A U.S. Forest Service plan to revamp the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center can move forward after a brief legal setback, with the agency now required to do additional environmental analysis.<\/p>\n
Last month, the U.S. District Court for Alaska rejected a lawsuit seeking to fully block the project and instead remanded the Record of Decision without vacating it, allowing construction and improvements to proceed while the Forest Service supplements its review of project alternatives and visitor growth projections.<\/p>\n
Long-time Juneau resident Katharine Miller, who lives nearby and frequents the area for recreation, brought forth the lawsuit in 2024 when she sued the Forest Service, arguing that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), inadequately analyzed cumulative impacts, visitor capacity, and effects on resources, and failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, such as options that would not accommodate increased commercial tourism.<\/p>\n
The $25-million improvement project includes building a new welcome center and five cabins, improving the existing visitor center, expanding trails, and paving more parking lots.<\/p>\n
While the infrastructure upgrades aim to handle growing tourism, with a projected two percent annual increase and a potential of one million visitors per year by 2050, the court found that the agency’s options for improvement were too narrowly focused on facilitating more tourism.<\/p>\n
Last September, Judge Sharon L. Gleason granted Miller’s motion in part, finding NEPA violations in the alternatives analysis and related issues.<\/p>\n
“On remand, the Forest Service shall remedy this error by supplementing the [Statement] to clarify the Purpose and Need Statement and supplement the analysis of alternatives, and shall modify the Record of Decision as warranted,” Judge Gleason stated.<\/p>\n
“The Forest Service shall abide by its commitment to not increase commercial use permits in the [Modified Generic Risk Assessment] until it has filed a notice with this Court that it has complied with the terms of this remand order.”<\/p>\n
While the court agreed with Miller on the NEPA violations, it denied her request to throw out the project plan altogether.<\/p>\n
The Forest Agency is required to file a status report with the court within six months and every six months thereafter until the supplemental NEPA analysis is complete.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Forest Service will have to provide an extra environmental review as a result <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4933,"featured_media":132802,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,1077],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-top-news"],"yoast_head":"\n