effect (Sturm et al.

2005), coupled with changes in the atmospheric circulation and possibly ocean currents. In

addition, some analyses suggest that much of the recent warming occurred coincident with the

most recent of the large-scale Arctic atmosphere and ocean regime shifts in the mid-1970s

(Weller and Anderson 1997).

Figure 65. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with

results simulated by climate models using either natural or both natural and anthropogenic forcings.

Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906–2005 (black line) plotted against the

centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the period 1901–1950. Lines are

dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 19

simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes.

Red shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using natural and

anthropogenic forcings (IPCC 2007).

Climate warming is already affecting the physical landscape in Alaska. The most obvious effects

of climate change on hydrologic resources in Alaska are changes in the extent of permafrost,

snow cover, glaciers, and sea and lake ice cover (Oswood et al. 1992). The environment and

water resources of KEFJ are highly susceptible to climate change in large part because more than
100

half of KEFJ is covered by glacial ice and permanent snowfields. These glaciers and snowfields

are an important source of summer time streamflow in park watersheds, and the balance of

accumulation and ablation in these hydrologic reservoirs is being altered by climate change. Data

from the past half century suggest that the most dramatic climate warming in Alaska has

occurred during winter months (Weller et al. 1997). In coastal KEFJ, mean winter (November–

March) temperatures are typically between -4–0 oC (25–32 oF), which is close to the freezing

point of water (Section 2.2.6). As a result, climate warming has the potential to alter patterns of

snow accumulation within the park. For example, as winter temperatures increase, the incidence

of rain events during winter increases, and the hydrologic storage of water in seasonal

snowpacks decreases. The result of this trend is a shift toward higher winter streamflows and

lower streamflows during snowmelt runoff in the spring and summer.

Figure 66. Annual anomalies of land-surface air temperature in the Arctic (60 ̊ to 90 ̊ N) for the period

1900 to 2003. From the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA 2006).
101

Table 17. Increases in mean annual surface air temperature in the Arctic (60 ̊ to 90 ̊ N) for the period 2011-2090 as

projected by five models used by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA 2006).

A shift in the timing of springtime snowmelt towards earlier in the year has already been

observed in lower latitude western rivers in the Cascades and Sierra Nevada, and models suggest

that temporal centroid of streamflow (mid-point of runoff volume) will occur 30–40 days earlier

in these rivers by the end of the current century (Stewart et al. 2004). There are no long-term

hydrologic data available for KEFJ to evaluate climate-driven shifts in streamflow. Streamflow

in many KEFJ streams is driven by glacial runoff, thus changes in glacial extent within the park

will have a pronounced influence on the physical properties of park streams. For example,

research on glacial streams located at a similar latitude in southeastern Alaska has shown that

streamwater temperature and turbidity are strongly correlated with the percentage of glacial

coverage within coastal watersheds (Figure 67; Hood and Berner 2009). Overall, climate-driven

decreases in the volume (depth and extent) and duration of seasonal snowcovers and the areal

extent of glaciers within KEFJ will likely be associated with lower summer streamflows and may

also lead to increased streamwater temperatures in the late summer and fall.

Recent research on the Lower Kenai Peninsula has shown that water temperatures in salmon

streams in this area regularly exceed 13 oC, which is the State of Alaska standard for egg and fry

incubation (Mauger 2005). Additionally, a USGS study (Kyle and Brabets 2001) analyzed water

temperature data from 32 sites in the Cook Inlet Basin west of KEFJ and showed that streams

draining low land areas are the most at risk to be affected by climate warming. They also

modeled future climate scenarios based on a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and

found that 15 of the 32 streams had a predicted water temperature increase of 3oC or more, an

increase that is considered significant for the incidence of disease in fish populations. Taken

together, these studies suggest that climate warming and attendant shifts in the timing and quality

of streamflow within KEFJ have the potential to influence patterns and success of salmon

spawning within the park.
102

Figure 67. (A) Seasonal trends in streamwater temperature (left) and turbidity (right) for six watersheds in

southeastern Alaska that vary in glacial coverage from 0% (MC) to 55% (MR). (B) Relationship between

the percentage of the watershed covered by glacier and streamwater temperature (left) and turbidity

(right) for the summer and winter seasons (Hood and Berner 2009). Winter was defined as the six months

where the average air temperature in the study watersheds was <0°C (Nov–Apr).

In addition to altering snowcover patterns, climate warming is having pronounced effects on

glaciers in Alaska. By the early 21st century, nearly all of the glaciers in Alaska extending below

1,500 m were retreating, and every mountain group in the state, including both maritime and

continental climates, was characterized by significant glacial retreat (Molnia 2007). Within

KEFJ, the Harding Icefield has been thinning and shrinking since the 1950s (Adalgeirsdottir et

al. 1998, VanLooy et al. 2006). Giffen et al. (2009) have also demonstrated substantial decreases

in glacier extent in KEFJ (Section 2.2.6). Arendt et al. (2002) compared recent laser altimetry

surveys with digital elevation models (DMEs) from historic USGS maps from the 1950s to

determine changes in glacier thickness for glaciers throughout Alaska and the Yukon. Results

from thirteen glaciers in and around KEFJ suggest that glacier thinning rates within KEFJ over

the second half of the 20th century were on the order of 0.1 to 1.0 m/yr (0.4 to 3.3 ft/yr) (Arendt

et al. 2002). More recently, comparisons of original USGS DEMs with DEMs produced from 1)

LiDAR profiles of glacier center-lines indicate thinning rates from the mid-1990s to 1999 and 2)

the 2000 Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) indicate that thinning rates from the mid1990s to 1999 (0.72 ± 0.13 m/yr or 2.36 ± 0.43 ft/yr) accelerated by a factor of 1.5 as compared

with 1950 to the mid-1990s (0.47 ± 0.01 m/yr or 1.54 ± 0.03 ft/yr) for glaciers on the Harding
103

Icefield (VanLooy et al. 2006). Moreover, VanLooy et al (2006) estimated that overall thinning

of the Harding Icefield and Grewingk-Yalik Glacier Complex was 0.61 ± 0.12 m/yr (2.00 ± 0.39

ft/yr) between 1950 and 1999. The loss of ice volume from Alaska glaciers has global

consequences because of the contribution of glacial meltwater to sea level rise. Arendt et al.

(2002) estimated that in the last decade of the 20th century, Alaskan glaciers contributed at least

0.24 mm/yr to sea level rise, which is 8% of the total sea level rise during this period (and nearly

double the contribution from melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet).

The recent increase in the wastage rate of Alaska glaciers is consistent with other glaciated

regions of the world. For example, the satellite-derived Swiss glacier inventory revealed that

mean glacier area loss per decade from 1985 to 1998/99 has accelerated by a factor of seven

compared to the period 1850–1973 (Paul et al. 2007). Further, Paul et al. (2007) note that for

Swiss glaciers “many of the observed changes (growing rock outcrops, tongue separation,

formation of pro-glacial lakes, albedo lowering, collapse structures) are related to positive

feedbacks which accelerate further glacier disintegration once they are initiated. As such, it is

unlikely that the recent trend of glacier wastage will stop (or reverse) in the near future.” Glacial

runoff strongly influences the physical and biological characteristics of aquatic ecosystems (both

freshwater and marine) within and around KEFJ. For example, recent research has shown that

changing glacial coverage within coastal watersheds will alter the fluxes of important

macronutrients (C, N, and P) to downstream freshwater and marine ecosystems (Hood and Scott

2008). This finding highlights the importance of monitoring and predicting future changes in the

extent and volume of glaciers within KEFJ.

A Swiss research team has recently developed a simple method for calculating and visualizing

future glacier extent for a large number of individual glaciers (>100) according to different

climate change scenarios (Paul et al. 2007). This method is automated and requires only digital

glacier outlines (available from satellite images) and a digital elevation model (DEM) and

calculates new glacier geometries from a given shift of the steady-state equilibrium line altitude

(ELA0) by means of hypsographic modeling. The resulting visualizations of glacier change

(Figure 68) are useful for resource managers and also represent an excellent tool for

communicating research results related to glacier changes to the general public (Paul et al. 2007).

A modeling effort of this type could be undertaken with currently existing topographic data for

glaciers in KEFJ; however, the final products would be enhanced by the availability of a

relatively high-quality DEM (<30 m spatial resolution) for the park.
104

Figure 68. Visualization of new modeled glacier size in the Swiss Alps for Equilibrium Line Altitude

upward shifts of 100m (A), 300 m (B), and 500 m (C). Areas of ice lost are shown in the red shaded color.

An important hydrologic effect of increased glacier melt is an increase in the volume of runoff

from glaciers and a concomitant increase in the discharge of glacial streams. Such a trend is

already apparent in coastal glacial watersheds such as the Mendenhall Glacier in southeastern

Alaska that have multi-decade discharge records (Neal et al. 2002). Increased runoff can lead to

the creation of new streams and can alter the sediment, streamflow, and temperature regimes in

surrounding streams (Oswood et al. 1992). Changes in runoff and sediment loads can change

stream channel morphology and stability, as well as the composition of stream substrates and

habitat complexity (Williams 1989). Non-glacial streams may experience increased stream

temperatures as a result of reduced streamflows and climate warming; however, glacial streams

are likely to have lower stream temperatures as a result of increased glacial runoff. Decreases in

stream temperature can depress primary production, impact or eliminate certain invertebrates,

and lower salmonid rates of production (Lloyd 1987, Lloyd et al. 1987). Over longer time scales,

water yields from glacial watersheds in KEFJ may decrease as glaciers continue to thin and

recede.
105

Climate warming within KEFJ also has the potential to affect the occurrence of lakes and ponds

within the park. Recent research from the Seward Peninsula and Kenai Peninsula has

demonstrated a substantial landscape-level trend toward reduced surface water area as well as

fewer closed-basin ponds (Riordan et al. 2006). Since the 1950s the surface water area of closedbasin ponds in eight boreal regions in Alaska has decreased by 4–31%, and the total number of

closed-basin ponds has decreased by 5–54%. This loss and shrinkage of ponds is hypothesized to

be due to increased drainage from warming permafrost and increased evapotranspiration during a

warmer and extended growing season (Riordan et al. 2006). Because of the large number of

glaciers within KEFJ, it is alternatively possible that new lakes may be formed within the park as

glaciers continue to thin and recede. Wetlands in KEFJ are also at risk from climate warming.

Increased evapotranspiration and lower water levels have the potential to decrease the area of

shallow wetlands within the park. The loss of surface water bodies and wetlands within KEFJ

has the potential to affect park fauna such as migratory waterfowl that depend on these resources.

The effects of climate change on the chemistry of lakes and streams are unknown. Research on

linkages between terrestrial and aquatic systems suggests that elevated temperatures and carbon

dioxide levels will affect the distribution and productivity of plants, which will in turn affect the

amount and quality of leaf litter entering streams and rivers (Meyer and Pulliam 1992). Increases

in woody debris entering streams are also predicted (Sweeney et al. 1992). Because soil

microbial activity is linked to soil temperature, moisture, and soil organic matter, climate shifts

will affect microbial processing of organic material in terrestrial systems, which will in turn

affect the flow of nutrients from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. In addition, surface water

quality could also be altered by predicted changes in the frequency of disturbances such as forest

fires, wind storms, and coastal floods (Meyer and Pulliam 1992; Parson et al. 2000). Ultimately,

changes to the quality and quantity of runoff from terrestrial ecosystems will affect nearshore

marine systems in KEFJ because the productivity of these nearshore ecosystems is influenced by

the input of nutrients from coastal terrestrial watersheds.

4.3. Physical Hazards: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Tsunamis

4.3.1.Volcanic Activity

Unlike the other SWAN units, KEFJ does not contain any active volcanoes. However, the unit is

located near the eastern edge of the 2,500 km (1,560 mi) Aleutian volcanic arc, which is one of

the world’s most active volcanic areas (Miller and Smith 1987; Neal 2005) (Figure 69).

Subduction of the Pacific plate under the Alaska section of the North American plate generates

frequent earthquakes and volcanic activity throughout the Aleutian chain. In the past century,

one to two volcanoes in Alaska have erupted each year, most notably Novarupta (1912)—the

largest 20th-century eruption in the world and the largest rhyolite eruption in recorded history,

Redoubt (1989), Mount Spurr (1992), Pavlof (1996), Okmok (1997), and, more recently,

Augustine and Fourpeaked (both in 2006), Pavlof (2007), and Redoubt again (eruption in March

2009 and ongoing as of this writing in April 2009) (Alaska Volcano Observatory 1998, 2009).
106

Figure 69. Volcanoes in the vicinity of KEFJ.

Volcanic eruptions outside KEFJ can impact park resources. Most Aleutian arc volcano-related

hazards are identified as ash clouds, ash fall, pyroclastic flows and surges, mudflows (lahars),

lava flows, and volcanic gases (Neal 2005). Specifically, volcanic ash clouds can create

hazardous conditions for regional aircraft traffic, potentially endangering areas on the ground

that could be affected by an airliner crash (Waythomas et al. 1997, Waythomas and Miller

1999b). Directed blasts, volcanic gases, and lava flows are listed as the less likely but possible

consequences of the eruption (Waythomas and Miller 1999a). Hazards posed to watersheds are

primarily from the deposition of ashfall, which can accumulate in streams and impede the

movement of fish and can create conditions of lethally high suspended sediment concentrations

in streamwaters (Brabets et al. 1999). Additionally, debris moving in the stream can be deposited

over spawning areas, suffocating incubating eggs (Brabets et al. 1999). An additional risk to

KEFJ resources may be an albedo affect change on the icefield as a result of a thick ash cover

resulting from an eruption.
107

The impacts of volcanic eruptions on water quality may also be more subtle, providing longer

term influences on biological productivity within lakes and streams due to ashfall contributions.

For example, a study of sediment cores from two lakes on Afognak Island (120 km [75 mi] from

KEFJ) showed that volcanic ashfalls, such as those derived from the 1912 Novarupta eruption,

stimulated diatom growth in the lakes due to the increase in silica supply (Barsdate and

Dungdale 1972). An earlier study (Eicher and Rounsefell 1957) argued that despite immediate

destructive effects of volcanic eruptions on plant, fish, and wildlife populations in lakes and

streams, there appears to be a long-term net benefit to the watersheds from volcanic eruptions.

Eicher and Rounsefell (1957) report that volcanic ashfall is relatively rich in key nutrients such

as phosphorus, which can be utilized by algae at the base of the food chain in aquatic systems

and which can enrich soils, and they show that several years following the Novarupta eruption in

1912 there was accelerated plant growth and a fast rebound in salmon abundance in lakes and

streams in the region. It is notable that some of the world’s richest salmon runs are in the nearby

Bristol Bay region, and this region is regularly affected by ashfall from volcanic events along the

Aleutian chain.

Due to risks posed by volcanic eruptions to natural resources and to air safety traffic, and to

enhance scientific understanding of volcanic processes, the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO)

in Anchorage continues to monitor and research volcanic activity throughout the region (Murray

2005). Volcanoes along the Aleutian chain are actively monitored by the AVO at 19 stations

(visit http://www.avo.alaska.edu/ for more information). Monitoring is conducted using

“webicorders” (computerized seismographs) at all stations, webcams at some stations, and Realtime Seismic Amplitude Measurement (at Pavlof Volcano only). The AVO is also conducting

detailed volcanic hazard assessments for many of Alaska’s other potentially active volcanoes.

Volcanic and earthquake activity is also one of the vital signs for which monitoring protocols are

currently being developed and implemented by the SWAN I&M Program (see

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm?theme=volcano_eq for more information).

4.3.2. Coastal Change: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Subsidence, and Uplift

Earthquakes have been a powerful force of geomorphologic and ecologic change along the Kenai

coast (Mann 1998). They have triggered both subaerial and submarine landslides, resultant

tsunamis, seiches caused by the rocking of water masses in enclosed basins, ice avalanches, and

relative sea level alteration (Mann 1998, Mann and Crowell 1996, Plafker 1969). Sea level

differences between sites only 50–100 km apart has varied markedly due to the combination of

tectonic activity and isostatic rebound effects from glacier recession (Mann 1998). The Aleutian

seismic zone, which follows the southern border of the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian

Islands, is one of the most active seismic zones in the world (Stevens and Craw 2004) (see

information and map at http://quake.usgs.gov/prepare/alaska/index.html).

In 1964, the largest earthquake in North America—and the second largest earthquake ever

recorded, at a magnitude of 9.2—occurred in the northern Prince William Sound (Sokolowski

2006). The earthquake raised some southcentral Alaskan areas up to 8 m (30 ft) and triggered

landslides and avalanches, which in turn set off tsunamis that killed 115 people and caused

extensive structural damage in Anchorage and other Alaskan communities (Sokolowski 2006).

As a result of the earthquake, land around the Kenai Mountains dropped more than 2 m (6.6 ft)

(Mann 1998). This subsidence left a ubiquitous swath of dead conifer forests along the coast, as

they were killed by saltwater inundation of their root systems (Mann 1998). Geomorphological
108

changes resultant from the earthquake included steepening and inland-migration of barrier

beaches (e.g., at Verdant Cove Spit and Bulldog, Quicksand, Bear, and McMullen coves) and the

building of new barrier beaches at sites in upper Aialik Bay and Holgate Arm where glacier-fed

streams develop alluvial fans at sea level (Mann 1998).

In the three decades following the 1964 earthquake, the KEFJ coastline has been uplifted up to

40 cm, as determined from GPS measurements and water level recorders (Cohen and

Freymueller 1997, 2001) (Figure 70). Current uplift rates currently outpace the rise of global sealevel, which is approximately 1.8 mm/yr.

Figure 70. Regional cumulative post-seismic uplift from GPS measurements and tide gauges, as

determined by Cohen and Freymueller: 1964–1995. Contour and point values are in cm. From Cohen and

Freymueller (1997).
109

Archeological evidence of pre-historic earthquakes point to even more powerful events than the

one that occurred in 1964. An earthquake that occurred about 780 years ago caused sudden

subsidence of about 2 m at Verdant Cove in Aialik Bay, almost double the coseismic subsidence

occurring there in the 1964 great earthquake (Mann 1998). Although large-scale earthquakes

along the Aleutian chain are often remotely triggered by regional tectonic processes (Power et al.

2005), earthquakes of smaller magnitudes are common, particularly during a build-up to a

volcanic eruption (Fierstein and Hildreth 2000, Moran 2003, Ward et al. 1991).

Tsunamis striking coastal KEFJ may originate from tectonic movement almost anywhere along

the convergent Pacific plate boundary off Alaska’s southern coast, from along the strike-slip

boundary along southeast Alaska, or from far more distant sources along the massive Pacific

plate. Submarine landslides and/or volcanic eruptions that release pyroclastic flows or other

materials from a volcanic collapse into the ocean may also initiate a tsunami in the Gulf of

Alaska (Beget and Kowalik 2006, Kowalik and Murty 1989, Waythomas and Watts 2003). For

example, the volcanic eruption ~3,500 years ago that formed the Aniakchak Caldera resulted in

the release of large-scale (>50 km3

) pyroclastic flows that set off major tsunamis (up to 7.8 m [26

ft] high) in Bristol Bay (Waythomas and Neal 1998, Waythomas and Watts 2003).

Pacific tsunami warning systems are in place and are currently being enhanced due to efforts

motivated by the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people in Asia in

December 2004. Relevant tsunami warning centers are the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami

Warning Center based in Palmer, Alaska (http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/), and the Pacific Tsunami

Warning Center in Ewa Beach, Hawaii (http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/). The AVO also operates

seismic networks throughout the Aleutian chain and has recorded and located approximately

5,600 earthquakes at Redoubt Volcano and 2,300 at Iliamna Volcano since 1989 (Moran et al.

2005).

In 2004, the USGS created a map of the coastal change potential of the KEFJ shoreline to future

sea-level changes (Pendleton et al. 2004). These rankings, calculated at a resolution of 1-minute

grid cells in the park, were performed using a change potential index (CPI), which ranks the

following parameters in terms of their physical contribution to coastal change: geomorphology,

regional coastal slope, rate of relative sea-level change, historical shoreline change rates, mean

tidal range, and mean significant wave height. All of KEFJ was ranked as having a moderate

change potential with respect to tidal range, and a very low change potential with respect to

relative sea-level change. The other parameters show a varied change-potential ranking (from

very low to very high), depending on factors such as wave-energy regimes, geographic variations

in areas of elevation change, and geomorphic characteristics. The six parameters taken together

indicate that overall areas in KEFJ most susceptible to sea-level changes are tidewater glaciers

and outer coast shorelines of unconsolidated sediment (Figure 71).
110

Figure 71. Relative coastal change-potential for KEFJ, as determined by the USGS (Pendleton et al.

2004).
111

4.4. Visitor Impacts

Visitor use of KEFJ has increased nearly twenty-fold since 1982, rising particularly sharply in

the past 15 years (Table 18). It is largely concentrated in the Exit Glacier area, where there is a

nature center and ranger station, well-maintained trails, flush toilets (summer only), a 12-site

campground, and parking. All other areas in the park lack road access and are reached only by

boat or air. Glacier and wildlife cruises are becoming an increasingly popular way of exploring

the coastline, with numerous tour boats departing from Seward daily during the summer. The

vast majority of visitors to the park do not overnight, although the campground and public use

cabins are in high demand (Table 19). Snowmobiling at the Exit Glacier area is growing in

popularity as well (Tetreau 2000).

Table 18. Visitor use statistics for KEFJ. Data table retrieved from

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm?parkid=499.

Year Recreational Visitors

2008 272,190

2007 284,604

2006 251,630

2005 258,297

2004 244,232

2003 243,719

2002 251,799

2001 262,353

2000 254,790

1999 290,673

1998 263,948

1997 306,164

1996 274,034

1995 230,657

1994 209,516

1993 189,712

1992 108,130

1991 107,041

1990 66,115

1989 75,557

1988 59,017

1987 60,428

1986 54,296

1985 35,758

1984 30,703

1983 24,048

1982 16,118

Total 4,725,529
112

Table 19. Most recent (2008) visitor statistics for KEFJ. Data table retrieved from

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm?parkid=499.

2008 Rec Tent Back Country Total 

Overnight

Visits Campers Campers Stays

January 223 0 5 5

February 173 0 8 8

March 224 0 17 17

April 0 0 0 0

May 14,286 0 19 19

June 68,501 246 50 296

July 83,794 542 68 610

August 80,307 580 21 601

September 23,288 110 5 115

October 1,373 0 0 0

November 21 0 1 1

December 0 0 0 0

2008 Total 272,190 1,478 194 1,672

Report Total 272,190 1,478 194 1,672

Number of Non-Rec visits, concession lodging, RV campers, 

 concession campground, and misc campers: 0

Three public-use cabins are available to the public during the summer season: in upper Aialik 

Bay, Holgate Arm, and the North Arm of Nuka Bay. At Exit Glacier, there is a public-use cabin 

available in the winter. One new cabin resort development is located within the park (Kenai 

Fjords Glacier Lodge) and one outside but adjacent to the park (Kenai Fjords Wilderness Lodge 

on Fox Island) that attract visitors who typically combine boat tours of the KEFJ coastline with 

their lodge visits. Visitor centers include the information center in the town of Seward and the 

Exit Glacier Nature Center. Finally, there is also a ranger station in Aialik Bay that is staffed for 

most of the summer season. KEFJ suggests but does not require backcountry permits, although 

reservations for the backcountry cabins are required.

Potential impacts from visitor use include wildlife disturbance and displacement; damage to soil 

and vegetation; spreading of exotic/invasive species; fuel spills from motorized vehicle/airplane 

use; noise pollution from visitors and motorized vehicles; air pollution from watercraft and 

snowmobiles; stress imposed on marine mammals targeted for close viewing by tour boats and 

kayakers; damage of nesting sites along beaches; and human-bear interactions.

4.4.1. Visitor Boat Traffic

The majority of the tourists visit the KEFJ coast on small tour boats, and only 1% of park visitors

stay overnight in the backcountry (Colt et al. 2002). Small tour boats, including Kenai Fjords

Tours, Renown, and Major Marine, offer day tours from Seward. A large cruise ship stops in

Seward every two to five days during the May–September season and transits near (but does not

enter) KEFJ on its way to or from the town. NPS staff suggests that boat traffic is problematic

and causes noise and disturbs wildlife (Shelley Hall, NPS Seward, personal communication,

2005); however, the limited studies on this topic have not detected an influence on wildlife.
113

Morse et al. (2006) found that human (recreational) disturbance was not an important factor

affecting black oystercatcher nest productivity. Rather, nest failure was strongly affected by

extreme high tides because of the tendency of the birds to nest in the nearshore, sometimes

below the high tide line.

4.4.2. Backcountry Camping

Only a small portion of the tremendous length (ca. 800 km [500 mi]) of the KEFJ coastline

provides sheltered sand/gravel beaches that are suitable for camping (Klasner 2009). The vast

majority of all backcountry camping occurs at about 30 sites in Aialik Bay and Northwestern

Lagoon. Monitoring of the impacts of camping on cultural and natural resources in the park is

currently being developed (Monz 2005). Surveys to date have identified fire rings, charred wood,

cut stumps, root exposure, vegetation trampling, trash, human waste, soil erosion, campsite

proliferation, increased human-wildlife interactions, and social trails as some of the impacts by

camping activity in these heavily used sites (Klasner 2009).

4.4.3. Hiking

The Harding Icefield Trail (HIT) at Exit Glacier has been receiving increasingly heavy use

during the summer months; for example, 10,029 people signed in at the trail register between

May and October 2007 (Wetherbee 2007a), which was nearly twice as many as those who

registered during the same period in 2006 (Wetherbee 2006a). NPS staff have been monitoring

the impact of hikers on the HIT (Kriedeman 2007) and have conducted a hiker encounter survey

(Kriedeman 2008).

The top of the cliffs at the Glacier Overlook area are particularly heavily affected and are

therefore a focus of monitoring and restoration efforts (Wetherbee 2006a). New vegetation was

transplanted into two particularly heavily affected areas, at 2.0 km (1.25 mi) and 2.7 km (1.7 mi)

up the HIT in 2007 (Wetherbee 2007a). For the past several summers, KEFJ staff have been

regularly flagging the trail during the early spring when it is snow-covered to help prevent

visitors from hiking off the trail, which can cause vegetation trampling, erosion, trail widening,

and the creation of new side trails (Wetherbee 2006a, 2007a). The use of jute mesh has also

aided in the recovery of vegetation by holding down soils and seeds and providing a physical

deterrent to hikers trying to step off the trail (Figure 72).

Figure 72. Social trails leaving from the Glacier Overlook along the Harding Icefield Trail. These trails 

were blanketed with jute mesh to aid in soil and vegetation recovery. From Wetherbee (2007a).
114

4.4.4. Public Use Cabins

Three cabins are available for public use along the KEFJ coast during the summer months: in

Aialik, Holgate, and North Arm

(http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/publicusecabins_summer.htm). Due to the lack of roads

and trails, the cabins must be accessed by float plane, water taxi, private vessels, or charter boat.

Another cabin, called Willow Cabin, is available in the winter months to snowmobilers, crosscountry skiers, snowshoers, and dogsledders, and is located 7 miles from where Exit Glacier

Road closes in the winter. The public-use cabins themselves may not produce much of an impact

outside of potential local trampling of soil and vegetation and contamination from pit toilets and

propane fuel containers. However, visitor travel to and from the cabins via motorized vessels,

planes, or snowmobiles present larger risks in terms of fuel spills, wildlife disturbance, noise

disturbance, and exotic species introduction. The Aialik Bay cabin is leased from the Port

Graham Corporation.

4.4.5. Development on Native-Owned Lands

In 2008, the only lodge within KEFJ was constructed on 10 acres of Native-owned (Port Graham

Corporation [PGC]) land along the eastern shore of Pedersen Lagoon. The Kenai Fjords Glacier

Lodge, operated by Alaska Wildland Adventures (AWA), consists of a main lodge, 16 private

cabins, and staff support facilities, and it is slated to open for business in the summer of 2009.

The company advertises that from the lodge visitors can sea kayak, hike, or travel by motorized

skiff in an area rich with harbor seals, sea and river otters, mountain goats, black bears, and birds

(http://www.alaskawildland.com/kenai-fjords-glacier-lodge.htm). According to a fact sheet from

AWA and PGC, approximately 800 ha (2000 acres) of PGC land surrounding the development

will be known as the Pedersen Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary, and no other development will occur

in the Sanctuary (Hoessle 2008). Furthermore, the lodge strives to be an “ecolodge” by keeping

the project small scale, conserving energy, providing guided trips to small groups, and offering 

educational opportunities for the guests (Hoessle 2008). Nonetheless, the development,

maintenance, and operation of this lodge (including boat traffic to and from the lodge and

visitors hiking and kayaking in the area) will provide some level of disturbance to birds and

marine and terrestrial wildlife in this biologically rich area that contains the highest species

diversity along the KEFJ coast. Examples of this possible disturbance include wildlife

harassment, motorized vessel leaks, and exotic/invasive species introduction.

4.5. Historic Mine Sites

Several mining sites are located in the Historic Mining District of Nuka Bay. Gold mining

activity in the area commenced after discovery in the 1900s, with production peaking in the

1930s. One mining claim at the Goyne prospect remains administratively active, as it existed

prior to the establishment of the park and has been continuously re-filed since then (M. Tetreau,

NPS, pers. comm., 2005). A rudimentary survey of water quality conditions at mining sites in the

Ferrum Creek (Beauty Bay site) and Babcock Creek areas (Cieutat et al. 1994) indicated

detectable and in some cases high concentration signatures of the orebody mineralization in

some water samples but also rapid downstream dilution from the mine workings (see Section 

3.1.2 Water Quality – Nuka River and vicinity). The report concluded that “mining of

mesothermal gold veins on lands along the northern Gulf of Alaska is unlikely to have

significant effects on surface-water quality” (Cieutat et al. 1994). However, a follow-up study

prompted by the discovery of a dead moose calf in the area found that arsenic levels in mine

tailings exceeded regulatory cleanup levels, and this led to a several-year process in which the
115

tailings were treated at the site by installation of a cement cap in 1998 (Shannon & Wilson Inc.

2006). As for the Sonny Fox Mine site, a later NPS survey of the mine sites recommended that

Babcock Creek be either diverted or rip-rapped in order to prevent erosion of the road, mill

tailings, and structures of the mine (Griffiths et al. 1999); however, later work deemed that such

mitigation was not necessary (Meg Hahr, NPS, pers. comm., 2008).

A 2007 mine site condition assessment report, which assessed the sites as cultural resources,

categorized two of six surveyed sites to be in good condition (Alaska Hills Cabin and Alaska

Hills Mill &Mine); three to be in fair condition (Glass & Heifner Mine, Rosness Larson Mine

Site, and Sonny Fox Mine); and one site (Nuka Bay Mine) to be of unknown condition due to

snow cover at the time of the assessment (Kovak 2008). In the 2007 survey, remains of the Glass

& Heifner Mine (also known as the Beauty Bay site) included an open trench, a collapsed adit,

more than 50 deteriorating 55-gallon fuel-storage barrels, and gelatin dynamite (disposed of by

NPS staff upon discovery in 2007). Removal of hazardous waste from the site was recommended

by the assessment (Kovak 2008) as well as an earlier KEFJ Resource Management Plan (NPS

1999). The Rosness Larson Mine site remains included surface trenching, three adits, a mill with

scattered mining equipment debris, and a cabin. The Sonny Fox Mine had a mill, aerial tram, six

adits, open cuts and camp buildings, and five pounds of gelatin dynamite, which was also

destroyed in 2007. In 2008 the barrels at the Glass & Heifner Mine were removed, an open adit

in the Nuka Bay Mine was closed off with a steel grate, and a shaft was closed with a foam plug

(Russ Kucinski, NPS Seward, written communication, 2009). Six mine openings in the district 

are scheduled for closure in 2010 (Russ Kucinski, NPS Seward, written communication, 2009).

The Surprise Bay No.1 is the only remaining active federal mining claim in the district (Russ

Kucinski, NPS Seward, written communication, 2009).

4.6. Exit Glacier Area Flooding

The hydrologic setting of the Exit Glacier area (including the KEFJ nature center and trails) and

the road leading to it has proved to be complex in terms of flood prevention and abatement. Prior

to development of the area, a hydrologic investigation identified avalanches, floods, and bank

erosion as potential hazards in the area (Sloan 1985). The report found no evidence of flooding

in the development area since at least 1950 and stated that there is a low risk to roads and

structures from large, infrequent flood events, and that the risk could be minimized with careful

location of the facilities (Sloan 1985). Since construction of the nature center and trails, it

quickly became apparent that flooding risk in the area was much greater than earlier thought. The

Exit Glacier area is a young, recently deglaciated area still in the process of formation, with

frequently and sometimes drastic shifts in physical flow conditions over the hummocky

topography of morainal deposits (Martin 2005) (Figure 73). Although the flooding potential in

the area is not considered to be life-threatening, a major flood could pose a “substantial hazard”

to trapped individuals (Martin 2005).

The primary source of flooding to the Exit Glacier area is a tributary stream to Exit Creek called

the “unnamed drainage” in Figure 73 (Martin 2005). (The following discussion is summarized

from Martin [2005]). This stream drains a 2.8 km2 (1.1 mi2) watershed and joins Exit Creek as a

series of intermorainal channels flowing from the northwest. The shallow and poorly formed

stream channels crossing through the Exit Glacier development area are easily flooded by water

contributed by the unnamed channel, especially during the fall months when rainstorms are large

and frequent. The foundation of the nature center rests on about 46 cm (18 in) of compacted fill,
116

which could be compromised following prolonged exposure to flow. The six channel crossings

(culverts, bridge spans, and, in one case, blockage of the channel by fill to support the trail)

present between the nature center and the end of the nature trail were identified as being

undersized for even small (two-year) flood events. Flooding through the area has been recurring

since construction of the nature center in 2002, when floods resulted in the placement of a

diversion upstream and culverts under the development and paved nature trail. Another

unintended consequence to these diversions is deprivation of flow to an adjacent wetland area,

potentially producing deleterious effects on the wetland floral community.

Figure 73. Air photo of the Exit Glacier area taken in 1993. Note the unnamed drainage feeding into the

inter-morainal area. From Martin (2006).

The Martin report (2005) suggests that from a flood abatement standpoint, it would be best if all

unnatural flow constrictions should be removed. Although this would not save the infrastructure

from a large-magnitude (100-year) flood event, it would decrease the number of smaller floods,

and it would allow natural processes to keep re-working the glacial deposits. At a minimum,

Martin (2005) recommends that the channel blocked by trail fill should be opened, as this would

spread out the flow between two channels and reinstate seasonal flow into the small wetland area

from which flow is currently diverted. Another recommendation, specifically for the nature 

center, is to construct a small levee on its upslope side.

In addition to the flooding in the nature center area, flooding also occurs along the portion of the

Exit Glacier access road that crosses floodplain and wetland environments supported by both the
117

Resurrection River and Exit Creek as well as at the maintenance facility on Old Exit Road. In the

former case, the original road grade was composed entirely of fill, with no passage for flood

flows, leading to the washing out of a section of road. As a result, several culverts were put in,

although these are considered too few to adequately convey floodwaters, leaving the road to

flood during periods of overbank flow (Martin 2005). In the case of the maintenance facility

(part of a low-density residential subdivision outside KEFJ borders, constructed in 1990),

flooding occurs due to the location of the facility on a broad and gently sloping alluvial fan

formed by Box Canyon Creek (Martin 2005). The creek was isolated to the western portion of its

alluvial fan with an earthen levee maintained by Kenai Peninsula Borough. Nonetheless, major

flooding occurred in October 2006, when torrential rains flooded Box Canyon Creek (a tributary

to Exit Creek), which broke through its levees and sent water, ice, and debris through the area

and flooded the road half a foot (Jeff Mow, NPS, written communication, 2006).

4.7. Nuka River Diversion

The terminus of the Nuka Glacier, located just outside of KEFJ, has two main outflow streams:

one flowing into Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (BLHP) (and ultimately to Kachemak Bay),

and the second that forms the headwaters of the Nuka River, which flows 19 km (12 mi) before

emptying into Beauty Bay and the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 74). This headwater stream of the

Nuka River flows for approximately 3 km (2 mi) from the glacier before crossing into KEFJ.

Concern for NPS resources stems from the partial diversion of flow from this upper reach of the

Nuka River toward the BLHP (NPS 1986). When the BLHP was constructed in 1986, an

agreement was reached to allow the diversion of all but 5 cfs (142 l/s) to the BLHP.

Figure 74. View of the terminus of the Nuka Glacier, showing the east side stream that drains to the Nuka

River and the west side stream that drains to Bradley Lake. From Rinella and Bogan (2008).

However, in 2003, the National Park Service noticed that as the Nuka Glacier has retreated, its

outflow was greatly shifted toward Bradley Lake, leaving the upper ~1 km of the Nuka River

without much of its surface flow during portions of the year. It was not clear if this change was

entirely natural, as shifting of the channels has been known to occur in the past (NPS 1986), or if

it was intensified by the diversion structures (Shelley Hall, NPS Seward, personal

communication, 2005). The National Park Service directed a habitat assessment and biological

inventory of the area (Rinella and Bogan 2008). This report provides information on habitat

physico-chemical conditions, diatom taxa, and macroinvertebrate taxa in the uppermost reach of
118

the Nuka River within KEFJ. Although the National Park Service plans to continue to stay

involved in the management of the Nuka River water resources, dewatering of the short,

uppermost section appears to be largely a natural process and likely does not present a threat to

the biological integrity of the Nuka River (S. Hall and M. Tetreau, NPS Seward, personal

communication, 2005).

4.8. Exotic Species

Exotic plants are a management concern to National Park Service because they can hybridize

with native flora, can outcompete resident species for limited resources, and can change the

structure and function of ecosystems through alterations of biogeochemical and geophysical

processes (Rapp 2008). KEFJ has been following the NPS Alaska Region’s Exotic Plant

Management Team protocol to try to treat exotic plant populations, which typically are

concentrated along roads and trails and at campsites and other places used by visitors (Wetherbee

2006b, 2007d). The most common exotic plants in KEFJ are the common dandelion (Taraxacum

officinale), common plantain (Plantago major), and white clover (Trifolium repens) (Rapp 2008,

Wetherbee 2007d). There are an additional 15 non-native species documented in the park and an

additional 16 species in the surrounding area (Rapp 2008). The main area of infestation by exotic

plants in KEFJ is along the Exit Glacier Road. Exotic plants are also found on the HIT, where the

common dandelion and common plantain are the main exotics (Wetherbee 2007a, b, c). The

farthest distance up the trail where an exotic plant (dandelion, in this case) has been found was at

Marmot Meadow, which is 2.0 km (1.25 mi) up the HIT (Wetherbee 2007a), but the plant was

eradicated in 2008 (D. Kurtz, NPS, written communication, 2009). Between 2005 and 2007, the

common timothy (Phleum pretense) and oxeye daisy were found and treated at the Beauty Bay

airstrip but were not observed in a 2008 survey (Kurtz 2008). Small common dandelion

infestations at the Dinglestadt glacier in McCarty Fjord and at Pedersen Lagoon were also treated

(Wetherbee 2006b, 2007c) and resurveyed and further treated (by pulling) in 2009 (D. Kurtz,

NPS, written communication, 2009). In a KEFJ plant inventory survey, two invasive plant

species—annual bluegrass (Poa annua) and mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium fontanum)—were

collected near remote coastal cabins in Aialik Bay and at James Lagoon in McCarty Fjord,

respectively (Carlson et al. 2005, Rapp 2008). The Exotic Plants Management Team is planning

to remove the bluegrass from the Aialik Bay cabin in 2009 (D. Kurtz, NPS, written

communication, 2009).

Exotic plant treatment efforts have concentrated on the Exit Glacier area and Harding Icefield

Trail. Manual pulling of plants is the only removal method used by KEFJ staff, and this has

proven to be highly successful with several species (Wetherbee 2007a). In 2008 alone, 360 kg

(793 lbs) of weeds (primarily common plantain, common dandelion, and pineapple weed) were

pulled in the Exit Glacier area, and similar efforts are planned for 2009 (Klasner 2009). Some

species cannot be controlled with manual pulling, however, and therefore an NPS Regional

Invasive Plant Management Plan has been developed, and decisions regarding other control

strategies are pending (Klasner 2009). Also in 2009, KEFJ plans to manually remove yellow

sweetclover along the Resurrection River, inventory and map exotic plants in the vicinity of the

newly built Kenai Fjords Glacier Lodge in Pedersen Lagoon, and conduct surveys in Aialik Bay

(Klasner 2009). Furthermore, KEFJ is collaborating with local agencies and non-profit

organizations in Seward to organize weed pulls to removed invasives growing outside the park

along Exit Glacier Road (D. Kurtz, NPS, written communication, 2009).
119

Exotic aquatic invasive species are also a serious management concern, and those that have been

introduced or are moving into Alaskan waters include multiple species of fish, plants, and

invertebrates (Appendix B). Water bodies of Alaska are more likely than terrestrial habitats to be

invaded by exotic species because the temperature ranges of oceans, rivers, and lakes vary much

less than terrestrial temperature ranges (ADFG 2002a). The introduction of invasive species into

Alaskan waters may be either accidental, purposeful, or due to negligence. Pathways of

introduction include fish farms, aquaculture, transport on or in ballast water from ships or fishing

vessels, live seafood trade, or sport fishing gear (ADFG 2002a). In order to minimize the impact

of invasive species in Alaska, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) developed an

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (ADFG 2002a) with the purpose of focusing on

preventing the invasion of those invasive species that are considered the highest threat (see the

ADFG Invasive Species Website at http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/invasive/invasive.php.)

Additionally, the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward received a grant in 2009 to launch a nonindigenous marine species monitoring program in Resurrection Bay.

The presence and scale of exotic species in the coastal waters of KEFJ is not known or

documented (A. Bennett, NPS SWAN, personal communication, 2005). The potential for the

spread of invasive species is substantial, with sources that include marine vessels, float planes,

and aquaculture in Cook Inlet. Bennett et al. (2006) highlight the particular concern surrounding

the continued northward migration of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), expansion

of the northern pike (Esox lucius) from the Susitna River drainage basin, and the introduction of

other non-native migrating species. Farmed Atlantic salmon in Washington State and British

Columbia are accidentally released into the North Pacific Ocean each year and may affect native

populations through disease, colonization, interbreeding, predation, habitat destruction, and

competition (ADFG, 2002b). These farmed fish are thriving in the wild with captures in both

British Columbia and Alaska, with the first catches of Atlantic salmon in Southeast Alaska in

1991 (ADFG, 2002b). Although ADFG has documented more than 700 catches of Atlantic

salmon in Alaskan waters, representing an estimated 3,000 immigrants per year, no Atlantic

salmon have been documented in southcentral/southwestern Alaska (T. Hamon, NPS King

Salmon, personal communication, 2005). The risk posed by northern pike to coastal watersheds

in the Gulf of Alaska (they are native to Bristol Bay drainages) stems from their propensity to

prey on small salmon and trout, thereby potentially restructuring fish communities (Bennett et al.

2006, Mann et al. 1998). If northern pike colonized coastal lakes and watersheds, they could

impact the natural pattern of colonization, succession, and niche specialization that would occur

as fish species successfully gain access to coastal lakes following glacial recession (T. Hamon,

NPS King Salmon, personal communication, 2005). Their ability to migrate to coastal drainages

is restricted due to their intolerance for changes in salinity. New Zealand mudsnails represent a

threat to freshwater systems, as they may impact the food chain for native trout and the physical

characteristics of streams themselves (ADFG 2002b).

Little is known about the potential threat of invasive species in the marine environment, but the

best-known invasive marine invertebrate species of concern is the green crab (Carcinus maenas)

which is originally from northern Europe, became established in California in the 1990s, and has

since become established in estuaries as far north as British Columbia (Vancouver Island and

possibly Queen Charlotte Island). Harbors near KEFJ are currently being monitored for the

species (Fritz Klasner, NPS Seward, written communication, 2009). Bacteria, viruses, and
120

parasites are also a threat to Alaskan waters because these can be easily introduced through

exotic species.

4.9. Insect Outbreaks and Disease Concerns

Unchecked spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks are a growing concern

throughout much of the southern Alaskan coastal region, particularly on the Kenai Peninsula.

Spruce bark beetles are native and play important roles in ecosystem processes; however, a

build-up of weakened trees may be conducive to spruce beetle population outbreaks which may

become destructive on a large scale (Manski 1986). Warming of the regional climate will likely

exacerbate the problem by speeding up reproductive cycles and reducing cold-induced mortality

(Bentz 2008, Berg et al. 2006). As part of the SWAN I&M Program, a tree-ring study is being

conducted in KATM and LACL to determine the extent of historic and modern bark beetle

outbreaks (see http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/

index.cfm?theme=insect_outbreak). Spruce beetle-caused tree mortality is exceptionally high on

the Kenai Peninsula but only slight in KEFJ, mainly confined to the Resurrection River corridor

(Snyder et al. 2008). Resultant large-scale tree mortality affects water resources through changes

in vegetative cover to streams, rates of soil adsorption of precipitation, extent of large woody

debris contributions to streams, and nutrient cycling in watersheds.

Figure 75. Map of spruce bark beetle mortality extent (1989–2004). From U.S. Forest Service & State of

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2004.

A disease of concern, the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus (H5N1 virus) has not been

detected in North America; however, the potential exists for it to enter Alaska via migratory

birds, particularly those coming from Asia. The Alaska Departments of Fish and Game, Health

and Social Services, and Environmental Conservation are currently collaborating with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and USGS Alaska Science Center to closely monitor wild birds,

primarily in western Alaska, for the presence of the virus (State of Alaska 2006) (see
121

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/avian_influenza/index.html). An outbreak of the virus has

the potential to decimate bird populations in the KEFJ region and elsewhere and have cascading

effects on the food web; however, it is difficult to foresee significant impacts on the quality and

quantity of water resources if the virus remains limited to birds and does not spread to other

species. Conversely, water bodies may support the spread of the virus because it can be

transmitted through water contact. In response to the threat of the avian flu, KEFJ initiated an

avian flu surveillance program in 2006, and no cases have been found to date (Wright 2007). In

2009, KEFJ Resource Management staff and coastal law enforcement rangers will be conducing

monthly surveys of coastal beaches (Bulldog Cove, North Verdant, Pederson, Northwestern Spit,

James Lagoon, and Aialik) for dead and injured birds as part of the Coast Observation and

Seabird Survey Team (COASST) (Klasner 2009). Additionally, KEFJ staff will be on the

lookout for potentially infected birds during all routine visit to the coast and during marine

mammal and bird surveys planned this summer as part of the SWAN I&M Program (Klasner

2009).

Finally, chytridiomycosis is an emerging infectious disease caused by a waterborne fungus that,

alone or in consort with other environmental stressors, has caused severe declines in amphibians.

Although wood frogs and chytrid fungus are not known to occupy the park currently, the fungus

could have impacted populations that historically may have occupied the park. Both have been

detected on the adjacent Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (S. Pyare, personal observation).

4.10. Harmful Algal Blooms

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are caused by a few dozen marine phytoplankton that produce

toxins. Although commonly called red tides, this term is misleading as with many HABs, there is

no discoloration to the water, and many seaweeds produce colored blooms. HABs cause

significant ecosystem, human health, and economic impacts (Anderson et al. 2000). HABs have

become a national and international research focus in the past decade. Most areas of the world

have some form(s) of harmful algal bloom, although the frequency, severity, and diversity vary

greatly. What is certain is that although HABs have been documented for centuries, they have

been occurring more frequently and in more areas during the past few decades (Anderson 1995,

Burke et al. 2000). HABs have caused mass mortalities of marine bird, mammal, and fish

populations, and have caused a variety of human illnesses that vary by type of toxic

phytoplankton or diatom. HABs are known to cause a variety of shellfish poisoning.

The largest problem caused by HABs in Alaska is paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) from

shellfish that have bioaccumulated the dinoflagellate Alexandrium sp. Alaska has one of the

highest incidences of reported PSP in the world (Gessner and Schloss 1996). Paralytic shellfish

poisoning can cause paralysis, gastrointestinal problems, and respiratory arrest and can be fatal if

prompt medical care and respiratory support are not available. There is no antidote. People have

died in Alaska from PSP as recently as a decade ago, and there is at least one human health

incident per year. Since 1973, there have been 176 incidences of PSP in Alaska from 66

outbreaks, with the majority in Southeast Alaska (Gessner 1996) (Figure 76).
122

Figure 76. Location of PSP outbreaks in Alaska Each star represents one or more outbreaks. Source:

Gessner (1996).

Little is known about the distribution or abundance of PSPs in KEFJ. The Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation is responsible for testing shellfish for PSP. Due to the geographic

extent of Alaska (more than 81,000 km [50,000 mi] of coastline) and the remote nature of many

regions of the state, shellfish are only tested for PSP in association with a commercial harvest or

mariculture facility. Non-commercial harvests are not tested, and people are advised not to eat

shellfish that they collect. More information is needed in order to evaluate if HABs are an issue

of concern in KEFJ. Any unusual incidences of mass mortalities of marine bird, mammal, and

fish populations should be suspected as possible HAB-related events. The National Park Service

should advise against non-commercial harvests of shellfish because of the risks associated with

PSP.
123

5. Condition overview and recommendations

5.1 Condition Overview

Based on our research of available data and our best professional judgment, we summarize the

potential, existing, and probably future stressors of aquatic resources in KEFJ in the following

table (Table 20).

Table 20. Water resources-related indicators and current/potential stressors of aquatic resources in Kenai

Fjords National Park.

Indicator Freshwater Intertidal,

Bays, Estuaries

& Salt Marshes

Coastal waters

Water Quality

Nutrients/ Eutrophication OK OK OK

Contaminants OK OK OK

Hypoxia OK OK OK

Temperature OK OK OK

Turbidity (non-glacial) OK OK OK

Pathogens OK OK OK

Habitat Disruption

Climate change EP EP EP

Oil spills NA EP EP

Aquatic/marine invasive species PP PP PP

Exotic plant species EP PP NA

Insect outbreaks and disease EP PP NA

Coastal development PP PP NA

Water quantity/ withdrawals OK NA NA

Natural geologic hazards IP IP IP
124

Indicator Freshwater Intertidal,

Bays, Estuaries

& Salt Marshes

Coastal waters

Natural coastal uplift and erosion OK IP OK

Historic mine sites EP PP OK

Logging in private inholdings OK OK OK

Flooding EP NA NA

Recreational usage

Coastal tour boats and kayaks PP PP PP

Backcountry camping, hiking PP PP NA

Other Indicators

Harmful algal blooms NA OK OK

Definitions: EP= existing problem, IP= Intermittent Problem, PP = potential problem, OK= no

detectable problem, shaded =limited data, NA= not applicable.

The three main stressors to KEFJ coastal water resources are oil spills, climate change, and

coastal visitor use. Less-pressing threats include exotic plant introductions, abandoned mine

sites, snowmachine use, and backcountry hiking, camping, and cabin use. Several natural

geologic issues are major drivers of change in KEFJ as well, including earthquakes, subsidence,

uplift, and regional volcanic activity, which threaten coastal resources especially when

considering the cumulative impacts of natural and anthropogenic stressors.

5.2 Recommendations

The SWAN is currently implementing their Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, which is based on a

tremendous research and planning effort that is certain to greatly expand the current level of

understanding of water and other resources in the network. Most of the main issues and data gaps

that we initially identified throughout our research for this project are being addressed, or are

planning to be addressed, according to the Vital Signs Monitoring Plan (Bennett et al. 2006).

During the course of writing this report, we identified data gaps and areas in which further

investigation or monitoring is warranted, or at least recommended if resources become available

beyond the I&M Program. These recommendations are listed in Table 21 and described in the 

following sections.
125

Table 21. List of recommendations.

A. Inter-agency coordination

B. Data and mapping availability, access, and management 

1. Online archives of NPS publications and reports, publicly accessible

2. Integration and development of information into centralized and web-accessible GIS

3. Derivation of a GIS-based biophysical classification system for coastal watershed conditions

4. Derivation of a higher-resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

C. Water quality

1. Oil spill response planning

2. Assessment of threat from atmospheric and marine-derived contaminants

3. Expansion on efforts to establish baseline freshwater water quality and watershed condition

D. Biological resources and habitats

1. Vessel impacts

2. Invasive species survey

3. Planning for natural hazards

4. Wetlands inventory

E. Hydrology and Oceanography

1. Glacier monitoring

2. Water management

3. Streamflow gaging

5.2.1. Interagency Management

Possibly the largest impediment to effective coastal management issues is an apparent lack of

connectivity and coordination among agencies and Native corporations whose jurisdictions over

places and biota practically overlap. For example, NMFS is empowered to oversee issues

concerning marine mammals; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages seabird populations;

the State of Alaska has jurisdiction of coastal waters below the mean high tide line, including

commercial fisheries; the National Park Service and Native corporations manage lands above

mean high tide; and all the while private tourboat operators (with no business permits within the

park) navigate coastal waters and impact many of these marine, intertidal, and terrestrial

resources. There is little effort to coordinate management of the coastal areas of KEFJ that

include extraordinary (and in some cases threatened/endangered) biological resources and are

undergoing major surges in visitor use while feeling the impacts of climate warming, oil spill

recovery, exotic species introductions, and natural geologic forces. Our overarching

recommendation is therefore to greatly increase the amount of planning, monitoring, and

remedial actions the National Park Service conducts with other agencies and to seriously explore

the possibility of establishing a Marine Protected Area along the KEFJ coast.

5.2.2. Data and Mapping Availability, Access, and Management

Online archives of NPS publications and reports, publicly accessible: A large number of NPSrelated documents are available in electronic format online through NatureBib. However, several

important documents, (e.g., the Bennett (2005) water quality survey of KEFJ) were not

obtainable through this searchable database, and although many citations are listed for KEFJ,

only a fraction (typically the most recent ones) have downloadable files attached to the citation

information. We recommend continuing the effort of adding old and new report files to the

NatureBib database.
126

Integration and development of information into centralized and web-accessible GIS: Data from

surveys, monitoring activities, impairments, and inventories should be integrated into a

centralized and publicly accessible web format, with study locations geographically referenced

and integrated with the current web-accessible NPS GIS clearinghouse

(http://www.nps.gov/akso/gis/).

Derivation of a GIS-based biophysical classification system for coastal watershed conditions: 

GIS and remote sensing data for KEFJ could be improved, in particular through development of

an ecologically based classification system of coastal watershed conditions. This and other useful

classified products for water resource monitoring could be developed through a stepwise remotesensing procedure that first involves development of a training dataset derived from a

combination of existing ecological/physiographic data sources and ShoreZone data, which has

been reasonably ground-truthed and mapped at a reasonable spatial resolution. Multispectral

IKONOS imagery that was recently acquired for KEFJ could be used in consort with training

data to adequately classify the entire coastal study area, as well as derive other hydrological

parameters within the park, such as the extent of permanent snowfields and the number and

aerial coverage of lakes and ponds.

Derivation of a higher-quality Digital Elevation Model (DEM): We recommend acquisition of a

complete, consistent, and accurate digital elevation model at a higher resolution (e.g., 10 m) than

what is currently available for the KEFJ. Topographic data are currently provided by either a

statewide 60-m USGS DEM of moderate accuracy and/or a 90-m DEM from the Space Shuttle

Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). Although these may be sufficient for basic terrain

visualization and orthorectification of imagery, a high-quality DEM would be more valuable for

analytical purposes relating to the monitoring of coastal watershed conditions. In particular, a

high quality DEM would be beneficial for more accurately delineating coastal watersheds and

drainages and monitoring glacial recession, as well as supporting a fine-scale ecological

classification for terrestrial portions of coastal watersheds, as described above. A sub-meter

scale, LiDAR-based DEM has been created in coastal areas of Resurrection Bay outside of KEFJ

boundaries, and this type of resource could be extended to coastal areas of KEFJ.

5.2.3. Water Quality

Oil spill response planning: The National Park Service should continue its partnership with other

responsible agencies (Coast Guard, ADEC, etc.) to further develop and maintain GRS and oil

spill response plans for the KEFJ coast. The National Park Service and its partners may want to

collaborate with organizations developing circulation models for Prince William Sound and the

Gulf of Alaska to predict potential oil spill trajectories. The National Park Service may want to

monitor future expansion of oil and gas facilities in the region.

Assessment of threat from atmospheric and marine-derived contaminants: SWAN should

continue its recently initiated efforts to assess the threat from global-scale pollutants such as

mercury and POPs. Because these pollutants are not derived from localized sources, monitoring

these pollutants in one park within the network would provide information that would be useful

for assessing general impacts in the other NPS units. However, data specifically from KEFJ

would be best, as distances and landscape differences among park units are large, and to our

knowledge there are currently no contaminants studies conducted in the freshwater/terrestrial

areas of KEFJ. Recently initiated studies of contaminants in mussel tissues along coastal KEFJ
127

will provide important information on marine contaminants and should be continued for longterm trend detection. Recently published results of the WACAP project also provide important

information on contaminants in Alaska, as well as protocols for sampling of parameters such as

snow, lake water, sediment, lichens, and fish and other subsistence foods that may be of use for

future contaminant monitoring plans. SWAN should also monitor results coming from the

Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sites recently launched by the State of Alaska in nearby

Kodiak and by the National Park Service in GLBA in southeastern Alaska.

Expansion on efforts to establish baseline freshwater water quality and watershed condition: 

Very little information is available on water quality in the KEFJ. Although the implementation of

the Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the SWAN will greatly enhance the understanding of

baseline freshwater water quality in Exit Creek, no other water bodies in KEFJ will be subject to

annual monitoring. Although the remote and challenging access and terrain in KEFJ create

difficult and expensive logistical constraints, it would be relatively simple and cost effective to

set out low-maintenance temperature loggers in a variety of coastal streams. These could provide

long-term, reliable data on temperature variations in the streams and may provide the most

achievable way of monitoring the impacts of climate change on streamwaters. In addition, it

would be valuable to build on the baseline water quality survey of a subset of coastal streams

conducted by Bennett (2005). That study measured only core water quality parameters (pH,

temperature, dissolved oxygen [DO], specific conductance, and turbidity), but in the terms of

establishing baseline information on stream water conditions, it would be beneficial to revisit the

streams and to add parameters such as total dissolved solids (TDS), organic and inorganic

nitrogen and phosphorus, sulfate, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), DOC quality, trace elements,

organic pollutants, and inventories of macroinvertebrate communities.

5.2.4. Biological Resources and Habitats

Vessel impacts: Very limited information on vessel impacts on biological resources and habitats

are available. Additional studies, including estimates on the number of visitors, are needed.

Potential impacts of vessels include marine mammal and bird disturbance/harassment, noise

pollution, and impacts of boat wakes. The National Park Service currently has no control over

the actions of private operators that use motorized tour boats to closely approach marine

mammals. However, KEFJ has an agreement with three of the tour boat operators to staff NPS

rangers on the tourboats. This should be encouraged for all tour boat operators in the area, and

rangers are encouraged to report any potentially threatening activity by boat captains to the

appropriate agencies.

Invasive species survey: Invasive species work in KEFJ has focused on vegetation, but aquatic

and marine environments should be surveyed as well. Additionally, freshwater streams should be

checked for the presence of potential invasive species such as northern pike or Atlantic salmon.

We recommend that vegetative and animal invasive/exotic species surveys not be limited to

areas of dense human use but that they extend into more remote areas of the park, especially in

light of growing visitor use of distant coastal areas. Areas that should be surveyed for

invasive/exotic species introduction include the area around the new lodge in Pedersen Lagoon,

backcountry cabins and camping areas, and the upper Nuka River where heavy equipment and

operators visit for maintenance of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.
128

Planning for natural hazards: Future tectonic activity is inevitable in and near KEFJ, and the

likely impacts of an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, and/or catastrophic flood may have

devastating short-term consequences to park resources despite some long-term benefits.

Although the timing and magnitude of such natural events cannot be manipulated by resource

managers, certain measures can be taken to minimize secondary damage incurred by the

destruction of human-related infrastructure. For example, the National Park Service should be

actively involved in oil spill prevention and response planning and in the rerouting of marine and

air traffic away from the area so that these vessels and any hazardous materials they may contain

will not injure KEFJ resources in the event of their destruction.

Wetlands inventory: The extent of wetlands resources in the park is not well documented. KEFJ

staff should work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop National Wetlands

Inventory (NWI) maps for KEFJ.

5.2.5. Hydrology and Oceanography

Glacier monitoring: SWAN is currently monitoring glacial extent (a two-dimensional

measurement), but it would be more informative to monitor glacier mass balance. Obtaining

LIDAR imagery of all the glaciers would allow for far more accurate measurements of glacial

change. These data would also aid in estimating the amount of freshwater flux coming off the

glaciers (including tidewater glaciers that lack streams) and flowing into the Gulf of Alaska.

Additionally, as many glaciers retreat and go from being tidewater to land-based, tremendous

changes are expected, including formation of new streams; changes in sediment supply, salinity,

and temperature; circulation in receiving fjords; and the many cascading effects on biota, such as

Kittlitz’s murrelets, that are closely tied to glacial landform features.

Water management: The problem of frequent and sometimes destructive flooding in the Exit

Creek visitor center area is one that is unlikely to be fully resolved due to the nature of the everchanging geologic environment: the retreating glacier with productive summertime flows, steep

tributary streams that are prone to massive flooding during fall rainstorms, and the shifting, soft

alluvium that underlies the developments, trails, and roads. Certain measures can be taken to

help minimize the damage, as pointed out by Martin (2005). We recommend that KEFJ heed his

recommendation to remove trail fill that blocks one of the channels in order to provide flow

passage and to reinstate flow into an adjacent wetland area. Further development in the area is

not recommended.

No further action is recommended regarding water management of the Nuka River diversion area

along the KEFJ boundary.

Streamflow gaging: Logistical and cost constraints understandably limit streamgaging by the

SWAN I&M Program to just one site (Exit Creek), but we recommend that more streams be

gaged in KEFJ, perhaps in partnership with other federal and state agencies. The Nuka River is

an obvious choice site, because it has historic gages operated by the USGS. With its numerous

glaciers and inclusion of one of the largest icefield in the USA, KEFJ is particularly sensitive to a

warming climate, and measuring streamflow on KEFJ glacial streams would provide highly

valuable information on the timing and magnitude of meltwater fluxes into the Gulf of Alaska.
129

6. References

ACIA (300 authors). 2006. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Scientific Report (ISBN-13:

9780521865098 | ISBN-10: 0521865093). DOI: 10.2277/0521865093.

Adalgeirsdottir, G., K. A. Echelmeyer, and W. D. Harrison. 1998. Elevation and volume changes

on the Harding Icefield, Alaska. Journal of Glaciology 44:570–582.

ADEC. 2002. Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program: The impact of

cruise ship wastewater discharge on Alaska waters. Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation Science Advisory Panel.

———. 2008. Geographic response strategies for Alaska. Places of Refuge for Alaska. 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/ppor/home.htm

ADFG. 1999. Division of Commercial Fisheries annual management report - Bristol Bay area.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2002a. Alaska aquatic nuisance species management plan. Alaska Department of Fish

and Game.

———. 2002b. Atlantic salmon - a white paper. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

Commissioner's Office, Juneau, Alaska.

AKNHP. 2000. Expected species list (unpublished data). Alaska Natural History Program,

Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2008. 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards

as amended through July 1, 2008.

Alaska Volcano Observatory. 1998. Volcanoes of Alaska: information circular 38.

———. 2009. Redoubt activity available from(http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/Redoubt.php).

Accessed 1 April 2009.

AMAP. 2004. AMAP assessment report: arctic pollution issues: persistent organic pollutants,

heavy metals, radioactivity, human health, changing pathways. Arctic Monitoring and

Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.

Anderson, D. M. 1995. ECOHAB: The ecology and oceanography of harmful algal blooms - a 

national research agenda, WHOI.

Anderson, D. M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A. W. White. 2000. Estimated annual economic 

impacts from harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the United States. Woods Hole Sea Grant,

WHOI-2000-11.

Andres, B. A., and R. E. J. Gill. 2000. U. S. shorebird conservation plan: a conservation plan for

Alaska shorebirds. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management.
130

Arendt, A. A., K. A. Echelmeyer, W. D. Harrison, C. S. Lingle, and V. B. Valentine. 2002. 

Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level. Science

29:382–386.

Arimitsu, M. L., J. F. Piat, M. D. Romano, and J. Conaway. 2008. Kittlitz's and marbled

murrelets in Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska: At-sea distribution and abundance, and

foraging habitat. 2007 annual report to the National Park Service. U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Bailey, E. P. 1977. Distribution and abundance of marine birds and mammals along the south sde 

of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. The Murrelet 58 (3):58–72.

Barsdate, R. J. and R. C.Dungdale. 1972. Effects of volcanic ashfalls on chemical and sediment

characteristics of two Alaskan lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:229–236.

Beikman, H. M. 1980. Geologic map of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Map SB0002-1T and

2T. Also available online at (http://agdc.usgs.gov/data/usgs/geology/index.html), scale

1:2,500,000.

Ben-David, M., H. Golden, and I. D. Marin. 2005. River otters (Lontra canadensis) in Prince

William Sound and Kenai Fjords National park: distribution, relative abundance, and

minimum population size based on coastal latrine site surveys. National Park Service.

Bennett, A., R. Thompson, and D. C. Mortenson. 2006. Vital signs monitoring plan: National

Park Service Southwest Alaska Network. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Bennett, L. 2005. Baseline water quality inventory for the Southwest Alaska Inventory and

Monitoring Network, Kenai Fjords National Park. National Park Service, Anchorage,

Alaska.

Bentz, B. 2008 Western U.S. bark beetles and climate change (May 20, 2008). U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center.

(http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/bark-beetles.shtml). Accessed 1 April 2009.

Berg, E. E., J. D. Henry, C. L. Fastie, A. D. DeVolder, and S. M. Matsuoka. 2006. Spruce beetle

outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Preserve,

Yukon Territory: relationship to summer temperatures and regional differences in

disturbance regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 227:217–232.

Bodkin, J. L., T. A. Dean, H. A. Coletti, and K. A. Kloecker. 2008. Nearshore marine monitoring 

in the Southwest Alaska Network of National Parks. National Park Service. Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Boggs, K., S. C. Klein, L.Flagstad, T. Boucher, J. Grunblatt, and B. Koltun. 2008. Landcover

classes, ecological systems and plant associations, Kenai Fjords National Park. Natural

Resource Technical Report NRTR—2008/136. National Park Service.
131

Bograd, S. J., P. J. Stabeno, and J. D. Schumacher. 1994. A census of mesoscale eddies in

Shelikof Strait, Alaska, during 1989. Journal of Geophysical Research 99:18,243–

18,254.

Boucher, T., C. Lindsay, and A. Miller. 2009. "From ice to alder: characterizing a half-century of

vegetation change in Kenai Fjords National Park. Southwest Alaska Network Science."

Symposium 2009: Understanding how park ecosystems are changing. Third biennial

long-term monitoring symposium. April 1, 2009, Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward.

Brabets, T. P., G.L. Nelson, J.M. Dorava, and A.M. Milner. 1999. Water-quality assessment of

the Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska – environmental setting. U.S. Geological Survey

(http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Publications/recent.htm) Accessed 1 April 2009.

Bricker, S. B., C. G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S. P. Orlando, and D. R. G.Farrow. 1999. National

Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's

Estuaries. NOAA—NOS Special Projects Office, 1999.

Burke, L., Y. Kura, K. Kassem, C. Revenga, M. Spaulding, and D. McAllister. 2000. Pilot

analysis of global ecosystems (PAGE): coastal ecosystems. World Resources Institute.

Burrell, D. C. 1983. Patterns of carbon supply and distribution and oxygen renewal in two

Alaskan fjords. Sedimentary Geology 36:93–115.

Carlson, M., R. Lipkin, and J. Michaelson. 2005. Southwest Alaska Network Vascular plant

inventory, final summary report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/AKR/SWAN/NRTR-2005/06, p. 38.

Christensen, J. R., M. MacDuffee, R. W. Macdonald, M. Whiticar, and P. S. Ross. 2005. 

Persistent organic pollutants in British Columbia grizzly bears: Consequence of divergent

diets. Environmental Science and Technology 39(18):6952–6960.

Cieutat, B. A., R. J. Goldfarb, J. C. Borden, J. McHugh, and C. D. Taylor. 1994. Environmental

geochemistry of mesothermal gold deposits, Kenai Fjords National Park, south-central

Alaska. Pages 21–25 in A. B. Till and T. E. Moore, editors. Geologic studies in Alaska

by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1993. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 217.

Cohen, S. C., and Freymueller, J. T. 1997. Deformation on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal

of Geophysical Research 102(20):479–487.

———. 2001. Crustal uplift in the south central Alaska subduction zone: new analysis and

interpretation of tide gauge observations. Journal of Geophysical Research

106(6):11259–11270.

Coletti, H. A., and J. L. Bodkin. 2009. Southwest Alaska Network Inventory & Monitoring

Program resource brief: marine birds available from

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/Libraries/Resource_Brief/Resource_Brief_

Marine_Birds_FINAL_20090313.pdf). Accessed 1 April 2009.
132

Coletti, H. A., J. L. Bodkin, T. A. Dean, and K. A. Kloecker. 2009. Nearshore marine vital signs 

monitoring in the Southwest Alaska Network of National Parks. National Park Service.

Colt, S., S. Martin, J. Mieren, and M. Tomeo. 2002. Recreation and tourism in south-central

Alaska: patterns and prospects. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.

Cook, J. A., and S. O. MacDonald. 2005. Mammal inventory of Alaska's national parks and

preserves: Southwest Alaska Network. Final report to the National Park Service,

December 2005, p. 1–57.

Cook, L., and F. Norris. 1998. A stern and rock-bound coast: Kenai Fjords National Park

Historic Resource Study.

Crawford, W. R., J. Y. Cherniawsky, M. G. G. Foreman, and J. F. R. Gower. 2002. Formation of

the Haida-1998 oceanic eddy. Journal Of Geophysical Research-Oceans 107(C7).

Crowell, A. L., and D. H. Mann. 1996. Sea level dynamics, glaciers, and archeology along the

central Gulf of Alaska Coast. Arctic Anthropology 33(2):16–37.

Day, R. D., S. S. Vander Pol, S. J. Christopher, W. C. Davis, R. S. Pugh, K. Simac, D. G. 

Roseneau, and P. R. Becker. 2006. Murre eggs (Uria aalge and Uria Iomvia) as

indicators of mercury contamination in the Alaskan marine environment. Environmental

Science and Technology 40(3):659–665.

Edmundson, J. A., and A. Mazumder. 2001. Linking growth of juvenile sockeye salmon to

habitat temperature in Alaskan lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

130:644–662.

Eicher, G. J., and G. A. Rounsefell. 1957. Effects of lake fertilization by volcanic activity on

abundance of salmon. Limnology and Oceanography II(2):70–76.

Engstrom, D. R., and S. C. Fritz. 1988. Early lake ontogeny following neoglacial ice recession at 

Glacier Bay, Alaska. Pages 127–132 in A. M. Milner and. J.D. Wood Jr., eds.,

Proceedings of the second Glacier Bay Science Symposium. Glacier Bay Lodge, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage.

Engstrom, D. R., S. C. Fritz, J. E. Almendinger, and S. Juggins. 2000. Chemical and biological 

trends during lake evolution in recently deglaciated terrain. Nature 408:161-166.

Engstrom, D. R., and E. B. Swain. 1997. Recent declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in

the upper midwest. Environmental Science and Technology 31:960–967.

EPA. 2001. National recommended water quality criteria available from 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/).

———. 2002. Persistent organic pollutants: a global issue, a global response. Office of 

International Affairs, EPA 160-F-02-001. 
133

Ewald, G., P. Larsson, H. Linge, L. Okla, and N. Szarzi. 1998. Biotransport of organic pollutants 

to an inland Alaska lake by migrating sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Arctic 51:40-47.

Fitzgerald, W. F., D. R. Engstrom, C. H. Lamborg, and P. H. Balcom. 2006. 2006 progress 

report: natural and anthropogenic sources of mercury to the atmosphere: global and

regional contributions. Submitted to STAR Program, National Center for Environmental

Research, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.

Fitzgerald, W. F., D. R. Engstrom, C. H. Lamborg, C. M. Tseng, P. H. Balcom, and C. R. 

Hammerschmidt. 2005. Modern and historic atmospheric mercury fluxes in northern

Alaska: global source and arctic depletion. Environmental Science and Technology

39:557–568.

Fitzgerald, W. F., D. R. Engstrom, R. P. Mason, and E. A. Nater. 1998. The case for atmospheric

mercury contamination in remote areas. Environmental Science and Technology 32:1–7.

Fountain, A. G., R. B. Schlicting, R. W. Jacobel, and P. Jansson. 2005. Fractures as main

pathways of water flow in temperate glaciers. Nature 433:618–621.

Fritz, S. C., and D.R. Engstrom. 1995. Patterns of early lake ontogeny in Glacier Bay as inferred 

from diatom assemblages. Pages 147-153 in D.R. Engstrom, ed., Proceedings of the third 

Glacier Bay Science Symposium: September 15-18, 1993, Glacier Bay Lodge, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Fritz, S. C., D. R. Engstrom, and S. Juggins. 2004. Patterns of early lake evolution in boreal 

landscapes: a comparison of stratigraphic inferences with a modern chronosequence in 

Glacier Bay, Alaska. The Holocene 14:828-840.

Gessner, B. D. 1996. Epidemiology of paralytic shellfish poisoning outbreaks in Alaska. Alaska's

Marine Resources 8(2):16–17.

Gessner, B. D., and M. Schloss. 1996. A population-based study of paralytic shell fish poisoning

in Alaska. Alaska Medicine 38(2):54–58.

Giffen, B. A., D. K. Hall, and J. Y. L. Chien. 2009. GLIMS: Alaska: Glaciers of Kenai Fjords

National Park and Katmai National Park and Preserve available from 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/Libraries/Reports/DRAFT_GLIMS_Chapter

_12_Alaska_20080904_compressed.pdf). Accessed 1 April 2009.

Glass, R. L. 1996. Ground-water conditions and quality in the western part of the Kenai

Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska. Open File

Report 96–466.

Glass, R. L., T. P. Brabets, S. A. Frenzel, M. S. Whitman, and R. T. Ourso. 2001. Ground water

quality in the Cook Inlet Basin Alaska, 1998–2001. U.S. Geological Survey. Available

through USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado.
134

———. 2004. Water quality in the Cook Inlet Basin Alaska, 1998–2001. U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Griffiths, L., L. Stromquist, J, Troutman, R. Falkenrath, and P. Armato. 1999. Nuka Bay mine

site reconnaissance and characterization survey report. National Park Service, Kenai

Fjords National Park, Seward, Alaska.

Hahr, M. 2008a. 2007 Summary of brown and black bear activity. National Park Service, Kenai

Fjords National Park, Seward, Alaska.

———. 2008b. Seabird colony survey trip report 2007: Kenai Fjords National Park. Kenai

Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska, p. 15.

Hall, D. K. 1988. Assessment of climate change using satellite technology. Reviews of

Geophysics 26:26–39.

Hall, D. K., B. A. Giffen, and J. Y. I. Chien. 2005. Changes in the Harding Icefield and the

Grewingh-Yalik Glacier Complex. 62nd Eastern Snow Conference, Waterloo, Ontario,

Canada, 29–40.

Hall, S., J. Ireland, T. D. DeBruyn, and M. Hahr. 2007. Kenai Fjords National Park interim bear

management plan. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska, p.

81.

Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaska and west

coast Pacific salmon. Fisheries [Fisheries] 24(1):6–15.

Harper, J. 2004. ShoreZone mapping data, Katmai, Alaska - draft. Coastal & Ocean Resources

Inc. and Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., for the National Park Service.

Heggie, D. T., and D. C. Burrell. 1981. Deep water renewals and oxygen consumption in an

Alaskan fjord. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 13:83–99.

Helm, D. J., and E. G. Allen. 1995. Vegetation chronosequence near Exit Glacier, Kenai Fjords

National Park, Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 27(3):246–257.

Hoessle, K. 2008. Fact sheet on Kenai Fjords Glacier Lodge: fact sheet given to the National 

Park Service by Alaska Wildland Adventure, Inc.

Hood, D. W., and S. T. Zimmerman. 1986. Gulf of Alaska: physical environment and biological 

resources. NOAA Ocean Assessment Division - Alaska Office, Washington, D.C.

Hood, E., and L. Berner. 2009. The effects of changing glacial coverage of the physical and

biogeochemical properties of streams in southeastern Alaska. Journal of Geophysical

Research, in press.

Hood, E., and D. Scott. 2008. Riverine organic matter and nutrients in southeast Alaska affected

by glacial coverage. Nature Geoscience 1:583–587.
135

Hoover-Miller, A. 2004. OASLC Cooperative Conservation Initiative Program, Aialik Bay

harbor seal research, 2003 progress report: report to the National Park Service, February

2004.

Horowitz, A. J., C. R. Dems, K. K, Fitzgerald, T. L. Miller, and D. A. Rickert. 1994. U.S.

Geological Survey protocol for the collection and processing of surface-water samples

for the subsequent determination of inorganic constituents in filtered water. U.S.

Geological Survey. Open-File Report 94-539.

Hyland, J., L. Balthis, I. Karakassis, P. Magni, A. Petrov, J. Shine, O. Vestergaard, and R. 

Warwick. 2005. Organic carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress in marine

benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295:91–103.

Incze, L. S., A. W. Kendall, J. D. Schumacher, and R. K. Reed. 1989. Interactions of a mesoscale

patch of larval fish (Theragra chalcogramma) with the Alaska Coastal Current.

Continental Shelf Research 9:269–284.

IPCC. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report – climate

change 2007: the scientific basis available from (http://www.ipcc.ch/).

Johnson, J., and E. Weiss. 2006. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration

of anadromous fishes – effective March 1, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

Special Publication No. 06-03.

Jones, T. M., L. Bennett, and T. R. Hamon. 2005. Baseline inventory of freshwater fishes of the

Southwest Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network: Alagnak Wild River, Aniakchak

NM and Preserve, Katmai NP and Preserve, Kenai Fjords NP, and Lake Clark NP.

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/AKRSWAN/NRTR-2005/04. Inventory and

Monitoring Program, Southwest Alaska Network, National Park Service.

Karl, T. R., and K. E. Trenberth. 2003. Modern global climate change. Science 302:1719–1723.

Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1992. Kenai Peninsula Borough comprehensive plan, May 1992.

Soldotna, Alaska.

Klasner, F. L. 2008a. Exit Glacier – flowing at a glacial pace. Kenai Fjords National Park,

National Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 2.

———. 2008b. Exit glacier extent – 2007 annual report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National

Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 2.

———. 2009. Resource management news, summer 2009. Resource Management Team, Kenai

Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska, unpublished report.

Kovak, S. 2008. Nuka Bay mine site condition assessment trip 6/11/2007 through 6/14/2007.

Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska.
136

Kriedeman, C. L. 2007. Harding Icefield Trail impact monitoring. Kenai Fjords National Park,

National Park Service, Seward, Alaska, p. 17.

———. 2008. Harding Icefield Trail hiker encounter survey summary 2007. Kenai Fjords

National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 4.

Krümmel, E. M., R. W. Macdonald, L. E. Kimpe, I. Gregory–Eaves, M. J. Demers, J. P. Smol,

B. Finney, and J. M. Blais. 2003. Delivery of pollutants by spawning salmon. Nature

425:255-256.

Kucklick, J. R., S. S. V. Pol, P. R. Becker, R. S. Pugh, K. Simac, G. W. York, and D. G. 

Roseneau. 2002. Persistent organic pollutants in murre eggs from the Gulf of Alaska and

Bering Sea. Organohalogen Compounds 59:13–16.

Kuletz, K. J., D. K. Marks, N. L. Naglund, N. J. Goodson, and M. B. Cody. 1995. Inland habitat

suitability for the Marbled Murrelet in Southcentral Alaska. USDA Forest Service Ge.

Tech. Rep. PSW-152. USDA Forest Service.

Kurtz, D. 2008. Invasive plant management in Kenai Fjords National Park summer 2008 field

season report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska.

Kyle, R. E., and T. P. Brabets. 2001. Water temperature of streams in the Cook Inlet basin,

Alaska, and implications of climate change. Water Resources Investigations Report 01-

4109 (available from the U.S. Geological Survey), p. 24.

Landers, D. H., S. Simonich, D. Jaffe, L. Geiser, D. H. Campbell, A. Schwindt, C. Shreck, M. 

Kent, W. Hafner, H. E. Taylor, K. Hageman, S. Usenko, L. Ackerman, J. E. Schrlau, N. 

Rose, T. Blett, and M. M. Erway. 2008. The fate, transport, and ecological impacts of

airborne contaminants in western national parks (USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL,

Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.

Lawson, D. E. 1993. Glaciohydrologic and glaciohydraulic effects on runoff and sediment yield

in glacierized basins. CREEL Monograph 93-2.

Lees, D. C., and W. B. Driskell. 2006. Intertidal reconnaissance survey to assess composition,

distribution, and habitat of marine/estuarine infauna in soft sediments in the Southwest

Alaska Network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/AKRSWAN/NRTR-2006-01,

p. 51. National Park Service.

Lenz, J., T. Gotthardt, M. Kelly, and R. Lipkin. 2001. A bibliography of vascular plant and

vertebrate species references for Katmai National Park and Preserve. A supplemental

report to the final report – compilation of existing species data in Alaska's national parks.

Alaska Natural Heritage Program for the National Park Service. Available through

NatureBib.
137

Lenz, J., T. Gotthardt, R. Lipkin, and M. Kelly. 2002. Final report: compilation of existing

species data in Alaska's National Parks. Alaska Natural Heritage Program for National

Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program, Alaska Region.

Lindberg, S. E., S. Brooks, C. J. Lin, K. J. Scott, M. S. Landis, R. K. Stevens, M. Goodsite, and

A. Richter. 2002. Dynamic oxidation of gaseous mercury in the arctic troposphere at

polar sunrise. Environmental Science and Technology 36:1245–1256.

Lindsay, C., and F. L. Klasner. 2009. Annual climate summary for 2007–2008 Kenai Fjords

National Park. National Park Service, Kenai Fjords National Park, Seward, Alaska.

Lloyd, D. S. 1987. Turbidity as a water quality standard for salmonid habitats in Alaska. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:34–45.

Lloyd, D. S., J. P. Koenings, and J. D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of

Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:18–33.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse

biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine

sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81–97.

Maniscalco, J., S. Atkinson, and P. Armato. 2002. Early maternal care and pup survival in Stellar

sea lions: a remote video monitoring project in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Arctic

Research of the United States 16:36–41.

Maniscalco, J. M., C. O. Matkin, D. Maldini, D. G. Calkins, and S. Atkinson. 2007. Assessing

killer whale predation on Steller sea lions from field observations in Kenai Fjords,

Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 23(2):306–321.

Mann, D. H. 1998. Geological and paleo-environmental investigations in Kenai Fjords National

Park during the 1993 SAIP survey in Crowell and Mann, editors. Archaeology and

coastal dynamics of Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska. National Park Service,

Anchorage, Alaska.

Mann, D. H., A. L. Crowell, T. D. Hamilton, and B. P. Finney. 1998. Holocene geologic and

climatic history around the Gulf of Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 35:112–131.

Manski, D. 1986. Spruce beetles in Katmai National park and Preserve: a survey of baseline

conditions. National Park Service.

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific

interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the

American Meteorological Society 78(6):1069–1080.

Martin, M. 2005. Floodplain reconnaissance at Exit Glacier and other areas, KEFO. National

Park Service, Water Resource Division, Memorandum, p. 9.

Mason, C. F. 1996. Biology of freshwater pollution. Longman, London.
138

Mathews, E. A., and G. W. Pendleton. 2006. Declines in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) numbers

in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 1992–2002. Marine Mammal Science 22(1):167–

189.

Mauger, S. 2005. Lower Kenai Peninsula's salmon streams: annual water quality assessment.

Homer Soil and Water Conservation District and Cook Inlet Keepers.

Mecklenburg, C. W., T. A. Mecklenburg, and L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Meyer, J. L., and W. M. Pulliam. 1992. Modification of terrestrial-aquatic interactions by a

changing climate. Pages 177–191 in P. Firth and S. G. Fisher, editors. Global climate 

change and freshwater ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Miller, A., T. Jorgenson, and M. Carlson. 2009a. Sensitive plant communities: Southwest Alaska

Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Resource Brief available from 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/Libraries/Resource_Brief/Resource_Brief_S

ens_Plant_Comm_FINAL_20090313.pdf). Accessed 1 April 2009.

Miller, A., R. Kennedy, and W. Cohen. 2009b. Vegetation composition and structure. Southwest

Alaska Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Resource Brief available from 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/Libraries/Resource_Brief/Resource_Brief_V

eg_Comp_Stru_FINAL_20090313.pdf). Accessed 1 April 2009.

Miller, A., P. Spencer, M. Carlson, and R. Lipkin. 2006. Vascular plant inventory & baseline

monitoring of nunatak communities (2005), Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and

Kenai Fjords National Park. National Park Service, Southwest Alaska Network, 

Anchorage, Alaska, p. 43.

Miller, T. P., and R. L. Smith. 1987. Late Quaternary caldera-forming eruptions in the eastern

Aleutian arc, Alaska. Geology 15:434–438.

Milner, A. M., C. L. Fastie, F. S. I. Chapin, D. E. Engstrom, and L. C. Sharman. 2007. 

Interactions and linkages among ecosystems during landscape evolution. BioScience

57(3):237.

Milner, A. M., A. L. Robertson, K. A. Monaghan, A. J. Veal, and E. A. Flory. 2008. 

Colonization and development of an Alaskan stream community over 28 years. Frontiers

in Ecology and the Environment 6.

Milner, A. M., and G. S. York. 2001. Factors influencing fish productivity in a newly formed

watershed in Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska. Archives in Hydrobiology 151(4):627–

647.

Molnia, B. F. 2007. Late nineteenth to early twenty-first century behavior of Alaskan glaciers as

indicators of changing regional climate. Global and Planetary Change 56:23–56.
139

Monz, C. 2005. Monitoring visitor use and associated impacts in the Southwest Alaska Network

Parks. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/AKRSWAN/NRTR-2005/01.

National Park Service.

Moran, S. C. 2003. Multiple seismogenic processes for high-frequency earthquakes at Katmai 

National Park, Alaska: evidence from stress tensors inversions of fault-plane solutions: 

Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 93(1):94-108.

Moran, S. C., J. F. Paskievitch, J. A. Power, G. Tytgat, S. R. McNutt, and S. Estes. 2005. 

Seismicity from a decade of recordings by Alaska Volcano Observatory Seismic

Networks in Alaskan national parks in Southwest Alaska Parks Science and Research

Symposium – Research abstracts.

Morse, J. A., A. N. Powell, and M. D. Tetreau. 2006. Productivity of black oystercatchers:

effects of recreational disturbance in a national park. The Condor 108(3):623–633.

Mortenson, D., L. Bennett, and L. Horvath. 2005. Southwest Alaska Network: lake bathymetry

project organizer. National Park Service.

Mundy, P. R., and P. Olsson. 2005. Climate and Weather in P. R. Mundy, editor. The Gulf of

Alaska: biology and oceanography. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Fairbanks,

Alaska.

Munk, L., B. Finney, and B. Cohen. 2008. Historical mercury accumulation in the aquatic

environments of the Southwest Alaska Network of National Parks: as recorded in lake

sediment cores. A proposal submitted to the SWAN Inventory and Monitoring Program,

March 19, 2008.

Murray, T. L. 2005. The case for studying volcanoes in Alaska and Alaskan National Parks in

Southwest Alaska Parks Science and Research Symposium – Research Abstracts.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. A comprehensive approach for estimating harbor seal

abundance in Alaska.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Center, A. S., and

Commission, A. N. H. S. 2003. Alaska Harbor Seal Research Plan available from 

(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/researchplan0503.pdf).

Neal, C. A. 2005. Hazard assessments for Redoubt, Iliamna, Aniakchak, and the Katmai

Volcanoes in Southwest Alaska Parks Science and Research Symposium.

Neal, E. G., M. T. Walter, and C. Coffeen. 2002. Linking the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to

seasonal stream discharge patterns in southeast Alaska. Journal of Hydrology 263:188–

197.

Nelson, G. L., and P. R. Johnson. 1981. Ground-water reconnaissance of part of the lower Kenai

Peninsula, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 81-905.
140

NPS. 1986. Environmental Assessment: Nuka River Diversion; Bradley Lake Hydroelectric

Project. National Park Service, Kenai Fjords National Park, Seward, Alaska.

———. 1990. NPS 1989 response, Exxon Valdez oil spill. Alaska Regional Office.

———. 1999. Resource management plan: Kenai Fjords National Park. National Park Service.

———. 2003. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska, vessel quotas and operating

requirements final environmental impact statement. United States Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Alaska Region.

———. 2004a. NPSpecies report park – fish species list – draft.

———. 2004b. NPSpecies report park – mammals species list – draft

———. 2004c. NPSpecies report park – vascular plants species list – draft, p. 123.

———. 2005. Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project: NPS fact sheet January

2005 available from (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Studies/air_toxics/wacap.cfm), p. 4.

Accessed 1 April 2009.

———. 2009a. Sea Otters: NPS resource brief March 2009 Southwest Alaska Network 

Inventory and Monitoring Program available from 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm?theme=sea_otter), p. 1. Accessed 

1 April 2009.

———. 2009b. 20 years later...Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill & Kenai Fjords

National Park – 20th Anniversary Questions & Answers pamphlet. F. Klasner, K. Sholly, 

J. Pfeiffenberger, editors. p. 10.

Nriagu, J. G., and J. M. Pacyna. 1988. Quantitative assessment of worldwide contamination of

air, water, and soils with trace metals. Nature 333:134–139.

Nysewander, D. 1989. Population surveys of seabird nesting colonies in Prince William Sound,

the outside coast of the Kenai Peninsula, Barren Islands, and other nearby colonies.

National Park Service, Homer, Alaska.

Olson, O. G., D. R. Engstrom, S. C. Fritz. 1993. Long-term changes in zooplankton community 

structure inferred from a chronosequenceof lakes in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska,

Pages 154-163 in D.R. Engstrom, ed., Proceedings of the third Glacier Bay Science 

Symposium: September 15-18, 1993, Glacier Bay Lodge, Glacier Bay National Park and

Preserve, Gustavus, Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Oswalt, W. H. 1967. Alaskan Eskimos. Cited in VanderHoek (1999): Chandler Publishing 

Company, San Francisco, California.
141

Oswood, M. W., A. M. Milner, and J. G. I. Irons. 1992. Climate change and Alaskan rivers and

streams. Pages 192–210 in P. Firth and S. G. Fisher, editors. Global climate change and

freshwater ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Ott, K., and M. Ben-David. 2004. Estimating river otter abundance and habitat use through

coastal latrine site surveys in Kenai Fjords National Park and Prince William Sound,

Alaska. The River Otter Journal 13(2):1–2.

Overpeck, J. 1997. Arctic environmental change of the last four centuries. Science

278(5341):1251–1256.

Parson, E. A., L. Carter, P. Anderson, B. Wang, and G. Weller. 2000. Chapter 10: Potential

consequences of climate variability and change for Alaska. Pages 283–312 in N. A. S. 

Team, editor. U.S. national assessment of the potential consequences of climate 

variability and change.

Paul, F., A. Kaab, and W. Haeberli. 2007. Recent glacier changes in the Alps observed by

satellite: consequences for future monitoring strategies. Global and Planetary Change

56(1–2):111–122.

Payne, J. R., W. B. Driskell, J. W. Short, and M. L. Larsen. 2008. Final 2005–2006 LTEMP oil 

monitoring report, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project final report (restoration 

project 050763). Prince William Sound Regional Citizen’s Advisory Council.

Pendleton, E. A., E. R. Thieler, and S. J. Williams. 2004. Relative coastal change-potential

assessment of Kenai Fjords National Park. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report

2004-1373, p. 30.

Phillips, E., and B. Molnia. 2004. Glaciers in Kenai Fjords NP: exploration and change. Eos

Trans. AGU 85(47): fall meeting supplement, abstract.

Piatt, J., and T. I. Van Pelt. 1997. Mass-mortality of guillemots (Uria aalge) in the Gulf of

Alaska in 1993. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34(8):656–662.

Power, J. A., S. C. Moran, S. R. McNutt, S. D. Stihler, and J. J. Sanchez. 2005. Triggered

seismicity beneath the Katmai volcanoes following the December 6, 1999, magnitude 7.0

Karluk Lake Earthquake, Alaska, in Southwest Alaska Parks Science and Research

Symposium.

Rapp, W. 2008. Invasive species summary for the Southwest Alaska Inventory and Monitoring

Network (SWAN). National Park Service.

Rice, B. 1987. Changes in the Harding Icefield, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, with management

implications for Kenai Fjords National Park. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Rinella, D., and D. Bogan. 2007. Development of macroinvertebrate and diatom biological

assessment indices for Cook Inlet basin streams: report prepared for the Alaska
142

Department of Environmental Conservation. Environmental and Natural Resources

Institute, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2008. Habitat assessment and biological inventory of the upper Nuka River, Kenai

Fjords National Park: report to the National Park Service. Kenai Fjords National Park,

Seward, Alaska.

Riordan, B., D. Verbyla, and A. D. McGuire. 2006. Shrinking ponds in subarctic Alaska based

on 1950–2002 remotely sensed images. Journal of Geophysical Research 111:G04002,

doi:10.1029/2005JG000150.

Royer, T. C. 1975. Seasonal variations of waters in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Deep-Sea

Research 71:403.

———. 1998. Coastal processes in the northern North Pacific. Pages 395–414 in A. Robinson,

and K. H. Brink, K. H., editors. The sea. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Sarica, J., M. Amyot, L. Hare, M. R. Doyon, and L. W. Stanfield. 2004. Salmon-derived mercury

and nutrients in a Lake Ontario spawning stream. Limnology and Oceanography

49(4):891–899.

Saupe, S. M., J. Gendron, and D. Dasher. 2005. The condition of southcentral Alaska coastal

bays and estuaries. A statistical summary for the National Coastal Assessment Program.

Schindler, D. 1999. From acid rain to toxic snow. Ambio 28:352–355.

Schroeder, W. H., and J. Munthe. 1998. Atmospheric mercury – an overview. Atmospheric

Environment 32:809–822.

Schumacher, J. D., P. J. Stabeno, and S. J. Bograd. 1993. Characteristics of an eddy over the

continental shelf: Shelikof Strait, Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research 98:8,395–

8,404.

Sease, J. L., and R. L. Loughlin. 1997. Status and population trends of Steller sea lions. Pages

22–30 in G. Stone, J. Goebel, and S. Webster, editors. Pinniped populations, eastern

North Pacific: status, trends and issues. American Fisheries Society, Monterey,

California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-122. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle, Washington.

Serreze, M. C., J. E. Walsh, F. S. Chapin III, T. Osterkamp, M. Dyergerov, V. Romanovsky, W. 

C. Oechel, J. Morison, T. Zhang, and R. G. Barry. 2000. Observational evidence of recent

change in the northern high latitude environment. Climate Change 46:159–207.

Shannon & Wilson Inc. 2006. Removal action summary – Beauty Bay Mine: unpublished final

report for National Park Service. Fairbanks, Alaska, p. 30.
143

Shearer, J., and C. Moore. 2009. Water quality and surface hydrology of freshwater flow systems

in southwest Alaska: 2008 annual summary report. Natural Resource Technical Report

NPS/SWAN/NRTR-- 2009/199. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Sinclair, A. F., and W. R. Crawford. 2005. Incorporating an environmental stock-recruitment

relationship in the assessment of Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). Fisheries

Oceanography 14(2):138–150.

Sloan, C. E. 1985. Water resources and hydrologic hazards of the Exit Glacier area near Seward,

Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigation Report 85–4247.

Snyder, C., M. E. Schultz, and J. Lundquist. 2008. Forest health conditions in Alaska – 2007, a

forest health protection report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska

Region R10-PR-18.

Sokolowski. 2006. The great Alaskan Earthquake and tsunamis of 1964. West Coast & Alaska

Tsunami Warning Center.

Stabeno, P. J., N. A. Bond, A. J. Hermann, N. B. Kachel, C. W. Mordy, and J. E. Overland.

2004. Meteorology and oceanography of the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Continental Shelf

Research 24(7–8):859–897.

State of Alaska. 2006. Alaska Departments of Health & Social Services, Fish & Game, and

Environmental Conservation news release March 29, 2006, available from

(http://www.pandemicflu.alaska.gov/PDFs/pr32906avian-flu-briefing.pdf). Accessed 1 

April 2009.

Stephenson, D. A., A. H. Fleming, and D. M. Mickelson. 1988. Glacial deposits. Pages 301–314

in W. Back, J. S. Rosenshein, and P. R. Seaber, editors. Hydrogeology: decade of North

American geology project F. series. Geological Society of America, Inc., Boulder, 

Colorado.

Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources.

Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262–278.

Stevens, D. S. P., and P. A. Craw. 2004. Geologic hazards on and near the northern coast of the

Alaska Peninsula. Page 20 in Surveys, A. D. o. G. a. G., ed., State of Alaska Department

of Natural Resources.

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in

western North America under a 'Business as Usual' climate change scenario. Climatic

Change 62:217–232.

Strand, A., and O. Hov. 1996. A model strategy for the simulation of chlorinated hydrocarbon

distribution in the global environment. Water, Air, Soil Pollution 86:283–316.

Streets, D. G., Q. Zhang, and Y. Wu. 2009. Projections of global mercury emissions in 2050.

Environmental Science and Technology.
144

Sturm, M., T. Douglas, C. Racine, and G. E. Liston. 2005. Changing snow and shrub conditions

affect albedo with global implications. Journal of Geophysical Research 110:G01004,

doi:10.1029/2005KG000013.

Sweeney, B. W., J. K. Jackson, D. Newbold, and D. H. Funk. 1992. Climate change and the life

histories and biogeography of aquatic insects in eastern North America. Pages 143–176

in P. Firth and S. G. Fisher, editors. Global climate change and freshwater ecosystems.

Springer-Verlag New York.

Syvitski, J. P. M., D. C. Burrell, and J. M. Skei. 1987. Fjords: processes and products. SpringerVerlag, New York.

Tande, G. F., and J. Michaelson. 2001. Ecological subsections of Kenai Fjords National Park.

National Park Service.

Tetreau, M. 2000. Evaluation of snowmobile impacts at Exit Glacier. Kenai Fjords National

Park. Resource Management Team memo. National Park Service, Seward, Alaska..

Thomas, J. P. 2006. Investigations into movement of ice worms (Mesenchytraeus solifugus:

Enchytraeidae) and their distribution across the Harding Icefield, Alaska. Alaska Pacific

University.

Van Hemert, C., C. M. Handel, M. N. Cady, and J. Terenzi. 2006. Summer inventory of

landbirds in Kenai Fjords National Park: final report, Southwest Alaska Network. U.S. 

Geological Survey Alaska Science Center report to the National Park Service.

Van Pelt, T. I., and J. F. Piatt. 2003. Population status of Kittlitz's and marbled murrelets and

surveys for other marine bird and mammal species in the Kenai Fjords area, Alaska.

Alaska Science Center.

van Vleit, G. B., and M. McAllister. 1994. Kittlitz’s murrelet: the species most impacted by

direct mortality from the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Pacific Seabirds 21:5–6.

Vander Pol, S. S., P. R. Becker, J. R. Kucklick,R. S. Pugh, D. G. Roseneau, and K. S. Simac,.

2004. Persistent organic pollutants in Alaskan murre (Uria spp.) eggs: geographical,

species, and temporal comparisons. Environmental Science and Technology 38(5):1305–

1312.

VanLooy, J., R. Forster, and A. Ford. 2006. Accelerating thinning of Kenai Peninsula glaciers,

Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L21307.

Vequist, G. 1990. Marine mammals in bays and adjacent to coastal islands off the Kenai Fjords

coast. National Park Service.

Vequist, G., and M. Nishimoto. 1989. Seabird survey on the coast of Kenai Fjords during the

Exxon-Valdez oil spill. National Park Service.
145

von Huene, R. 1966. Glacial-marine geology of Nuka Bay, Alaska, and the adjacent continental

shelf. Marine Geology 4:291–304.

Wania, F., and D. Mackay. 1996. Tracking the distribution of persistent organic pollutants.

Environmental Science and Technology 30:390A–396A.

Washington State Legislature. 1995. WAC 173-204-320 Marine sediment quality standards

available from (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-204-320).

Waythomas, C. F., J. M. Dorava, T. P. Miller, C. A. Neal, and R. G. McGimsey. 1997. 

Preliminary volcano-hazard assessment for Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. U.S. Geological

Survey. Open File Report 97–857, p. 47.

Waythomas, C. F., and T. P. Miller. 1999a. Preliminary volcano-hazard assessment for Iliamna

Volcano, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 99–373, p. 37.

———. 1999b. Preliminary volcano-hazard assessment for Iliamna Volcano, Alaska. U.S.

Geological Survey. Open File Report 99–373, p. 37.

Waythomas, C. F., and C. A. Neal. 1998. Tsunami generation by pyroclastic flow during the

3500-year B.P. caldera-forming eruption of Aniakchak Volcano, Alaska. Bulletin of

Volcanology 60:110–124.

Waythomas, C. F., and P. Watts. 2003. Numerical simulation of tsunami generation by

pryoclastic flow at Aniakchak Volcano, Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters

30(14):1751.

Weingartner, T. 2007. Climate. Pages 171–180 in R. B. Spies, editor. Long-term ecological 

change in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Weingartner, T. J., S. Danielson, and T. C. Royer. 2005. Freshwater variability and predictability

in the Alaska Coastal Current. Deep-Sea Res II 52:169-191.

Weller, G., and P. A. Anderson. 1997. Implications of global change in Alaska and the Bering

Sea region: proceedings of a workshop, June 3–6, 1997. Center for Global Change and

Arctic System Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska.

Weller, G., A. Lynch, T. Osterkamp, and G. Wendler. 1997. Climate trends and scenarios. 

Implications of global change in Alaska and the Bering Sea region: proceedings of a

workshop, June 3–6, 1997. Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research,

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska.

Wetherbee, H. 2006a. 2006 Harding Icefield Trail Report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National

Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 22.

———. 2006b. Invasive plant management in Kenai Fjords National Park, Seward, Alaska.

Summer 2006 field season report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park Service,

Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 72.
146

———. 2007a. 2007 Harding Icefield Trail report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park

Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 11.

———. 2007b. Exotic plant monitoring for Exit Glacier area nature trails 2007 results. Kenai

Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 3.

———. 2007c. Invasive plant management in Kenai Fjords National Park Seward, Alaska

summer 2007 field season report. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park Service,

Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 21.

———. 2007d. Invasive plant management update. Kenai Fjords National Park, National Park

Service, Seward, Alaska. Informational sheet.

Wiles, G. C., and P. E. Calkin. 1990. Neoglaciation in the southern Kenai Mountains. Alaska.

Annals of Glaciology 14:319–322.

Wiles, G. C., P. E. Calkin, and A. Post. 1995. Glacier fluctuations in the Kenai Fjords, Alaska,

U.S.A.: an evaluation of controls on iceberg-calving glaciers. Arctic and Alpine Research

27(3):234–245.

Williams, P. 1989. Adapting water resources management to global climate change. Climate

Change 15:83–93.

Wilson, J. G., and J. E. Overland. 1986. Meteorology. Pages 31–54 in D. W. Hood and S. T. 

Zimmerman, editors. The Gulf of Alaska: physical environment and biological resources.

NOAA Ocean Assessment Division, Alaska Office, Washington, D.C.

Wright, A. 2007. Avian influenza surveillance program 2007 field season overview. Kenai

Fjords National Park, National Park Service, Seward, Alaska. Unpublished report, p. 46.

York, G., and A. Milner. 1999. Colonization and community development of salmonids and

benthic macroinvertebrates in a new stream within Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska.

National Park Service.

Zhang, X., A. S. Naidu, J. J. Kelley, S. C. Jewett, D. Dasher, L. K. and Duffy. 2001. Baseline

concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in salmon returning via the Bering

Sea (1999–2000). Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(10):993–997.
147

Appendix A. Core Vital Signs

The 21 core vital signs that are currently being monitored or undergoing development by SWAN

staff, park staff, and/or cooperators. Seven additional vital signs are primarily data harvest alone,

and one (wolves) is still being tested by LACL for feasibility (M. Shepherd, NPS Anchorage,

written communication, 2009).

SWAN Project Vital Sign and Protocol

Weather and Climate Visibility & Particulate Matter

Weather and Climate

Landscape Dynamics and

Terrestrial Vegetation

Glacier Extent

Sensitive vegetation Communities

Salt Marshes, Nunataks, Mt. Hemlock

Vegetation Composition and Structure

(ground based)

Vegetation Composition and Structure+ Land

Cover/Land Use (remote sensing)

Landscape Processes

Marine Nearshore Geomorphic Coastal Change

Marine Water Chemistry

Kelp and Eelgrass

Marine Intertidal Invertebrates

Black Oystercatcher

Seabirds

Sea Otter

Lakes, Rivers, and Fish Surface Hydrology

Freshwater Chemistry

Resident Lake Fish (contaminants only)

Salmon (data harvest in part)

Terrestrial Animals Bald Eagle

Brown Bear

Moose
148

Appendix B. Non-Indigenous Species 

Non-indigenous invasive species that have invaded or could soon invade Alaska. The species

listed are all highly invasive, have caused severe impact in areas they have spread to, and are

capable of living in Alaska’s climate. Many of these species have already spread to the Pacific

Northwest and are a risk to Alaska. From Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2002a) and with

updates from Amy Miller (NPS Anchorage, written communication, 2008).

Species Originally from... Now located in... Why it is a concern

Fish:

Northern Pike Alaska Spreading to other areas

of Alaska; found in lakes

on Kenai Peninsula and

Susitna River drainage

Highest priority threat to southcentral

Alaska. They eliminate or greatly reduce

the native species. Cause damage to

resident species (rainbow trout and

grayling).

Potential impact to coho salmon stocks.

Atlantic Salmon Escape from fish

farms in BC and

Washington

Cordova

Ketchikan

Yakutat

Bering Sea

Serious threat to native species due to

competition in stream habitat. Displace

native fish by out-competing for food and

spawning habitat.

Yellow perch Kenai Peninsula Compete with all resident fish species

and salmon fry. This population has been

eradicated.

Ornamental aquarium

fish

Compete with and may feed on native

species.

Invertebrates:

Green crab N. Europe California to Vancouver

Island

Out-competes resident species for

shoreline habitat. Very aggressive.

New Zealand mud

snail

New Zealand Europe

Asia

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

California

Arizona

May impact the food chain for native

trout and the physical characteristics of

streams themselves. A serious threat to

Alaska’s sport fisheries.

Chinese mitten

crab

China San Francisco Bay/delta

Possible it is in Oregon’s

Columbia River

Similar life history to American eel and

can move upriver hundreds of miles

displacing native species. Feeds on

salmonid eggs.

Zebra mussel Europe Great Lakes Out-compete resident mussels, clog

water intake lines, sequester nutrients for

primary production.

Signal crayfish W. Canada Kodiak Island Out-compete stream fauna, eat

everything, can survive extended periods

of drought and famine.

Spiny water flea Europe Great Lakes

California

Displaces existing zooplankton

communities, but is unpalatable to fish

resulting in lower fish numbers.
149

Species Originally from... Now located in... Why it is a concern

Parasites:

Whirling disease Eurasian continent Present in 22 states.

Found in all western

states except Arizona

and Alaska.

Parasitic infection that attacks juvenile

trout and salmon. Causes fish to swim

erratically and in severe cases, to die.

Plants:

Hydrilla or water

thyme

Originally from

S. India and Korea.

Present in 15 states

including California and

Washington

Hydrilla is a noxious water weed that can

quickly spread to become an

impenetrable mat. Fills lakes and rivers

completely until it “tops out” at the

surface. Native plants are out-competed.

Greatly slows water flow and clogs the

area. Can alter water chemistry and

oxygen levels. Hinders fish development.

Dotted duckweed Australia and

Southeast Asia

Present in 22 states

including Oregon

This small floating plant grows rapidly

into dense masses in still water covering

the entire surface in a green “bloom”.

Purple loosestrife Eurasia Present in all states

except Hawaii. Also

found in Canada. Found

in Anchorage in 2005

Loosestrife is able to rapidly establish

and replace native vegetation with a

dense, homogeneous stand that reduces

local biodiversity, endangers rare

species and provides little value to

wildlife.

Eurasian

water-milfoil

Europe and North

Africa

Present in 46 states

including Alaska

Found in a variety of habits, becoming

established in both impoundments and

natural waters, sometimes brackish

water or in clear, cool, spring-fed rivers.

Problems include displacement of native

vegetation, disruption of navigation and

recreation by the formation of

impenetrable mats, and decreased water

flow.

Reed Canary grass Eurasia All but the southeastern

portion of the United 

States including Alaska.

Also found in Canada.

Widespread in the lower

Kenai Peninsula

Is invading freshwater wetlands and in

some places choking channels of small

streams. Its creeping rhizomes outcompete native

grasses leading to less biodiversity.

Japanese knotweed Great Britain Sitka

Juneau

Other Southeast Alaska

areas

Spreads rapidly, choking out native

plants.

Can spread along streambanks,

shorelines, and estuaries. Loss of

springtime cover and woody streamside

vegetation causes destabilized stream

banks and less woody debris in streams.

Foxtail barley Western North

America

Juneau

Interior Alaska

Invades salt marsh habitats
150

Species Originally from... Now located in... Why it is a concern

Salt marsh

cordgrass

Eastern seaboard

of the United States

from Maine to Texas

Has spread to

Canada and

western United States

including Washington,

Oregon, and California.

Able to trap sediment leading to higher

deposition rates. Changes water

circulation patterns. Competitive

replacement of native plants and impacts

native flora and fauna in intertidal zone.

Also, decreases production of bottomdwelling algae, changes bottom-dwelling

invertebrate populations, and loss of

shorebird foraging areas.

Dense-flowered

cordgrass

Chile

South America

California Outcompetes native flora and impacts

native fauna. Eliminates foraging habitat

for shorebirds and waterfowl. Dense

clusters slow the flow of water and

increase sedimentation (raising the

wetland).

Swollen

bladderwort

Southeastern United 

States

Western

Washington

Grows in still or slow-moving water and

forms dense beds of floating plants.

Impacts native plants and animals and

water quality.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 186/102086, May 2010

 
Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM