United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision

Chugach National Forest 

Land Management Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Valdez-Cordova Census Area, 

and Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska

Forest Service Chugach National Forest R10-MB-828g 2020
Chugach National Forest photo captions (clockwise from upper left):

Snowmachiner, Johnson Pass

Sockeye salmon, Placer River drainage

Portage Glacier, Kenai Peninsula 

Whitewater rafting, Six Mile Creek

Brown bear, Kenai River 

Alaska Railroad’s Glacier Discovery Train, Spencer Glacier Whistle Stop

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations 

and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering 

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender 

identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for 

example, Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency 

or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than 

English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: 

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 
Record of Decision for the 

Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Valdez-Cordova Census Area, 

and Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official:

Jeff E. Schramm

Chugach National Forest Supervisor

161 East 1st Ave., Door 8 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

jeff.schramm@usda.gov 

For information, contact: 

David Fitz-Enz

Chugach National Forest Planner 

161 East 1st Ave., Door 8 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

david.fitz-enz@usda.gov
i 

Contents 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Forest Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Needs for Change............................................................................................................................... 3

Revision Topics.............................................................................................................................. 4

External Engagement ......................................................................................................................... 5

State of Alaska, Local Governments, and other Federal Agencies ................................................ 5

Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.................................................................. 8

Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 8

Decision and Rationale for the Decision............................................................................................. 9

Decision ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Nature of the Decision ..................................................................................................................... 11

Rationale for the Decision ................................................................................................................ 12

Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations ............................................................................................. 12

Revision Topic 2: Recreation Opportunities ................................................................................ 15

Revision Topic 3: Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................ 19

Revision Topic 4: Social, Economic, and Cultural Sustainability ................................................ 19

Requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule ......................................................................................... 21

219.8 Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 21

Social and Economic Sustainability ............................................................................................. 21

Ecological Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 23

219.9 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities ......................................................................... 23

219.10 Multiple Uses ....................................................................................................................... 24

219.11 Timber Requirements based on the National Forest Management Act ................................ 25

Preliminary Administrative Recommendations .............................................................................. 25

Recommended Wilderness ............................................................................................................... 25

Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................................... 26

Monitoring Program .......................................................................................................................... 26

Alternative Development ................................................................................................................... 27

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................................................... 27

Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................................................ 27

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 28

Alternative C (as Proposed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement) ................................. 28

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 29

Alternatives Considered but Not in Detail ....................................................................................... 30

Administrative Review and Objections ............................................................................................ 30

Modifications Made in Response to Objections and Instructions .................................................. 32

Environmental Impact Statement and Land Management Plan Changes in Response to Instructions 

by the Regional Forester .................................................................................................................. 32

Changes to the Environmental Impact Statement ......................................................................... 32

Changes to the Land Management Plan ....................................................................................... 32

Environmentally Preferable Alternative .......................................................................................... 33

Best Available Scientific Information ............................................................................................... 34

Assessment Phase ............................................................................................................................ 34

Planning Phase ................................................................................................................................. 34

Monitoring Program ......................................................................................................................... 35

Research Station Director Concurrence ........................................................................................... 36

Findings Required by Laws and Executive Orders ......................................................................... 36

Acts of Congress .............................................................................................................................. 36
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

ii

Accessibility Acts ......................................................................................................................... 36

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ....................................................................... 36

Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................ 38

Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................... 38

Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................... 39

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ................................................. 39

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act ............................................................................................... 40

National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................................................. 40

National Forest Management Act ................................................................................................. 41

National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................... 41

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ......................................................................................................... 41

Wilderness Act ............................................................................................................................. 42

Rules ................................................................................................................................................ 42

Roadless Area Conservation Rule ................................................................................................ 42

Travel Management Rule ............................................................................................................. 42

Executive Orders .............................................................................................................................. 42

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) .......................................................................... 42

Floodplains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) ................................................ 43

Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species (Executive Orders 13112 and 

13751) ........................................................................................................................................... 43

Effective Date ...................................................................................................................................... 43

Plan Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 44

Existing Authorizations .................................................................................................................... 44

Project Consistency .......................................................................................................................... 44

Maintaining the Plan ........................................................................................................................ 44

Contact Person .................................................................................................................................... 45

Signature and Date ............................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix A – Maps ............................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix B – Changes ....................................................................................................................... 55

Errata for the Final Environmental Impact Statement ..................................................................... 55

Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 ....................................................................... 55

Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 ....................................................................... 57

Changes between the 2019 Land Management Plan and the Final Land Management Plan ........... 58

Final Land Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 58

List of Tables

Table 1. Chugach National Forest—comparison of 2002 land management plan and final land 

management plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes ............................................. 16

Table 2. Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area—comparison of existing recreation 

characteristics and final land management plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes

 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Maps

Map 1. Vicinity map for the Chugach National Forest .......................................................................... 2

Map 2. Record of decision – wilderness recommendation ................................................................... 49

Map 3. Record of decision – desired recreation opportunity spectrum ................................................ 51

Map 4. Record of decision – river segments of the Chugach National Forest deemed suitable and 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System................................ 53
i 
1 

Introduction

This record of decision documents my decision and rationale for approval of the 2020 Chugach 

National Forest Land Management Plan (final land management plan) and selection of an alternative 

from the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

The final land management plan and the selected alternative combined—hereafter called the final land 

management plan—will provide management direction for 5.4 million acres of National Forest System 

lands in southcentral Alaska for about the next 15 years. My decision is informed by the forest plan 

assessment1

 for the Chugach National Forest and input from the State of Alaska, local governments, 

other federal agencies, Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and members of the public. 

This decision is consistent with the Forest Service’s 2012 National Forest System Land Management 

Planning Rule (2012 Planning Rule) (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219) and advances goals 

of the Department of Agriculture, including promoting local economic development and sound land 

stewardship in partnership with communities. Part of the planning process included an objection 

process as described in Subpart B of 36 CFR 219. As instructed by the Regional Forester, I modified 

the final environmental impact statement (through errata), the final land management plan, the record 

of decision, and the planning record to respond to specific objection issues and resolutions. Appendix 

B of this decision lists the changes to the final environmental impact statement and final land 

management plan. 

Forest Setting 

The Chugach National Forest is characterized by extensive coastal shorelines; rugged mountains; 

spectacular snow and ice covered peaks; expansive glaciers; countless lakes, rivers, and streams; and 

unparalleled scenery, much of which is far from roads or trails (map 1). 

Over half the population of Alaska lives near the Chugach National Forest, with about 890,000 acres of 

the national forest within a day’s drive of Anchorage. The Chugach National Forest boundary is 

adjacent to lands managed by National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Alaska State Parks, and State of Alaska. The national forest boundary also adjoins 

lands owned by Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and other private landowners.

The Chugach National Forest contributes significantly to the socioeconomic sustainability of 

southcentral Alaska. The national forest supports approximately 3,100 jobs tied to the commercial 

salmon harvest, valued at more than $19 million per year, and an additional estimated 1,000 jobs tied 

to recreational activities, including sportfishing. Recreation use on the Chugach National Forest 

provides an annual contribution of $12.3 million to Alaska’s economy. Visitors come from all over the 

world to experience the numerous recreation opportunities the national forest offers, such as viewing 

mountainous glacial scenery and abundant wildlife, participating in sportfishing in rivers and lakes, 

kayaking, rafting, hiking, heli-skiing, hunting, horseback riding, and camping. 

The Chugach National Forest is central to the lives of many Alaska residents and supports significant 

local economic benefits and traditional uses including commercial salmon fishing; employment in the 

recreation sector; drinking water; hydropower; and subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and 

gathering activities. Culturally important resources for subsistence and traditional uses are derived 

from healthy watersheds and clean water and contribute substantially to social well-being and 

economic sustainability in southcentral Alaska. The Chugach National Forest supports five species of 

Pacific salmon, as well as other fish and wildlife species, which provide local economic benefits 

through fishing and hunting. 

 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Assessment of the ecological and socio-economic 

conditions and trends: Chugach National Forest, Alaska. R10-MB-787. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

2 

Map 1. Vicinity map for the Chugach National Forest
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

3 

Six rural communities within the Chugach National Forest boundary harvest an average of 203 pounds 

per person per year of edible wild renewable resources. The Chugach National Forest supplies 

approximately 1,000 cords annually of fuelwood for local communities and has issued over 370 

authorizations for uses and activities.

Thirteen federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes live within or near the Chugach National Forest, 

with many if not all identifying the forest as their ancestral home. While there is diversity and 

distinction among these Tribes, they all have deep-rooted connections to the lands and waters of the 

national forest. The Chugach National Forest contributes to Alaska Native People’s way of life—

through food and materials for daily use and artistic expression, spirituality, health care, family, and 

tribal history. Further, Alaska Native People see the Chugach National Forest as central to their being; 

they value and respect the forest with their culture and traditions, and they receive animals, fish, and 

plants from the forest for their health and well-being. 

The Chugach National Forest has largely intact ecosystems and significant capacity for resilience to 

stresses from climate change. Inventoried roadless areas, governed by the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (36 CFR 219 Subpart D), comprise 99 percent of the Chugach National Forest and 

are managed to allow natural processes to shape the landscape. Based on the Governor of Alaska’s 

January 2018 petition, the Secretary of Agriculture decided that the state-specific rulemaking for 

Alaska inventoried roadless areas will not include areas on the Chugach National Forest. 

Needs for Change 

The National Forest Management Act directs the development, amendment, and revision of land 

management plans to provide for the multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services on 

National Forest System lands, including outdoor recreation, timber, watershed, wildlife, fish, and 

wilderness (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1604(e)). The 2012 Planning Rule guides this land 

management planning using a collaborative and science-based approach to promote the economic, 

social, and ecological sustainability of national forests and grasslands and National Forest System 

administrative units. 

Since the 2002 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest2 (2002 

land management plan) was completed, there have been changes in ecological, social, and economic 

conditions on the Chugach National Forest, as well as changes in resource demands, availability of 

new scientific information, and promulgation of new policy. In 2014, the Chugach National Forest

assessed these changes and considered input from the State of Alaska, local governments, other federal

agencies, Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and the public. Based on our assessment 

and this input, we determined that revision to the 2002 land management plan was necessary to ensure 

management direction is responsive to current issues and conditions (see the Preliminary Need to 

Change the Forest Plan3

). 

 

2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Revised land and resource management plan: Chugach 

National Forest. R10-MB-480c. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region.

3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Preliminary need to change the forest plan: Chugach 

National Forest, Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

4 

The need to revise the 2002 land management plan is based on six overarching needs for change:

1. Access. To be consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212), there was a need 

to remove site-specific travel management direction for summer and winter motor vehicle access

that had been included in the 2002 land management plan. Land management plans are strategic in 

nature, and by design, they do not authorize site-specific activities or uses.

2. Areas of Tribal Importance. There was a need to acknowledge tribal values and the importance 

of the Chugach National Forest to Alaska Native People, and to better integrate traditional and 

cultural properties with management direction. 

3. Designated Areas. There was a need to review special areas on the Chugach National Forest and 

determine what plan components are needed for existing special areas and whether any additional 

special areas should be recommended. Stakeholder comments included the need to clarify 

confusing and vague language in the 2002 land management plan regarding the Nellie JuanCollege Fiord Wilderness Study Area.

4. Ecosystems and Habitats. There was a need to provide management direction as required in the 

2012 Planning Rule to support terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem functions across the landscape 

and promote ecosystem resilience to encourage the persistence of native plant and animal species. 

The key ecosystem functions include air, soil, water, carbon, and landscape-scale connectivity 

across mixed ownerships where natural systems, such as watersheds and wildlife corridors, are 

shared. Ecosystem diversity is threatened by invasive species, climate change, increased tourism, 

recreation impacts, and population growth. There was a need to identify thresholds where 

increased human use may threaten natural systems and address the introduction and expansion of 

invasive species.

5. Multiple Uses. There was a need to address multiple uses on the Chugach National Forest, 

including wood harvest (community and personal use); subsistence resources; renewable energy; 

infrastructure (roads, trails, and cabins); and special forest products (such as Christmas trees,

mushrooms, bark, ferns, berries, herbs, and wildflowers). 

6. Recreation and Tourism. There was a need to develop a consistent approach for establishing 

recreation use and guided use capacities across the Chugach National Forest. Integrated plan 

components were needed to address the uncertainties associated with a changing climate and the 

timing and location of recreation opportunities and associated infrastructure. There was a need to 

provide diverse recreation opportunities in cooperation with partners, while protecting the natural, 

cultural, and scenic environment for present and future generations.

Revision Topics

The six preliminary needs to change the forest plan and the two significant issues identified during 

scoping (related to recommended wilderness and desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes) 

were consolidated into four “revision topics.” This helped to focus on developing alternatives to the 

proposed action. These revision topics were also used to analyze effects from the alternatives in 

chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement. They are summarized below and described in 

more detail in chapter 1 of the final environmental impact statement. The order of the revision topics 

does not reflect a priority designation. All the revision topics are important and addressed through the 

planning process. 

Land allocations. This revision topic addresses administrative recommendations for additions to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 

designation of management areas, and management direction for special areas.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

5 

Recreation opportunities. This revision topic, which includes desired recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes, addresses the need to provide diverse recreation opportunities in cooperation with 

partners; the need to have sustainable recreation infrastructure; and the need to consider effects of a 

changing climate when planning, designing, and constructing trails, access points, and other 

recreation-related infrastructure.

Ecological sustainability. This revision topic addresses the need to guide management of key 

ecosystem functions such as air, soil, water, and vegetation to maintain terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem functions across the landscape.

Social, economic, and cultural sustainability. This revision topic addresses the need for additional 

management direction regarding the Chugach National Forest’s contribution to the social and 

economic sustainability of local communities; collaboration and partnerships with other agencies and 

organizations; incorporation of the interests of Alaska Native Peoples; and the issuing of special use 

authorizations. 

External Engagement 

At the start of the plan revision process (the assessment phase) in March of 2012, the Forest Service 

engaged stakeholders and the public and continued engaging throughout the process. The goal of this 

engagement was to use a transparent process that was responsive to the State of Alaska, local 

governments, other federal agencies, Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and the 

public. We will continue to work with these groups throughout the life of the plan implementation. 

State of Alaska, Local Governments, and other Federal Agencies

State of Alaska

The State of Alaska has a variety of land ownership and interests within and adjacent to the Chugach 

National Forest (see the section titled “Relationship between Land Management Plans and SiteSpecific Activities” in chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement). I reviewed relevant state 

management plans and found no inconsistencies with our final land management plan. Since 2013, the

State of Alaska provided comments on the revision process, reviewed the draft land management plan

and draft environmental impact statement, and communicated with the revision planning team. These 

interactions enabled the Forest Service to better evaluate whether individual state planning and land 

use documents were compatible with the land management plan, identify the State’s concerns, and 

discuss opportunities to resolve or reduce conflicts. For a complete list of meetings with State of 

Alaska representatives, see the “Public Participation” section of the final environmental impact 

statement. 

During this process, the State of Alaska expressed concerns about the difference between state and 

federal interpretations of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and pointed 

out that the draft land management plan did not cite specific sections of ANILCA related to individual 

plan components. The land management plan follows higher level direction including all laws, 

executive orders, and regulations. In response to the State’s concerns, I identified areas in the final 

land management plan where we could emphasize how Chugach National Forest management is 

influenced by ANILCA mandates. To further address the concerns, I included a section titled “Laws 

Affecting National Forest Management in Alaska,” in the final land management plan. This section

highlights some sections of ANILCA that directly apply to plan components in the land management 

plan; however, it does not include all of the sections that apply. 

The State of Alaska also expressed concerns regarding the number of acres recommended for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System and miles recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as the prohibition on issuing hunting and fishing guiding 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

6 

authorizations on the western Copper River Delta. I considered these concerns from the State of 

Alaska and modified the decision to address these concerns. Details and rationale for these changes are 

described in the “Decision and Rationale for the Decision” section and the “Commercial Guiding 

Authorizations in the Copper River Delta” section in this record of decision. 

There are other points regarding management of the Chugach National Forest on which the Forest 

Service and the State of Alaska have not reached resolution; such as the ownership of lands uplifted or 

subsided during the 1964 Good Friday earthquake, and whether national recreation trails are 

conservation system units under ANILCA. These concerns are outside of the land management plan 

revision process and the scope of this decision, and cannot be answered or resolved here. 

Detailed responses to the State’s comments on these issues are included in appendix C of the final 

environmental impact statement. We will continue to work with the State of Alaska to address their 

specific concerns regarding these and other issues that may arise.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

The 1989 oil spill has had long-lasting effects in the Prince William Sound area. At least 10.8 million 

gallons of crude oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez, resulting in the stranding of oil on an estimated 

1,300 miles of shoreline in Prince William Sound, along the Kenai Peninsula and lower Cook Inlet, 

and on the western side of the Alaska Peninsula, killing countless plants and animals. An Exxon Valdez 

Oil Spill Trustee Council (Council) was formed to oversee restoration of the injured ecosystem 

through the use of a $900 million civil settlement. The Council consists of three State of Alaska and 

three federal trustees (or their designees). State trustees include department heads of Fish and Game, 

Environmental Conservation, and the Attorney General for the State of Alaska. Federal trustees 

include the Regional Administrator of the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the 

Regional Forester for the Alaska Region of the Forest Service, and the Senior Advisor for Alaska 

Affairs for the Department of the Interior. The Council is advised by members of the public and 

agency staff, and by members of the scientific community. I consulted with the Council on plan 

components for lands acquired with trustee council funds and included acquired lands in the land 

management plan as Management Area 6 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)-Acquired Lands. 

The final land management plan direction is consistent with the terms and conditions of the 

conservation easements that encumber the lands and the reserved rights of the grantors from whom the 

United States acquired the lands. I will continue to meet with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council during plan implementation and ensure we comply with specific covenant restrictions 

particular to each conservation easement.

Local Governments

I coordinated with local government representatives regarding the land management plan revision 

through on-going meetings and reviews of the draft land management plan and draft environmental 

impact statement. These local governments included City of Seward, City of Whittier, City of Valdez, 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Matanuska Susitna Borough, Municipality of Anchorage, and Whittier 

Chamber of Commerce. Local governments had different opinions about management of the Chugach 

National Forest, as follows: 

• Some local governments felt that mining and timber production were not consistent with the 

current uses of the Chugach National Forest including subsistence, recreation, tourism, and 

commercial and recreational fishing, all of which are vital to the economy of Prince William 

Sound communities. These local governments want the entirety of the Nellie Juan-College 

Fiord Wilderness Study Area maintained as if it were part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

7 

• Some local governments wanted to maintain opportunities for winter sports of all types

(motorized and non-motorized) and other recreation opportunities due to the positive 

economic impact of visitor use.

• Most local governments were concerned about access to in-holding parcels. They feel these 

private parcels need formal recognition of access in the land management plan. 

I considered comments and concerns from local governments in making this decision. As a result, all of 

their concerns were addressed in the responses to comments in appendix C of the final environmental 

impact statement and some changes were made to the final environmental impact statement or land 

management plan. The “Decision and Rationale for the Decision” section in this decision explains how 

the final land management plan maintains current opportunities, shows that timber production is not 

suitable on the Chugach National Forest, and addresses mining activities. In addition, clarifications 

were made to address concerns about providing access to in-holding parcels. 

Other Federal Agencies

Kenai Fjords National Park is located adjacent to the Chugach National Forest near Seward, Alaska.

Park staff provided comments on the draft land management plan, specifically requesting that the land 

management plan: 

• Recognize the role of the Kenai Mountain-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area when 

working with local communities to protect cultural resources within the National Heritage

Area. 

• Build upon the accomplishments of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 

• Address the spread of invasive species. 

• Address concerns about the authorized use of lands for salmon hatcheries and the effect of 

such use on wild salmon stocks. 

The final land management plan addresses these areas of concern through plan components. The final 

environmental impact statement discusses Forest Service authorizations of fish hatcheries required by 

ANILCA and discloses that a portion of the hatchery fish stray into natural stream habitats used by wild 

fish as shown in Brenner et al. 20124

. These stray hatchery fish may be harmful to the productivity and 

fitness of wild salmon in Prince William Sound. Further studies are underway to evaluate the hatchery 

fish and wild fish interactions and effects. I look forward to working and partnering with the Kenai Fjords 

National Park, in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, during plan implementation to 

address their concerns. 

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency recommended that I select an alternative that maximized 

environmental benefits and avoided, minimized, and otherwise mitigated environmental impacts. The 

Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns about water quality, safe drinking water, 

sediment delivery during activities (for example, construction, mining, recreation, residential 

development, subsistence, electrical transmission, and transportation projects), and impacts to aquatic 

and terrestrial resources from roads and trails. The Environmental Protection Agency was also 

concerned about climate change. Other concerns included impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, habitat 

connectivity, and invasive species.

 

4 Brenner, R.E.; Moffitt, S.D.; Grant, W.S. 2012. Straying of hatchery salmon in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes. 94: 179–195. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

8 

I considered the Environmental Protection Agency comments when making my decision regarding the 

final land management plan, which maintains most of the Chugach National Forest in a natural 

condition and includes plan components to increase ecosystem resilience and sustainability.

Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations 

Upon initiating plan revision, the Forest Service invited thirteen federally recognized Alaska Native 

Tribes and fifteen Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations to attend early engagement 

workshops, to meet privately, and to consult directly with the Forest Service. The Forest Service 

hosted a booth at the Alaska Federation of Natives annual conventions in 2012 and 2013, providing 

information about plan revision efforts. The early consultations, notifications, and meetings were 

designed to clearly communicate the plan revision process and timeline, to encourage and identify 

preferred participation methods, and to identify significant issues for Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations. 

Targeted engagement with Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations took place from 2015 

through 2020. Comments provided by Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were used 

to identify the significant issues and to develop alternatives C and D. 

Key issues raised focused on the need for the revised plan to recognize more explicitly the rights of 

Native Alaskans, especially rights for access to subsistence resources and to access and develop lands 

owned by Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. Some Alaska Native Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations were concerned that wilderness designation would impact these uses and 

rights. To address these concerns, I worked with the Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations to clarify these uses and rights in the land management plan. 

Plan components were updated or added that include specific actions required to improve 

communication, provide mutually beneficial outcomes that contribute to socio-economic sustainability 

of tribal communities and resiliency of the national forest’s natural resources, and sustainable 

quantities of renewable national forest resources (including culturally significant food resources). My 

wilderness recommendation addresses the Alaska Native Tribes’ and Alaska Native Corporations’ 

concerns by maintaining the recommended wilderness acres from the 2002 land management plan 

rather than increasing the acreage. 

Public Participation

The Chugach National Forest used a broad range of public involvement methods during the plan

revision process. For a detailed description of public participation activities, please see the “Public 

Participation” section in the final environmental impact statement. 

During early stages of the revision process, we hosted pre-assessment workshops and meetings

targeting all local communities affected by the 2002 land management plan, including youth, 

permittees, neighboring landowners, and minority and low-income population areas. Some of these

communities are remote and only accessible by boat or plane. Public input received from these 

meetings helped with development of the following document: Chugach National Forest Assessment 

of Ecological and Socio-Economic Conditions and Trends; Preliminary Need to Change the Forest 

Plan; draft Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation report; and Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation report. 

In December 2015, we published the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in 

the Federal Register, which initiated the scoping period for the proposed action. The public was 

informed of the notice of intent, proposed action, and comment period through the Chugach National 

Forest website, mailings to stakeholders and interested members of the public, and news releases. We 

received about 1,400 public comments during the scoping period. Most of the scoping comments were 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

9 

from conservation and wilderness proponents, and favored the recommendation for more acres of the 

Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area to be included in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and to provide more primitive recreation opportunities. 

We maintained a dialogue with commenters and stakeholders to better understand their concerns as we 

identified issues, adjusted our proposed action, and began developing alternatives. 

In December 2018, the Chugach National Forest published a draft land management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement and hosted nine open houses to capture stakeholder input. We

received over 4,000 public comments on the draft land management plan and draft environmental 

impact statement. The subjects of greatest interest to the public again included the number of acres 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and motorized or nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The final environmental impact statement was written and the land 

management plan was updated and changed in response to public comments. 

Throughout the land management planning process, we continued to engage in consultation with local 

Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.

The legal notice of opportunity to object to the revised land management plan was published August 

30, 2019, starting the 60-day objection process during which the draft record of decision and final 

environmental impact statement were made available for public review. The Regional Forester

received 43 objections that met the requirements of 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. Some objectors wanted 

more acres recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and some 

objectors wanted fewer or no acres recommended for inclusion.

As outlined in the “Decision and Rationale for the Decision” section below, my decision responds to 

the public comments, including objections, in part by maintaining the recommended wilderness acres 

from the 2002 land management plan rather than increasing the acreage.

With this decision, I am further modifying the final environmental impact statement and land 

management plan to address direction from the Regional Forester’s response to objections. These 

changes occur throughout the documents and are listed in appendix B of this decision. 

Responses to comments and concerns are available in appendix C of the final environmental impact 

statement. All public comments and objections are available in the planning record upon request. 

Comment letters received from Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, the State of Alaska, 

local government stakeholders, and federal agencies are provided in appendix D of the final 

environmental impact statement. 

Decision and Rationale for the Decision

Decision 

I considered the four land management plan alternatives that were analyzed in the final environmental 

impact statement (described in the “Alternatives Analyzed in Detail” section later in this decision) and 

I selected a modified version of alternative C as the final land management plan. This final land 

management plan incorporates some items that were not analyzed in alternative C but were analyzed 

in other alternatives. All of the effects were analyzed in the final environmental impact statement in at 

least one alternative. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

10

My decision takes into consideration how each alternative responded to the identified needs for change 

and associated revision topics; comments and input from the State of Alaska, local governments, 

Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other federal agencies, and the public; as well as

the analysis disclosed in the final environmental impact statement. 

The final land management plan has plan components that apply forestwide, as well as components 

specific to special areas, geographic areas, and eight management areas. The selected alternative

responds to public comments by adding and strengthening plan components for ecosystem integrity 

and for collaboration and partnerships with stakeholders and clarifying access and uses of National 

Forest System lands near private inholdings.

My decision addresses the original needs to change as follows: 

Access. The Access and Travel Management Plan is now a separate document from the final land 

management plan. Access and travel management is displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugach/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5346707). This meets direction 

in the 2005 Travel Management Rule and makes it easier to update as needed since a plan amendment 

is not required to make updates. 

The Motor Vehicle Use Map incorporates the winter and summer motorized access and travel 

management decisions made in the 2002 land management plan record of decision and other sitespecific access and travel management decisions made since 2002 as the current access and travel 

management for the Chugach National Forest (2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212). 

Winter snowmachine use is still allowed within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area, 

consistent with the definition of traditional activities5 and as provided for by ANILCA.

Areas of Tribal Importance. The final land management plan includes plan components describing 

ways the Chugach National Forest will strengthen shared stewardship with Alaska Native Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations. These include: 

• Recognizing the importance of the Chugach National Forest as ancestral lands and the need to 

achieve common desired conditions across shared boundaries. 

• Sustaining quantities of renewable resources for subsistence purposes, including culturally 

significant food resources. 

• Maintaining access to areas of the Chugach National Forest identified as important for 

religious and traditional uses and as sacred sites, to be managed through continued 

coordination and consultation with Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. 

• Increasing cultural awareness within the public through management approaches. 

• Managing Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS)-acquired lands. 

Special Areas. The final land management plan identifies and establishes management for multiple 

special areas. The final land management plan: 

• Carries forward the existing administrative recommendation that 1,387,510 acres within the 

Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area be included in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

 

5 Land management plan glossary – Traditional activities include, but are not limited to, recreation activities 

such as fishing, hunting, boating, sightseeing, and hiking. Such uses are subject to reasonable regulation to 

protect natural and other values of wilderness from damage (ANILCA Section 1110(a), R10 Supplement 2300-

2008-2). 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

11

• Carries forward the existing recommendation of nine suitable river segments (82.4 miles) for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and provides plan components to 

guide their management. 

• Establishes a “wilderness study area” management area, which clarifies management intent 

from ANILCA and the Alaska Region supplement (R10 Supplement 2300-2008-2) to the 

Forest Service national wilderness policy. 

• Provides plan components for the management of existing special areas on the Chugach 

National Forest, including the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Kenai Mountain-Turnagain 

Arm National Heritage Area, inventoried roadless areas, key coastal wetlands, national 

recreation trails, and scenic byways.

Ecosystems and Habitats. The final land management plan provides plan components to maintain 

ecosystem processes, conditions, and services on the Chugach National Forest, including those needed 

to maintain self-supporting populations of native aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial plants, fish, and 

wildlife, which are important to Alaska residents and visitors. The final land management plan 

establishes specific management direction for two species of conservation concern—the dusky Canada 

goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis) (final land management plan, pages 22, 52, and 99) and the 

Aleutian cress (Aphragmus eschscholtzianus) (final land management plan, pages 22, 37, and 99). 

Multiple Uses. The final land management plan provides for multiple uses on the Chugach National 

Forest, including lands suitable for timber (fuelwood and sawtimber for local communities) and wood 

products (see supporting analysis in appendix B of the final land management plan, pages 105–109), 

direction for access to subsistence resources (final land management plan, page 20), renewable energy

(final land management plan, pages 19, 25, 45, 68, and 70), infrastructure (final land management 

plan, pages 19, 23–26, 30, 36–37, 41–42, 45, and 64), and special forest products (final land 

management plan, pages 68, 70, 106, 139, and 157). 

Recreation and Tourism. The final land management plan promotes the use of partnerships to 

maintain and strengthen recreation opportunities on the Chugach National Forest and includes 

direction for recreation sites and trail systems to make them ecologically, economically, and socially 

sustainable.

The final land management plan updates the desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes and 

associated maps to better guide where recreation opportunities should occur and to what condition 

they should be managed (final land management plan, pages 47 and 64, map 16). It brings 

management direction in line with current uses, and provides access to and enhancement of winter 

recreation opportunities and special use authorizations. My final land management plan decision 

incorporates the mapped desired recreation opportunity spectrum in appendix A of this decision. 

Nature of the Decision 

The purpose of the final land management plan is to guide management on the Chugach National 

Forest for approximately the next 15 years. The final land management plan is strategic in nature. It 

does not authorize projects or activities, make irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, 

commit the Forest Service to take action, or dictate the day-to-day administrative activities needed to 

carry out the Forest Service’s internal operations. The final land management plan will be used to 

design, implement, and monitor site-specific activities, which must be consistent with the direction set 

forth in the final land management plan. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

12

The final land management plan establishes plan components in the form of goals, desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability to provide for ecological integrity and contribute to 

social and economic sustainability of the Chugach National Forest. The final land management plan

meets the social, economic, and ecological sustainability requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule and 

is consistent with the goals and objectives of the USDA Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2018–2022 and 

Forest Service Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2015–2020. The plan components and the forest monitoring 

program incorporate best available scientific information and together will enable the Forest Service to 

adapt to new information and new opportunities that may arise in the future. 

Rationale for the Decision 

The final land management plan represents a way to maintain a healthy, accessible, and sustainable 

forest that integrates multiple uses; provides social and economic opportunities to the region; promotes 

education, cultural, and environmental awareness; and supports adaptive forest management that is 

inclusive and collaborative. Below I describe my rationale for this decision based on the revision 

topics used in the analysis.

Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations

Wilderness

Based on our analyses and input from stakeholders, my decision is for 1,387,510 acres within the 

Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area to be recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, as displayed on a map 2 in appendix A of this decision. This 

recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review and 

possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on 

wilderness designation. Plan implementation is not dependent upon subsequent action related to 

recommendations for wilderness designation. The information considered in making this preliminary 

administrative recommendation is available in appendix A of the final environmental impact 

statement, and balances the concerns expressed in public comments.

This decision will maintain the highly valued character of the area, including the expansive natural and 

remote settings that are valued by stakeholders and the public for subsistence uses and for recreational 

purposes. At the same time, this decision recommends no newly identified areas, rather it recommends 

the same as put forth in the record of decision for the 2002 land management plan (except for land 

conveyances and corrected shoreline acres due to tidewater glacier retreat), all of which falls within

the existing Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area. 

The 2.1 million-acre Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area was established in 1980 

through passage of ANILCA and comprises more than one-third of the Chugach National Forest. 

Recent land conveyances and corrected shoreline acres due to tidewater glacier retreat have reduced 

that acreage to 1.9 million acres of National Forest System lands. 

In accordance with regional policy, all 1.9 million acres of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness 

Study Area must be managed to maintain its presently existing character and potential for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. This policy direction applies to all National Forest 

System lands within the designated wilderness study area. 

Interest in establishing designated wilderness within Prince William Sound started in the late 1970s 

with 669,500 acres proposed for wilderness during the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

(RARE II). ANILCA established the 2.1 million-acre Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study 

Area in 1980, which disappointed some because the area was not designated as wilderness. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

13

The wilderness recommendation made during this land management planning process was of interest 

to many stakeholders, including the State of Alaska, local governments, Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska 

Native Corporations, and the public. Some stakeholders would like additional acres of recommended 

wilderness because they value these places as special, or because they believe recommended 

wilderness management is the best strategy to protect wildlife and aquatic resources. Others prefer that 

I do not recommend any acres for wilderness designation because they believe management for 

recommended wilderness is too restrictive. Based on the continued level of interest in the Nellie JuanCollege Fiord Wilderness Study Area and the direction from Congress to maintain the presently 

existing character of the wilderness study area so as not to preclude it from future inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, the alternative to not recommend any areas for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System was not analyzed in detail. 

I listened carefully to both advocates and opponents of wilderness recommendation to better 

understand their interests. Although these interests could be mutually exclusive, I also heard many 

interests common to both groups. Communities and people within or adjacent to the Chugach National 

Forest desire that the forest remain much the way it currently is—in a mostly wild and natural state.

In response to public input, I have included a monitoring question and associated indicators to monitor 

the presently existing character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area and to 

determine whether plan components are sufficient to maintain the social and ecological characteristics 

of the wilderness study area. I have also added an objective for Management Area 1 Wilderness Study 

Area to define the presently existing character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area 

within one year of land management plan approval. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

My decision carries forward the 2002 land management plan recommendation to designate nine suitable 

river segments (82.4 miles total) for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (see 

appendix A of this decision and table 33 of appendix E in the final land management plan). During the 

revision process, the team reviewed the 2002 land management plan evaluation of over 760 named 

rivers. The 2015 Chugach National Forest Plan Revision Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation 

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd573504.pdf) found there were no changed 

circumstances that would alter the suitability of the identified rivers. Evaluation methods and 

conclusions from this current review are provided in appendix E of the final land management plan. The 

final land management plan, in Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers, includes 

plan components designed to retain the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly 

remarkable values of these rivers until at such time they may be officially designated by Congress. 

Although not part of my recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, 

my decision includes a mapping and acreage correction for the eligible section of Childs Glacier, as 

displayed in alternative C. Only suitable river segments can be recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Childs Glacier was determined to be eligible for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System based on the outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, 

and geologic feature values; however, the suitability analysis has not been completed. To maintain the 

eligibility of Childs Glacier, I have included it in Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational 

Rivers but have not recommended it for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This 

protection measure applies until a decision is made on the future use of the river and adjacent lands 

through an Act of Congress or a determination that the river is not suitable. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

14

Management Areas

I received many comments from the public and Chugach National Forest employees regarding the 

difficulty of implementing the 2002 land management plan because of the number of management 

areas.

To resolve this problem, my decision consolidates twenty-one existing management areas to eight

management areas. This will make the land management plan simpler and easier to implement.

These eight management areas all have specific plan components to address the resource conditions of 

the area. For example, river segments identified as eligible or suitable “wild,” “scenic,” or 

“recreational” were formerly separated into three different management areas and are now combined 

into one. In some cases, management direction that had formerly been addressed through a unique 

management area, such as for minerals or developed recreation complexes, is now addressed in 

forestwide plan components. 

Special Areas

My decision provides management direction for multiple special areas on the Chugach National Forest

in support of the need for change (see “Needs for Change” section in this decision).

Consistent with the requirements of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, my decision includes a 

desired condition to protect the roadless character of lands included in the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. This does not represent new management direction, rather it will support implementation of 

existing regulatory requirements.

My decision also includes direction to protect the values identified for three trails that are part of the 

National Trails System: the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the Resurrection Pass National Recreation 

Trail, and the Williwaw National Recreation Trail. Protection of these trails supports the need for 

change (see “Needs for Change” section in this decision) by providing for diverse recreation 

opportunities in partnership with other agencies, organizations, and local communities.

Congress designated these trails as “conservation system units” in ANILCA: ANILCA Section 102(4). 

The Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail and the Williwaw National Recreation Trail were 

designated and in existence at the time that Congress enacted ANILCA. ANILCA states that any unit 

of the National Trails System is a conservation system unit; further, the National Trails System Act 

includes national recreation trails as a part of the National Trails System. Therefore, I identified 

specific plan components to manage the Resurrection Pass National Recreational Trail and the 

Williwaw National Recreation Trail as conservation system units defined by ANILCA Section 

102(4)[1]. 

My decision also includes plan components for the Seward Highway Scenic Byway, the Kenai 

Mountain-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area, and for the Key Coastal Wetlands. I included these 

plan components in order to maintain the characteristics for which these special areas were designated. 

Geographic Areas

My decision establishes plan components for the Copper River Delta, Prince William Sound, and 

Kenai Peninsula Geographic Areas. I included these plan components to support terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem functions across the landscape and promote ecosystem resilience (see “Needs for Change” 

section in this decision) and to maintain the unique qualities of these spatially contiguous geographic 

areas that were not sufficiently addressed by forestwide plan components. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

15

Revision Topic 2: Recreation Opportunities

Commercial Guiding Authorizations in the Copper River Delta

To facilitate rural prosperity and economic development, and in response to comments from the State 

of Alaska and members of the public, my decision allows for commercial guiding authorizations for 

hunting and fishing in the western portion of the Copper River Delta (see map 3 in appendix A of this 

decision). I believe that special use authorizations for outfitting and guiding are better managed at the 

local level, rather than at the broader programmatic level of a land management plan. I do, however, 

acknowledge local concerns over potential for overcrowding and in response to these concerns I have 

included a desired condition and a management approach to address potential overcrowding impacting 

local users.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes 

In response to needs for change related to recreation and tourism and extensive public input, my 

decision updates the desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes available on the Chugach 

National Forest. Since the early 1980s, recreation opportunity spectrum has been used as a framework 

for identifying, classifying, planning, and managing a range of recreation settings. Recreation 

opportunity spectrum describes the desired type and degree of access, remoteness, level of recreation 

development, social encounters, and the appropriate level of signing and regulation for on-site 

management. The desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes on the Chugach National Forest

range from primitive, where an area is in a natural condition, interactions between users is low, and 

motorized vehicles are not allowed; to rural, where there is infrastructure (roads and buildings), 

interactions between users is moderate to high, and motorized vehicle use is allowed (table 1 and final 

land management plan glossary). The recreation opportunity spectrum class map in appendix A of this 

decision shows desired (future) recreation opportunity spectrum classes but not specific areas and 

routes open to motor vehicle use, which are determined through separate, project-specific travel 

management decisions and displayed on the Chugach National Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugach/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5346707). Travel management 

decisions made outside of the travel management process are enacted through forest orders. Forest 

orders (https://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/chugach/alerts-notices) close or restrict the use of areas to 

protect resources, prevent resource damage, address public health and safety concerns, or set limits on 

use and occupancy of Chugach National Forest infrastructure and facilities. An example of a forest 

order is the closing of an area to snowmobile use when there is inadequate snow cover. 

This decision establishes plan components to ensure that recreation sites and trail systems are 

economically and socially sustainable, are supported by communities and partners, and reflect current 

and future public needs and demands commensurate with Forest Service financial capabilities.

In order to provide diverse recreation opportunities, I have included a range of desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes that will allow flexibility to address emerging trends in recreation use. 

My decision includes changes to the desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the following 

reasons:

• To better align with existing recreation use patterns on the Chugach National Forest and meet 

desired conditions (align with current travel management decisions). 

• To meet the need to integrate interests of Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, 

and the State of Alaska (provide more flexibility to respond to access needs for traditional 

activities or subsistence uses). 

• To continue to provide diverse recreation opportunities (provide additional primitive 

recreation opportunity spectrum class areas accessible from the highway system). 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

16

• To support local economies (provide for outfitting and guiding opportunities). 

• To reduce conflicts between user groups while allowing access for both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists.

In response to public comments, my decision also balances the number of acres in the primitive 

recreation opportunity spectrum class with those in less restrictive classes (table 1).

Table 1. Chugach National Forest—comparison of 2002 land management plan and final land 

management plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes

Desired Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class

2002 Land Management Plan 

(Alternative A, No Action)

Acres (percent)

Final Land Management Plan 

(Modified Alternative C)

Acres (percent)

Primitive 2,498,666 (46%) 2,093,288 (38%) 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 1,535,709 (28%) 1,594,338 (29%) 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 

(Winter Motorized Allowed) 704,998 (13%) 1,257,213 (23%) 

Semi-primitive Motorized 583,284 (11%) 379,543 (7%) 

Roaded Natural 85,810 (1%) 90,296 (2%) 

Rural 6,681 (<1%) 469 (<1%) 

Key Elements of Land Management Plan Decision for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The section below highlights those areas across the Chugach National Forest where the desired 

recreation opportunity spectrum classes from the 2002 land management plan were changed in this 

decision (see map 3 in appendix A of this decision). 

Copper River Delta Geographic Area

The area located north of Scott Glacier and Sheridan Glacier to the national forest boundary and east 

to the Copper River was changed from primitive to semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized 

allowed) recreation opportunity spectrum class to be consistent with the current travel management 

decision for winter motorized use. 

Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area

The desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes were changed in the following areas to be 

consistent with the winter travel management decisions made in the 2007 Kenai Winter Access Record 

of Decision6

: 

• Areas on both sides of the Seward Highway between the Sterling Highway junction and the 

Hope Highway junction: some areas along this corridor changed from semi-primitive 

motorized to either semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) or to semiprimitive non-motorized recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

• Areas around and adjacent to the Carter Lake and Crescent Lake drainages were changed from 

semi-primitive non-motorized to semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) 

recreation opportunity spectrum class. 

 

6 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Kenai winter access record of decision. Anchorage, AK: 

Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

17

• Areas west of Cooper Lake changed from semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive nonmotorized (winter motorized allowed) to semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunity 

spectrum class.

• Areas north of Seward and east of the Seward Highway, including all of the Snow River 

drainage and Lower Paradise Lake, were changed from semi-primitive motorized, semiprimitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) to 

primitive recreation opportunity class spectrum. A corridor of semi-primitive non-motorized 

(winter motorized allowed) recreation opportunity spectrum class was created along Snow 

River to continue to allow winter motorized access through this area to access Godwin Glacier 

and the Nellie Juan Lake area.

• An area adjacent to Meridian Lake/Grayling Lake was changed from semi-primitive nonmotorized (winter motorized allowed) to semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunity 

spectrum class.

In response to public comments and objections, including those about opportunities for solitude and 

for recreational motorized over-the-snow travel, my decision includes changing seven areas from 

semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunity spectrum class to semi-primitive non-motorized 

(winter motorized allowed) desired recreation opportunity spectrum class. This change reflects the 

types of recreation use allowed by current travel management decisions and the change to a nonmotorized setting for summer months providing consistency with desired conditions. The change 

would apply to the specific areas listed below: 

• Between the Hope Highway and Palmer Creek Road near the town of Sunrise

• West of Palmer Creek Road and on either of side of Resurrection Creek south to Wolf Creek

• The entire area east of Hope Highway and west of Turnagain Pass

• The area south of Summit Lake on the east side of the Seward Highway including the Quartz 

Creek drainage

• The area west of Snug Harbor road to and including the east side of the Cooper Creek 

drainage 

• The Grant Lake drainage and the eastern portion of the Falls Creek drainage

My decision also increases the primitive desired recreation opportunity spectrum class by a combined 

77,067 acres in Snow River and Upper Mills Creek. These areas were previously classified as semiprimitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) in the 2002 land 

management plan. This change creates two additional primitive recreation opportunity spectrum class 

areas accessible from the highway system in the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area.

My decision designates Whittier Glacier near the town of Whittier as semi-primitive non-motorized 

(winter motorized allowed) desired recreation opportunity spectrum class to maintain winter 

motorized access to upper glacial icefields. The nearby Burns Glacier would stay semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunity spectrum class as it was in the 2002 land management plan to reduce 

conflicts between user groups while allowing access for both motorized and non-motorized 

recreationists. The Whittier Glacier area is a change from the 2002 land management plan, where it 

was semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunity spectrum class. 

My decision would change the Spencer Whistlestop area from semi-primitive motorized to roaded 

natural recreation opportunity spectrum class. This change reflects the desired condition with the 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

18

Spencer Whistlestop area having a higher level of recreation development, a larger number of parties 

encountered per day, and a more roaded environment. 

My decision includes the following changes in the desired recreation opportunity spectrum class for 

other areas of the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area to be consistent with current travel management 

decisions or desired conditions: 

• Areas adjacent to Crow Creek Road and the Upper Winner Creek drainage: the recreation 

opportunity spectrum class would change from semi-primitive non-motorized to semiprimitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed). 

• Twentymile tributary area: the recreation opportunity spectrum class would change from semiprimitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) to semi-primitive motorized.

My decision changes the rural recreation opportunity spectrum class that was placed on areas with 

mining claims in 2002 to a recreation opportunity spectrum class that is consistent with the surrounding 

areas. Mining claim ownership and claim boundaries change frequently, so individual desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes are not appropriate for these areas. This will facilitate implementation of 

the final land management plan by eliminating patchy desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

in these areas and allowing for consistent management. The only exception to this change is the area 

directly south of Hope on the Kenai Peninsula, where historic and modern placer operations have 

modified the natural environment in many places and where long-term mining operations are planned. 

The rural recreation opportunity spectrum class was retained for this area.

Prince William Sound Geographic Area

Within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area, I chose to keep the desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes the same as the 2002 land management plan recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes (described in alternative A (no action) and alternative B) except for along the 

southeast and northwest side of Blackstone Bay. In these areas, I chose a semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunity spectrum class for the shoreline and a primitive recreation 

opportunity spectrum class for the inland areas as described in alternative C.

Many members of the public wanted to see desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes that more 

closely aligned with the existing conditions of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area. 

The Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area’s existing characteristics most closely align 

with alternative C desired recreation opportunity spectrum, as was noted in the final environmental 

impact statement (page 174). Table 2 below shows how these existing characteristics compare with the 

final land management plan decision for desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes.

Table 2. Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area—comparison of existing recreation 

characteristics and final land management plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class

Alternative C

(existing recreation characteristics)

Acres1 (percent)

Final Land Management Plan

(desired recreation opportunity 

spectrum class)

Acres1 (percent)

Primitive 1,850,304 (97%) 1,090,080 (57%) 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 43,117 (2%) 773,387 (40%) 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 

(Winter Motorized Allowed) 25,354 (1%) 55,266 (3%) 

1 The acres do not include the Management Area 6 EVOS-Acquired Lands located within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord 

Wilderness Study Area boundary. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

19

I chose to keep most of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area’s desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes the same as the 2002 land management plan’s desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes to provide more flexibility to respond to access needs for traditional 

activities or subsistence uses, and to provide outfitting and guiding opportunities. My decision retains 

a semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed) desired recreation opportunity spectrum 

class on the ice fields around Blackstone Bay and near Nellie Juan Lake and Nellie Juan River. In 

areas within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area that are closer to Whittier and 

Valdez, I also retained the semi-primitive non-motorized desired recreation opportunity spectrum class 

to allow for continued economic growth while still maintaining the area’s presently existing character 

and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

My decision changes the Olsen Bay Creek Research Natural Area from semi-primitive non-motorized 

to primitive recreation opportunity spectrum to retain the natural characteristics of the area. This is 

consistent with how the other four research natural areas on the Chugach National Forest are managed.

My decision changes portions of Hinchinbrook Island from primitive to semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation opportunity spectrum class, allowing for higher levels of encounters in those areas used for 

deer and black bear hunting. 

Revision Topic 3: Ecological Sustainability

My decision includes plan components for ecological integrity of aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial 

ecosystems necessary to sustain a diversity of vegetation, fish, and wildlife communities, including the 

persistence of native species. For more information, see the section on “Requirements of the 2012 

Planning Rule” in this decision. 

Additionally, the Alaska Regional Forester identified two species of conservation concern on the 

Chugach National Forest: the dusky Canada goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis) and Aleutian 

cress (Aphragmus eschscholtzianus). My decision includes plan components for these two species. 

Concerns about the viability of the dusky Canada goose stem from the 1964 earthquake, which 

uplifted wetlands that hosted nesting sites in the Copper River Delta. Once the uplifted wetlands 

drained, nest sites became more vulnerable to predation. Consistent with the Pacific Flyway Council’s 

management plan for the dusky Canada goose, the Chugach National Forest initiated a program to 

provide low-predation-risk nesting habitat that is supported by plan components in the final land 

management plan. 

The Aleutian cress was identified as a species of conservation concern because the alpine habitat on 

which this plant depends is likely to decrease as climate continues to change. Plan components were 

developed to support the persistence of Aleutian cress, but it may not be within the inherent capability 

of the plan area to maintain or restore the ecological conditions to retain a viable population of 

Aleutian cress due to the changing climate. While only one population of Aleutian cress has been 

documented on the Chugach National Forest, much of its habitat has not been surveyed and more 

populations may exist. 

Revision Topic 4: Social, Economic, and Cultural Sustainability

My decision emphasizes the role of partnerships and collaborative relationships in implementation of 

the final land management plan, while also acknowledging specific values and interests of Alaska 

Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and the State of Alaska. My decision responds to the need 

for change by describing the importance of the land and features of the Chugach National Forest to 

First Nations (for example, the Chugach, Eyak, Ahtna, and Dena’ina) and how it contributes to social, 

economic, and cultural sustainability of communities.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

20

Plan components allow for sustainable levels of goods and services, such as recreation and tourism 

opportunities, outfitter and guide services, established fisheries, minerals extraction and energy 

generation, forest products, and ecosystem stewardship opportunities. These goods and services 

contribute to the local economy through generation of jobs and income while creating a variety of 

products for use, both locally and nationally. For more information, see the “Requirements of the 2012 

Planning Rule” section in this decision. 

Economic Contributions of the Chugach National Forest

My decision will result in no quantifiable changes in economic impacts, such as effects on 

employment or income. Activities related to the Chugach National Forest will continue to contribute to 

the local economy by generating jobs and income while creating a variety of other benefits to people, 

both nationally and locally. 

The commercial fishing sector is the largest employer in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area and Kenai 

Peninsula Borough. Other activities related to resource use and extraction—such as timber harvest, 

gathering of other forest products, and mining—occur within or can be linked to the Chugach National 

Forest. In a number of these cases, the magnitude of the activity is relatively small and hard to assess 

relative to the regional economy as a whole, making it difficult to accurately model economic impacts. 

For example, no commercial sales of sawtimber have occurred in the past 5 years; however, fuelwood 

is used as a heating source in local communities within and adjacent to the Chugach National Forest. 

I am carrying forward the decision from the 2002 record of decision that all four oil and gas 

production zones of the Chugach National Forest remain unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Two of 

the zones have low or no oil and gas production potential. Two of the zones were available for 

development based on settlement agreements with Alaska Native Corporations. Because oil and gas 

development did not happen during the span specified in these agreements, the agreements terminated. 

Under the final land management plan: 

• Spending on recreational visits to the Chugach National Forest will remain the same or 

increase slightly with the increase in areas available for winter motorized access.

• Payments from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act and 

Payments In Lieu of Taxes are estimated to support 70 jobs (full or part time) and about 4.3 

million dollars in income (2016 dollars) each year.

• Spending of about 16 million dollars by the Chugach National Forest (2016 Chugach National 

Forest budget) is estimated to support 280 full- or part-time jobs and 18 million dollars in 

labor income.

• Water quantity and quality will remain the same, and is expected to maintain fish habitat and 

the economic contribution from commercial fishing, sportfishing, subsistence fishing, and fish 

processing industries. 

• Economic contribution is expected to remain the same or increase if more special uses are 

authorized; however, we are unable to quantify economic contributions such as employment 

or spending from the types of activities we authorize through special uses. 

• There will be no changes to the accessibility of fuelwood. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

21

Access and Travel Management

My decision separates the existing Access and Travel Management Plan, which was integrated into the 

2002 land management plan, into a separate document. The existing access and travel management 

decisions will remain in effect, but because they are separate from the final land management plan, 

these decisions will be easier to update on a project-level basis in the future. 

This does not mean that the decisions on motorized use in the 2002 land management plan would be 

nullified; those decisions, such as the 2007 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision, remain in place. 

Authorized routes that are open and closed to motor vehicle use will be displayed on the Chugach 

National Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map, and will be updated as new decisions are made. Similarly, 

routes and areas closed to winter motorized use will be displayed on an Over Snow Vehicle Use Map. 

Both maps are available to the public on the Chugach National Forest website (Motor Vehicle Use 

Map at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugach/maps-pubs/?cid=stelprdb5346707). 

In some cases, existing travel management decisions are not consistent with desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes identified as desired conditions in this land management plan decision.

Areas where future site-specific travel management decisions will be needed to move the Chugach 

National Forest towards desired conditions are disclosed in chapter 2 of the final environmental impact 

statement. 

The 2002 land management plan decision for helicopter landings has also been retained. Any future 

changes where helicopter landings are allowed will be made through a project-level analysis and 

decision. Use of boats and aircraft by the public for recreational or other purposes will be managed 

through forest orders, consistent with ANILCA and other applicable laws and agreements. The final 

land management plan does, however, include plan components related to authorized (commercial) 

and administrative uses of boats and aircraft.

Cultural Sustainability

The Chugach National Forest is critical to the identity and continued welfare of Alaska Native Tribes. 

In addition to responding to specific comments received from Alaska Native Tribes (see section on 

“External Engagement” in this decision), the final land management plan reinforces compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act through the implementation of the Programmatic 

Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region; the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office. The agreement addresses heritage 

program management on national forests in the State of Alaska to protect cultural resources, which are 

defined as objects or definite locations of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field 

survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. 

Requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule

The Chugach National Forest final land management plan has been prepared in compliance with the 

Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). My decision meets the specific 2012 Planning 

Rule requirements at sections 219.8–219.11 as follows.

219.8 Sustainability 

Social and Economic Sustainability

The final land management plan contributes to social and economic sustainability by:

• Including plan components that maintain water quantity and quality for fish habitat, which 

supports commercial fishing, sportfishing, subsistence fishing, and fish processing industries 

(final land management plan, pages 20–22, 34–36, 42, 50–51, and 90–91). 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

22

• Emphasizing partnerships and agreements with communities, businesses, and non-profits to 

deliver programs, projects, and services.

• Promoting continued engagement with the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska 

Native Corporations, and local communities to reduce hazardous fuels in an all-hands and alllands approach, including updating Community Wildfire Protection Plans using the four goals 

and actions tied to the Alaska State Forest Action Plan7

: wildfire and public safety, forest 

health, community forestry, and forest stewardship programs. 

• Supporting Alaska Native People’s way of life through new plan components tied to mutual 

interests such as land ownership and entitlements, traditional uses, statutory rights, and 

working agreements (final land management plan, pages 15–18). 

• Supporting Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations’ rights to develop their surface 

and subsurface estates, which may include access and development on, across, or adjacent to 

the Chugach National Forest, consistent with ANILCA and other laws. 

• Recognizing the importance of recreation to residents, visitors, and the regional economy by 

providing for diverse recreation opportunities in cooperation with partners, while protecting 

the natural, cultural, and scenic environment for present and future generations (final land 

management plan, pages 6 and 30–33). 

• Managing recreation facilities based on use and maintaining the ability to sustain facilities, 

resources, visitor experiences and use, and encouraging partnerships to help manage new and 

existing facilities.

• Supporting the social and economic opportunities and interests of residents and businesses 

through special use authorizations for fish hatcheries, communication sites, utilities, 

hydroelectric facilities, outfitters and guides, recreation events, cabins, resorts, and 

campground concessionaires (final land management plan, pages 6–8, 19, 25, 30, and 62–66; 

final environmental impact statement, page 328). 

• Maintaining watershed health and important habitat for salmon, which supports a commercial 

salmon harvest valued at more than $19 million annually and generates over 3,000 jobs.

• Acknowledging the importance of subsistence uses for local communities and supporting 

these uses, including the harvest of wild renewable resources such as fish, game, berries, 

wood, and medicinal plants (final land management plan, pages 6, 8–9, 17–20, 36, 58, 62, 74, 

and 84). 

• Supporting the availability of fuelwood for personal use as an important economic factor for 

residents due to the high cost of heating fuel in many rural areas (final land management plan, 

pages 3, 27, 62–64, 68, and 72). 

• Recognizing the potential for the development of locatable minerals such as gold, and salable 

minerals such as sand and gravel, quarry rock, and other minerals (final land management 

plan, page 3; final environmental impact statement, pages 211–215). 

 

7 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2016. State forest action plan. Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska, 

Alaska Division of Forestry.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

23

Ecological Sustainability

The final land management plan contributes to ecological sustainability by:

• Developing plan components for the interdependence of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

the ability of these ecosystems within the plan area to adapt to changes from system drivers 

and stressors, such as the potential effects of a changing climate and forest insects and 

diseases (final land management plan, pages 20, 33–35, 61, and 63).

• Promoting hazardous fuel reduction near communities by continuing to work with 

neighboring communities to reduce fuel levels. 

• Maintaining air quality (including during prescribed fire activities), providing for soil 

productivity, preventing erosion, and protecting water resources in the plan area. 

• Maintaining largely intact, highly functioning terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds, including the largest contiguous wetland complex on North America’s Pacific 

coast (Copper River Delta).

• Supporting the continued restoration of resources and services injured by the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill, consistent with the 1994 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.

• Informing plan components with the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the 

Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula.8

• Promoting ecosystem resilience to encourage the persistence of native plant and animal 

species in a changing climate by emphasizing the use of adaptive management as knowledge 

about these trends continues to grow (final land management plan, pages 22–23 and 93). 

• Requiring the use of best management practices when undertaking management activities.

• Identifying and maintaining or restoring priority watersheds in accordance with the agency’s 

Watershed Condition Framework9 to maintain or restore the diversity of ecosystems and 

habitat types by focusing on maintaining or restoring key characteristics associated with the 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including a diversity of native tree species.

219.9 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities 

The final land management plan meets the coarse filter requirements for the diversity of plant and 

animal communities by: 

• Maintaining the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds by 

maintaining natural disturbance regimes (for example, glacial action, snow avalanches, 

earthquakes, floods, native insects and pathogens, windthrow, lightning-caused fire, and 

climatic variations) as the primary mechanisms shaping the landscape and ecological 

communities. 

• Supporting ecosystem services that help sustain hunting and subsistence opportunities (final 

land management plan, pages 15, 18–19, and 20–21). 

 

8 Hayward, G.H.; Colt, S.; McTeague, M.L.; Hollingsworth, T.N., eds. 2017. Climate change vulnerability 

assessment for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-950. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Watershed condition framework: a framework for 

assessing and tracking changes to watershed condition, FS-977. Washington, DC. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

24

• Supporting the ecological processes and conditions necessary to maintain habitat quantity, 

quality, and distributions of self-supporting populations of native plants, fish, and wildlife 

(final land management plan, pages 20–23). 

• Incorporating species-specific plan components that support four federally listed species and 

two species of conservation concern (dusky Canada goose and Aleutian cress) (final land 

management plan, pages 37, 52, and 55). 

• Consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service on plan components to protect 

populations of the endangered fin whale, endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale, humpback 

whale, and Steller sea lion. 

219.10 Multiple Uses 

The final land management plan provides for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, timber, 

watershed, wildlife, and fish by: 

• Providing desired conditions, objectives, goals, standards, guidelines, and potential 

management approaches for multiple uses and ecosystem services in the plan area (final land 

management plan, pages 15, 17–19, 22–23, 25, 30, 33, 44, and 46) 

• Recognizing and protecting historical, cultural, and tribal uses associated with the Chugach 

National Forest (final land management plan, pages 3–4, 15–17, 28, and 36). 

• Providing desired conditions, objectives, goals, standards, guidelines, and potential 

management approaches that: maintain the quality of both surface and subsurface waters on 

and flowing from National Forest System lands; sustain native terrestrial and aquatic species 

and ecosystems; meet federal and state water quality standards; and support State of Alaska 

designated beneficial uses (final land management plan, pages 34–36).

• Supporting the persistence of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources, which support 

robust commercial salmon fisheries, traditional activities, subsistence resources, outfitting and 

guiding opportunities, recreation (motorized and non-motorized), and a tourism economy 

(final land management plan, pages 20–23, 36–37, and 62–66).

• Providing opportunities for harvest of forest products, fuelwood (an important forest product 

for the local economy and a major source of heating for local communities), and sawtimber 

for local communities through small-scale vegetation management activities. Activities will 

also restore and enhance wildlife habitat and reduce the risk of wildfires near road corridors, 

communities, and infrastructure (final land management plan, page 62). 

• Providing opportunities for the development of mineral resources, where appropriate (final 

land management plan, page 30). 

• Providing opportunities for the development of energy resources, where appropriate (final 

land management plan, page 25). 

• Preventing invasive species introduction and establishment, and containing, reducing, or 

eradicating known infestations to protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (final land 

management plan, pages 27–28 and 43–44).

• Providing desired conditions, objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines for the Nellie JuanCollege Fiord Wilderness Study Area to maintain its presently existing character and potential 

for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System (final land management plan, 

pages 73–78).
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

25

• Managing rivers and streams found eligible for the National Wild and Scenic River System 

with desired conditions, goals, standards, and potential management approaches (final land 

management plan, pages 79–81). 

219.11 Timber Requirements based on the National Forest 

Management Act

The final land management plan addresses timber requirements in the National Forest Management 

Act by:

• Identifying 5,409,088 acres as not suitable for timber production for legal or technical reasons. 

For example, timber production may be prohibited by statute, executive order, or regulation 

(inventoried roadless areas, research natural areas, suitable wild and scenic river segments, 

wilderness study areas, EVOS-acquired lands, ANILCA 501b areas, and pending State of 

Alaska selections) (final land management plan, page 105). 

• Identifying 6,060 acres that may be suitable for timber production and further recognizing that 

this acreage is insufficient to provide a flow of timber on a predictable basis; therefore, no lands

are identified as suitable for timber production within the Chugach National Forest (final land 

management plan, appendix B).

 The determination that no lands are suited for timber production does not preclude 

integrated forest vegetation management on lands within and outside the roaded area. 

Timber management helps to control the establishment, growth, composition, and health of 

forests to meet management objectives, such as wildlife habitat enhancement (moose 

winter range), forest stand improvement, and hazardous fuels reduction. Timber harvested 

from these treatments contributes to a sustainable fuelwood and sawtimber supply 

sufficient to meet local community needs (final land management plan, page 106). 

• Identifying 11,170 acres suitable for the management of wood products for purposes other 

than timber production, including free-use timber and fuelwood per 36 CFR 223.10 and 223.5. 

• Managing vegetation to restore and enhance wildlife habitat and reduce the wildfire risk near 

communities and infrastructure (final land management plan, pages 22–23, 26–27, 37, and 51–55). 

• Providing for different types of forest products, other than timber production. In particular, 

fuelwood is an important forest product for the local economy and a major source of heating 

for local communities (final land management plan, pages 21, 39, 62, 64, 66, 68, 92, 102, and 

112–114; final environmental impact statement, pages 131–152). 

Preliminary Administrative Recommendations

Recommended Wilderness

As described earlier in Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations, my recommendation is for 1,387,510 acres 

within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area to be included in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, as displayed on map 2 in appendix A of this decision. This is a preliminary 

administrative recommendation that will receive further review and possible modification by the Chief 

of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress 

has reserved the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. Plan implementation is 

not dependent upon subsequent action related to recommendations for wilderness designation. The 

information considered in making this preliminary administrative recommendation is available in 

appendix A of the final environmental impact statement, and balances the concerns expressed in public 

comments.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

26

In response to public input, I have included a monitoring question and associated indicators to monitor 

the presently existing character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area and to 

determine whether plan components are sufficient to maintain the social and ecological characteristics 

of the wilderness study area. I have also added an objective for Management Area 1 Wilderness Study 

Area to define the presently existing character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area 

within one year of land management plan approval. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

As described earlier in Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations, my decision carries forward the 2002 land 

management plan recommendation to designate nine suitable river segments (82.4 miles total) for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (see appendix A of this decision and table 33 

of appendix E in the final land management plan). 

Although not part of my recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, 

my decision includes a mapping and acreage correction for the eligible section of Childs Glacier, as 

displayed in alternative C. Only suitable river segments can be recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Childs Glacier was determined to be eligible for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System based on the outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, and geologic feature values; however, the suitability analysis has not been completed. To 

maintain the eligibility of Childs Glacier, I have included it in Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational Rivers but have not recommended it for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System.

Interim protective measures must be applied to maintain preliminary classification, water quality, freeflowing characteristics, and outstandingly remarkable values for river segments the Forest Service 

determines to be eligible or suitable. These protection measures apply until a decision is made on the 

future use of the river and adjacent lands through an Act of Congress or a determination that the river 

is not suitable.

This recommendation for designation of wild and scenic river segments had limited interest from 

stakeholders. The few comments and objections related to the recommendation were based on the 

interpretation of ANILCA and not specific river segments.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review 

and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, or the President 

of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on designation of 

rivers as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Monitoring Program

The land management plan’s monitoring program (appendix A) includes a broad range of monitoring 

questions and associated indicators for specific plan components. Monitoring questions and associated 

indicators are designed to inform management of resources within the plan area, by testing relevant 

assumptions, tracking relevant changes, and measuring management effectiveness.

A biennial monitoring evaluation report will be prepared to indicate whether a change to the land 

management plan, management activities, or monitoring program may be needed, or whether a new 

assessment may be warranted based on new information. This report will be made available to inform 

the public, and to encourage feedback on the methods and how we are doing in meeting our land 

management plan goals. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

27

The monitoring program in the land management plan is focused on priority management questions 

and related core information. The land management plan monitoring program does not include all 

monitoring conducted for the Chugach National Forest or the Alaska Region. Project and activity 

monitoring is not included in the land management plan monitoring program, although information 

collected with such monitoring may inform the monitoring program and adaptive management of the 

plan. 

The monitoring program contains one or more monitoring questions and associated indicators 

addressing each of the eight required topics (36 CFR 219.12(a)(5)). Some monitoring questions and 

indictors may address more than one of these required topics. Details of the plan monitoring 

program—including monitoring protocols, data collection methods, schedules, and data 

management—will be part of a separate monitoring guide. The entire monitoring program must be 

within the financial and technical capabilities of the Forest Service.

Alternative Development

Alternatives were developed around the four revision topics, which were based on the need for change 

(see the “Needs for Change” section in this decision) and the two most significant issues identified 

during public scoping (recommended wilderness and desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes). 

Revision topics 1 and 2 respond to the significant issues, and revision topics 3 and 4 respond to other 

need for change elements and to public comments that were not identified as significant issues. The 

“Alternatives” section in chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement describes each 

alternative and provides detailed information on how the action alternatives were developed. 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

The following comparison looks at how the alternatives address Revision Topic 1—Land Allocations 

and Revision Topic 2—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, as these are different for each of the 

alternatives. Differences among the alternatives for Revision Topics 3—Ecological Sustainability and 

4—Social, Economic, and Cultural Sustainability are primarily related to the way the alternatives are 

addressed through the plan components. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Revision Topic 1—Land Allocations

Alternative A is the 2002 land management plan and record of decision. This alternative recommends 

about 1.4 million acres (72 percent) of National Forest System lands in the Nellie Juan-College Fiord 

Wilderness Study Area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Alternative A 

does not explicitly address ecological, social, and economic sustainability or climate change.

The 2002 land management plan includes 21 management areas with management area prescriptions 

that include desired conditions, suitability determinations, and standards and guidelines. 

Revision Topic 2—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes from the 2002 land management plan would not 

change.

Revision Topics 3—Ecological Sustainability and 4—Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Sustainability

This alternative does not incorporate plan components that respond to the needs for change related to 

ecological sustainability and social, economic, and cultural sustainability.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

28

I did not select this alternative because it does not adequately respond to the need for change and 

includes a large number of management areas, making implementation difficult. 

Alternative B

Revision Topic 1—Land Allocations

Alternative B is the draft land management plan that was released as the proposed action for public 

scoping in December 2015. This alternative maintains the 2002 land management plan wilderness 

recommendation, about 1.4 million acres in the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area.

Alternative B consolidates the 21 management areas from alternative A into eight management areas 

with associated plan components. 

Revision Topic 2—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes in alternative B are the same as the 2002 land 

management plan for the Prince William Sound and Copper River Delta geographic areas. In the 

Seward Ranger District within the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area, alternative B incorporates 

changes to desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes to make them consistent with the 2007 

Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision.

Revision Topics 3—Ecological Sustainability and 4—Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Sustainability

This alternative incorporates plan components that respond to the needs for change related to 

ecological sustainability and social, economic, and cultural sustainability. The plan components were 

displayed in the proposed revised land management plan released with the December 2015 scoping 

document. 

I did not select this alternative because it did not balance the need for non-motorized and motorized 

recreation opportunities and did not include desired recreation opportunity spectrum class changes to 

meet the current and desired conditions on the Chugach National Forest. However, I did incorporate 

the wilderness recommendation from alternative B into the selected alternative (modified alternative 

C), as it best balanced the comments for how many acres to recommend for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (see discussion in “Decision and Rationale for the Decision” section). 

Alternative C (as Proposed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement) 

Alternative C was identified as the preferred alternative in the final environmental impact statement. 

Like alternative B, this alternative consolidates the 21 management areas from alternative A into eight

management areas with associated plan components. 

Revision Topic 1—Land Allocations

In response to public comments expressing interest in additional acres of recommended wilderness, 

alternative C recommends about 1.8 million acres (94 percent) of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord 

Wilderness Study Area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Although not 

part of my recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, alternative C 

includes a mapping and acreage correction for the eligible section of Childs Glacier. Eligible river 

segments cannot be recommended for inclusion; however, to maintain Childs Glacier eligibility it is 

part of Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

29

Revision Topic 2—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

In addition to the desired recreation opportunity spectrum class changes described for alternative B, 

alternative C makes additional changes to more accurately reflect the types of recreation use allowed 

by current travel management decisions, including changes in some areas to a non-motorized setting 

for summer months and allowing motorized use for winter months. The changes respond to public 

comments to balance the need for motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities, and include 

shifting nearly all of the western Prince William Sound Geographic Area to the primitive desired 

recreation opportunity spectrum class. In the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area, approximately 65,000 

acres that had been designated “front country” would change to “backcountry” management area. This 

change better reflects management intent for these relatively remote areas and responds to public 

comments that front country management area boundaries were too broad. 

Alternative C includes plan components that strengthen language for collaboration and partnerships; 

clarify access and uses of Chugach National Forest lands near private inholdings; and strengthen 

management for ecosystem integrity.

Revision Topics 3—Ecological Sustainability and 4—Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Sustainability

This alternative incorporates plan components that respond to the needs for change related to 

ecological sustainability and social, economic, and cultural sustainability. The plan components were 

displayed in the August 2019 land management plan. 

I selected many components of alternative C in my decision, as described in the “Decision and 

Rationale for the Decision” section. I believe that the components of alternative C related to motorized 

and non-motorized opportunities provided the best balance of these uses. One of the reasons that I did 

not select the wilderness recommendation from alternative C is because it did not adequately balance 

non-motorized and motorized uses. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative C except for changes to the area recommended for wilderness 

and to some desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

Revision Topic 1—Land Allocations

In response to public comments, alternative D increases the area recommended for wilderness 

designation. Under this alternative, 97 percent of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area 

is recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (about 1.8 million 

acres), with the exception of Blackstone Bay, the Nellie Juan Lake and Nellie Juan River area, and all 

Exxon Valdez oil spill-acquired and other split estate lands. 

Revision Topic 2—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

In the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area, the backcountry management area is approximately 3,896 

acres more than in alternative C, and approximately 69,251 acres more than in alternative B. 

Revision Topics 3—Ecological Sustainability and 4—Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Sustainability

This alternative incorporates plan components that respond to the needs for change related to 

ecological sustainability and social, economic, and cultural sustainability. The plan components were 

displayed in the August 2019 land management plan. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

30

I did not select any of alternative D because it does not balance motorized and non-motorized access 

and the recommendation for wilderness area designation does not respond to comments requesting 

fewer recommended wilderness acres. 

Alternatives Considered but Not in Detail 

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives 

and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were eliminated from detailed 

study (40 CFR 1502.14). 

Public comments on the proposed action suggested alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives were outside the scope of this revision effort or duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail. Four alternatives (or alternative variations) were considered but 

eliminated from detailed consideration for reasons summarized in chapter 2 of the final environmental 

impact statement. The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

• Implement a commercial timber harvest program

• Do not recommend any areas for wilderness area designation

• Consider the following areas for wilderness area designation: 

 Gulch Creek and Alpenglow Complex 

 Snow River and Greater Paradise Lakes Valley

 Green, Montague, Evans, Hawkins, and Hinchinbrook Islands

• Recommend the entire Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area for wilderness area 

designation 

After considering the analyses of alternatives A through D, and the alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study, I find that a reasonable range of alternatives has been carefully 

evaluated in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act procedures. All action alternatives 

are realistic, implementable, and responsive to the land management plan revision topics.

Administrative Review and Objections

The land management plan for the Chugach National Forest was subject to the objection process 

identified in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. Known as a “pre-decisional administrative review process,” this 

process provided one more opportunity for the public to work with the Forest Service to resolve any 

outstanding issues with the land management plan prior to a final decision. The 60-day objection filing 

period for the draft record of decision, land management plan, and final environmental impact 

statement was initiated on August 30, 2019, concurrently with an objection filing period for the 

Regional Forester’s species of conservation concern list for the Chugach National Forest. The 

Regional Forester, David E. Schmid, received 43 eligible objections regarding the draft record of 

decision and related documents. No objections were received on Regional Forester’s species of 

conservation concern list for the Chugach National Forest. 

The objections fell into the following categories:

1. Inventoried roadless areas from the 2001 Roadless Rule – some people wanted to reduce the 

inventoried roadless area acres and some people wanted more protection for inventoried roadless 

areas.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

31

2. Elimination of pack llama use by Forest Service personnel and contractors through a land 

management plan standard – some people felt that the standard that was intended to reduce disease 

vectors affecting Dall sheep and mountain goats should not have been added between the draft 

environmental impact statement and final environmental impact statement and disagreed with the 

supporting science. 

3. Climate change – some people felt that climate change should have been considered more in the 

wilderness recommendation. 

4. Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area – some people felt that:

• more plan components were needed to protect the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study 

Area, 

• the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area should be managed for wilderness 

character and not presently existing character, and

• plan components should be added to ensure a minimum requirements analysis is completed for 

projects.

5. Recreation opportunity spectrum – people were concerned that it was not clear if the recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes were current conditions or desired conditions. 

6. Exxon Valdez oil spill-acquired lands – some people: 

• wanted these lands to be included in the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area, 

• others wanted these lands kept out of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area, 

and 

• some wanted more plan components to manage these lands.

7. National Trails System – there were objections on how the Williwaw and Resurrection Pass 

national recreation trails were described as conservation system units (defined by ANILCA) and 

how a management approach in the plan could be interpreted to include the Portage Curve 

Multimodal Connector Trail as part of the Iditarod National Historic Trail system.

8. Winter travel management – some people wanted new analysis for the travel plans from the 2002 

land management plan and for areas that did not have travel analysis yet. 

The Forest Service Alaska Regional Office convened a review team of resource managers and 

specialists to review documents and the project record related to those issues raised by objectors.

After the initial review of objections, interested parties and objectors were invited to attend resolution 

meetings with the Regional Forester and myself in Anchorage on January 14–15, 2020. Many 

objectors participated in these meetings, in person or over the phone. We were able to find common 

ground on some issues, while on other issues we were not.

In a written response to the objection issues on January 27, 2020, the Regional Forester found that the 

final environmental impact statement, the land management plan, the draft record of decision, and the 

associated planning record addressed most concerns raised through objections. He also found the land 

management plan revision documents are in compliance with current law, regulation, and policy. The 

written response on the administrative review was the final decision by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

As part of the written response, the Regional Forester also provided me with instruction to add 

rationale in errata to the final environmental impact statement, define and describe actions more 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

32

clearly in the land management plan and record of decision, and remove and modify some plan 

components in the land management plan. See appendix B in this decision for the changes to the final 

environmental impact statement and land management plan. Changes to the record of decision were 

incorporated into this document. 

I completed all of the Regional Forester’s instructions prior to finalizing this record of decision. All 

modifications fall within the effects considered across the range of alternatives, and consider all sides 

of the issues identified in previous comment periods and during the objections process. 

Modifications Made

in Response to Objections and Instructions

Environmental Impact Statement and Land Management Plan 

Changes in Response to Instructions by the Regional Forester 

I modified the final environmental impact statement (through errata), the final land management plan, 

this record of decision, and the planning record in response to instructions by the Regional Forester. 

Modifications include deleting, editing, and adding plan components and clarifying language. 

Changes to the final environmental impact statement and land management plan include the following

paragraphs. 

Changes to the Environmental Impact Statement

• Through an errata to this record of decision (in appendix B), changes were made to chapters 1 

and 3 of the final environmental impact statement to address the decision to remove references 

to llamas (or lamas) as potential vectors for the transfer of pathogens to Dall sheep or 

mountain goats. The Regional Forester found that the references to llamas in the final 

environmental impact statement were not easily identified by the reader as llama was 

misspelled as “lama.” Also, he found that the final environmental impact statement lacked 

rationale as to why llamas were the only domestic livestock species, aside from sheep and 

goats, identified as a potential vector for transmission of pathogens to Dall sheep and 

mountain goats. Due to this lack of documentation, the Regional Forester directed me to 

complete an errata to remove from the final environmental impact statement references to 

llamas as a potential vector for the transfer of pathogens to Dall sheep or mountain goats. 

• As scientific literature addressing the prevalence and pathogen transmission dynamics for 

South American camelid pathogens becomes available, I may choose to revisit this issue

through another public process. 

Changes to the Land Management Plan

• Typographical errors, number inconsistencies, and misspellings were corrected throughout the 

land management plan. These are not listed separately in the changes in appendix B of this 

decision. An example of the type of change is on page 4, where Canyon Creek was misspelled 

Cannon Creek; this is corrected in the final land management plan. 

• Modified forestwide standard FW-WLGOAT-S-2 to remove the word “llama” due to the 

Regional Forester concerns regarding the misspelling of “lama” and the final environmental 

impact statement lack of rationale as to why llamas were the only domestic livestock species, 

aside from sheep and goats, identified as a potential vector for transmitting pathogens to Dall 

sheep and mountain goats. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

33

• Replaced several Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area standards and guidelines 

referencing the need to complete “minimum requirements analyses” with guidelines that apply 

the minimum requirement concept. The terminology “minimum requirement analysis” was 

removed from the final land management plan after the Regional Forester clarified his 

interpretation of the Forest Service Manual R-10 Supplement 2300-2008-2. In an April 4, 

2019, memo to the Chugach National Forest, the Regional Forester stated that the intent of 

Forest Service Manual R-10 Supplement 2300-2008-2 is not to manage the wilderness study 

area as if it is congressionally designated wilderness. He directed the Chugach National Forest 

to follow section 2320.3 of this supplement, which states the policy for wilderness study areas 

is to maintain presently existing character and potential for inclusion into the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. The Regional Forester further directed the Chugach National 

Forest to follow direction provided for designated wilderness areas “only to the extent 

necessary to maintain presently existing character and to preserve the area’s potential for 

designation as wilderness.” The Nellie Juan- College Fiord Wilderness Study Area is not 

designated wilderness, and therefore there is no legal requirement to complete a minimum 

requirements analysis for activities in the wilderness study area.

• Removed the management approach SA-INHT-MAP, related to building new sections of trail 

that parallel the primary route of the Iditarod National Historic Trail within the highway rightof-way and that these trail sections would not be recommended for inclusion as part of the 

Iditarod National Historic Trail. Removal of this management approach was requested by the 

State of Alaska.

• Added a Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area objective to define the presently existing 

character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area within one year of land 

management plan approval.

• Updated language regarding the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS)-acquired lands to be consistent 

with direction from the Regional Forester to clarify that the management of the EVOSacquired lands is constrained by the conveyance documents and conservation easements 

consistent with the conservation easements.

• Updated the glossary with the definitions for National Historic Trail and recreation 

opportunity spectrum term semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed).

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

National Environmental Policy Act regulations require agencies to specify the alternative or 

alternatives that were considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). Forest Service 

National Environmental Policy Act regulations define an environmentally preferable alternative as: 

“the alternative that best promotes the national environmental policy as expressed in the Act’s section 

101. Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable alternative is that which causes the least harm to the 

biological and physical environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves 

historic, cultural, and natural resources” (36 CFR 220.3). 

I find, based upon the laws and regulations guiding National Forest System management, that 

alternative D is the environmentally preferred alternative. The main difference between the 

alternatives is the amount of wilderness recommended, and alternative D recommends the most 

acreage for wilderness designation. This is the primary basis for my determination. Should Congress 

designate wilderness, it would impose statutory protections for the biological and physical 

environment and historic, cultural, and natural resources on the ground. More acres would fall under 

this statutory protection with alternative D, making it the environmentally preferred alternative.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

34

Within the selected alternative, modified alternative C, all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from this alternative have been adopted. Through the selected alternative’s 

desired conditions, standards, guidelines, goals, and management strategies, environmental harm is 

minimized. Through the land management monitoring program, the effectiveness of minimizing 

impacts will be reviewed periodically as required by the 2012 Planning Rule. 

Best Available Scientific Information

The 2012 Planning Rule requires the responsible official to document how the best available scientific 

information was used to inform the assessment, the plan decision, and the monitoring program. Such 

documentation must identify what information was determined to be the best available scientific 

information, explain the basis for that determination, and explain how the information was applied to 

the issues considered.

I have reviewed the science used to develop the assessment, the final land management plan decision, 

and the monitoring program. I find the best available scientific information was used. 

Assessment Phase 

The Forest Service prepared an Assessment of the Ecological and Socio-Economic Conditions and 

Trends Chugach National Forest, Alaska, in compliance with provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule as 

outlined in 36 CFR 219, and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The assessment 

summarized existing information about the ecological, economic, and social conditions and trends 

within the context of the broader landscape, and their relationship to the 2002 Chugach National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). The assessment identified relevant 

information that informed the preliminary need to change the 2002 Chugach National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan.

Scientific review was provided by the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station to 

insure the most relevant scientific information was used (assessment, page 18). 

The assessment provided the foundation for development of plan components, environmental analysis, 

and the monitoring program. The best available scientific information used in the assessment is 

described in chapter 1 of the assessment. In addition to the best available scientific information, the 

assessment included provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule, annual Chugach National Forest 

monitoring reports, and public engagement and collaboration feedback, as well as planning and land 

use policies of federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other federal 

agencies, and state and local governments where relevant. Information from the assessment was 

updated and augmented throughout the planning process; for example, the final environmental impact 

statement was updated with new information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Planning Phase 

The following list summarizes, but is not fully inclusive of, the science used to develop the final land 

management plan and environmental impact statement. Citations in the environmental impact 

statement are used to link findings to the best available scientific information used in the analysis.

• Science related to disturbance processes, which informed analysis of all resources and guided 

development of plan components, is summarized in the first two sections of chapter 3 of the 

environmental impact statement. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

35

• Projected trends from the 2017 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Chugach 

National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula are summarized in chapter 3 of the environmental 

impact statement. This peer reviewed publication addresses ecological and socio-economic 

effects of changing climate, including glacial recession.

• Forest Service scientists from the forest health protection staff contributed information on the 

status and trends of forest insects and diseases.

• A biological assessment and biological evaluation were prepared according to agency 

standards.

• Informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the endangered fin whale, 

endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale, humpback whale, and Steller sea lion resulted in the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s concurrence with the Forest Service’s “not likely to 

adversely affect” determinations for these species.

• Documentation supporting the Regional Forester’s selection of species of conservation 

concern is in the planning record and available on request. This information was used to 

develop plan components for the species of conservation concern and analyze the 

environmental consequences of the alternatives.

• Information from the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework was used to develop 

plan components and identify priority watersheds.

• The National Landcover Database, National Wetlands Inventory, and forest-level plant 

community classification were used to develop plan components for vegetation and analyze 

effects of alternatives. Trends related to disturbance processes such as glacial recession, 

mortality from forest insects and diseases, and human-caused fire were considered.

• Results from the Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring Program informed 

development of plan components related to recreation and analysis of the alternatives.

• An economic contribution analysis estimated how the Chugach National Forest contributes to 

regional employment and labor income. The 2016 Economic Impact Analysis for Planning 

(IMPLAN) modeling system was used to estimate the economic contributions.

• The minerals analysis employed the most recent U.S. Geological Survey maps of mineral 

potential (2016–17). 

• Documentation of science supporting the selection of each monitoring question and associated 

indicators is included in the planning record and is available on request.

• Documentation from monitoring and evaluation reports completed for the 2002 land 

management plan were used to inform the assessment process.

Monitoring Program 

The monitoring questions and associated indicators found in the land management plan monitoring 

program were developed using best available scientific information for each of the eight required 

categories identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12(a)(5)). The “Planning Phase” section 

above identities the best available scientific information sources used to develop both the land 

management plan components and the monitoring program questions and associated indicators.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

36

Research Station Director Concurrence 

The Pacific Northwest Research Station completed the science review of the Socioeconomic Modeling 

and Analysis of the Draft Chugach Land and Resource Management Plan10 and analysis of plan 

components for research natural areas. The research station’s review team followed the science review 

process outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12). Science reviews, in general, focus on 

four primary areas relevant to the land management planning process and decision documents:

• Has the applicable scientific information been considered? 

• Is the scientific information interpreted reasonably and accurately?

• Are the uncertainties associated with the information acknowledged and documented? 

• Have the relevant consequences, including risks and uncertainties, been identified and 

documented? 

The Acting Station Director found the “socioeconomic modeling and analysis in support of the 

Chugach National Forest land management plan was adequate in terms of the consideration and 

interpretation of available scientific information and tools given the range of actions in the forest plan

alternatives under consideration.” 

Findings Required by Laws and Executive Orders

The Forest Service manages the Chugach National Forest in conformance with many laws and 

regulations. I have considered the statutes specific to individual resources as described in the final 

environmental impact statement, and I find that this decision meets our obligations to the current 

statutory duties of the Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the final land management 

plan addresses the relevant laws and regulations. 

Acts of Congress 

Accessibility Acts

The Forest Service and its cooperators are required to incorporate access standards into all of the 

agency’s “Federally Conducted” or “Federally Assisted” facilities, programs, services, or activities. 

This direction is mandated in the following laws and regulations: Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; 

Section 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 1978; Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (Title V, Section 507) and 7 CFR 15(e). The Chugach National Forest has incorporated 

accessibility requirements into the final land management plan and associated documentation.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

The land management plan adheres to all of the requirements in ANILCA. The sections listed here are 

included to respond to specific concerns expressed during comment and objection periods and do not 

represent the only sections of ANILCA that apply to or will be implemented by the Chugach National 

Forest.

 

10 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2019. Socioeconomic modeling and analysis of the draft 

Chugach land and resource management plan. Unpublished report. Available upon request at the Chugach 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 161 East 1st Avenue, Door 8, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

37

ANILCA Section 101(d) Purposes

ANILCA Section 101(d) states that the Act provides sufficient protection for the national interest in 

scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on public lands in Alaska while balancing adequate 

opportunity for economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people. Congress believes that 

the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservations 

areas, or new national recreation areas has been obviated thereby. This section of ANILCA provides 

important congressional determinations, findings, and information and was considered in making my 

final recommendations and decisions. By implementing and abiding by the provisions of ANILCA, the 

plan will meet the requirements of 101(d) by providing protection of scenic, natural, cultural, and 

environmental values on the Chugach National Forest while also providing opportunities to satisfy 

economic and social needs.

ANILCA Section 501b Copper River Delta

ANILCA Section 501(b) states the primary purpose of management of lands within the Copper River 

Delta (as designated by the Act) shall be the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. I 

assigned these lands to Management Area 5 ANILCA 501(b) Areas. In addition to the forestwide and 

geographic area plan components for conservation of fish and wildlife, I ensured that the intent of 

ANILCA Section 501(b) is met through the provision of additional plan components specific to 

Management Area 5 ANILCA 501(b) Areas. These include desired conditions to protect fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat, restrictions on the circumstances under which recreation or 

administrative infrastructure may be built, and a guideline limiting use of motorized equipment for 

purposes other than conservation of fish and wildlife. 

ANILCA Section 704 Designation of Wilderness Study Area within the National 

Forest System

ANILCA Section 704 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review public lands within the Nellie 

Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area and submit recommendations to the President and 

Congress regarding the suitability of the lands for wilderness area designation. The report was 

completed in 1985 and explains that until Congress has acted on the recommendations, the Nellie 

Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area will be managed so as to maintain its presently existing 

character. The 2002 land management plan record of decision updated the wilderness recommendation 

within the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area. My recommendation to include about 1.4 

million acres of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System is the same as what was recommended in the 2002 land management plan record 

of decision and provides an update to acreages and current conditions within the (wilderness study 

area) boundaries of the 2002 recommendation. This meets ANILCA Section 704 requirements for a 

“recommendation as to the suitability or non-suitability of all areas within such wilderness study 

boundaries for preservation of wilderness.” 

ANILCA Section 708(b)(4) RARE II Release

ANILCA Section 708(b)(4) states that unless expressly authorized by Congress, the Department of 

Agriculture shall not conduct any further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of National 

Forest System lands in the State of Alaska for the purpose of determining their suitability for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The final land management plan is consistent with 

ANILCA because it is a forest-specific plan and is not a statewide review and evaluation of lands 

suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 708(b)(4) includes a 

finding of “adequate consideration” for the initial land management plan developed after ANILCA was 

enacted, but it does not prohibit additional evaluations occurring in conjunction with land management 

plan revisions at a scale smaller than statewide. The 2012 Planning Rule requires the Chugach 

National Forest to identify and evaluate lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

38

System (36 CFR 219.7(c)(2)(v) and Forest Service Manual 1923.04c), the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (36 CFR 219.7(c)(2)(vi), and Forest Service Manual 1924.04(d). 

ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Uses

Subsistence use evaluation and determination is not required for land management plan approval.

Land management plans are programmatic-level decisions and are not a determination whether to 

“withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition” of National Forest 

System lands. However, a forestwide evaluation and determination is included in chapter 3 of the final 

environmental impact statement to facilitate future project-level planning and decision making in 

compliance with ANILCA Section 810.

I concur with the analysis in chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement and find that 

implementation of the selected alternative will not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses. 

Forestwide plan components, including standards and guidelines and management area plan 

components, reflect the policies of Title VIII of ANILCA. To maintain the federal rural priority of fish 

and game for qualified rural Alaska residents and in response to public comments, a desired condition 

and management approach provide for the local line officer to consider and potentially issue outfitting 

and guiding special use authorizations for fishing and hunting in the western portion of the Copper 

River Delta (Game Management Unit 6C).

ANILCA Section 1326(b) Future Executive Actions

ANILCA Section 1326(b) states that no further studies of federal lands in the State of Alaska for the 

single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, 

national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by 

this Act or further Act of Congress. The final land management plan is consistent with this section of 

ANILCA because it is a general land management plan and not a single purpose study. Land 

management plans guide sustainable, integrated resource management of the resources within the plan 

area in the context of the broader landscape, giving due consideration to the relative values of the 

various resources in particular areas (36 CFR 219.1(b)).

Clean Air Act

The overall level of activities proposed under this decision is not anticipated to degrade air quality or 

violate State of Alaska air quality implementation plans. This finding is based on information 

presented in the final environmental impact statement. No communities within or directly adjacent to 

the Chugach National Forest are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as non-attainment 

areas or maintenance areas. More detailed air quality impact analyses will be made at subsequent

levels of planning, where emissions can be more accurately quantified and reasonably forecasted and 

local impacts assessed. The final land management plan includes a desired condition that “prescribed 

burning on National Forest System lands is coordinated with the State of Alaska. Smoke from 

prescribed burning is short in duration and meets State of Alaska standards.” 

Clean Water Act

Implementation of the final land management plan is expected to maintain and improve water quality 

and satisfy all State of Alaska water quality requirements. I base this finding on the standards and 

guidelines in the final land management plan, the application of approved “best management 

practices” specifically designed to protect water quality, and the discussion of water quality and 

beneficial uses contained in chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement. Additionally, 

project-level analysis for subsequent activities implemented under the final land management plan will 

be required to demonstrate compliance with Clean Water Act and State of Alaska water quality 

standards.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

39

Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to ensure that agency actions are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species, or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat.

Four federally listed species are known to occur within the Chugach National Forest plan area. All 

four species fall under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Forest Service

submitted a biological assessment to National Marine Fisheries Service on April 8, 2019, and 

requested their concurrence with the biological assessment’s “not likely to adversely affect” 

determinations. We also requested informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act on the endangered fin whale, endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale, humpback whale, and Steller 

sea lion. 

Based on the early coordination and pre-consultation communication, the land management plan

includes plan components to address National Marine Fisheries Service concerns and meet National 

Marine Fisheries Service species recovery plans including:

• General mitigation measures for marine mammal viewing to protect fin whale, Cook Inlet 

beluga whale, humpback whale, and Steller sea lions from disturbance or collision. 

• Seasonal special use authorization restrictions in Twentymile River and other waters to protect 

seasonally important foraging habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. 

• Protection of National Marine Fisheries Service designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale. 

• Mitigation of effects to Steller sea lion critical habitat, rookeries, and haulouts. 

On June 21, 2019, the National Marine Fisheries Service concurred with the Chugach National Forest 

determination that the proposed action may affect, but is “not likely to adversely affect,” fin whales, 

Cook Inlet distinct population segment beluga whales, western distinct population segment Steller sea 

lions, or Mexico or western North Pacific distinct population segment humpback whales. I find that 

the final land management plan is fully compliant with the Endangered Species Act.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that all 

federal agencies must consult the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish 

habitat. The Act promotes the protection of essential fish habitat through project review, assessment, 

and mitigation of activities that may adversely affect these habitats.

The final environmental impact statement includes an analysis of essential fish habitat to determine if 

the actions or proposed actions considered in the land management plan revision would have an 

adverse effect on essential fish habitat. The analysis concluded that the land management plan does not 

authorize any specific project or actions that would reduce quality and/or quantity of essential fish 

habitat or contribute to any effects that may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological 

alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their 

habitat, and other ecosystem components. Future project activities designed to implement the final 

land management plan that may adversely affect essential fish habitat will go through consultation in 

accordance with the Act. I find that the final land management plan is fully compliant with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

40

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act requires National Forest System lands to be administered to 

provide for multiple uses such as recreation, timber, watersheds, wildlife, and fisheries. The final land 

management plan establishes a strong multiple-use framework by providing plan components related 

to ecosystem structure, process, and function; wildlife and fisheries; recreation; traditional and cultural 

resources; forest products; special uses; mining and minerals extraction; and energy transmission and 

development. I find that the land management plan is fully compliant with the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires public involvement and consideration of 

potential environmental and social effects of implementing federal actions. I find that the 

environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with each of the major elements of 

the requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the Act (40 CFR

1500–1508). These include (1) considering a range of reasonable alternatives, (2) disclosing 

cumulative effects, (3) insuring the integrated use of the natural and social sciences, (4) considering 

long-term and short-term effects, and (5) disclosing unavoidable adverse effects.

The final environmental impact statement considers a range of alternatives, including four alternatives 

considered in detail and four additional alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study (see 

chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement). Alternatives were developed and revised based 

on public input and comment, including consultation with Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native 

Corporations, State of Alaska, local governments, and other federal agencies. The final environmental 

impact statement discloses cumulative effects of each alternative by evaluating past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the plan area. Although non-federal lands are outside the 

scope of this decision, effects from their use have been considered in the environmental impact 

statement to a degree appropriate for a programmatic environmental analysis document at this scale. 

The final environmental impact statement also makes use of the best available scientific information. 

This use has been reviewed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station using a science consistency 

evaluation process that considered the quality of the information used, how the information was used, 

and whether risk and uncertainty were acknowledged. The best available scientific literature was used 

to help estimate environmental consequences.

The final land management plan adopts all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, 

including plan components to provide the ecological conditions needed to support biological diversity 

and standards and guidelines to mitigate adverse environmental effects that may result from 

implementing various management practices. The final land management plan includes a monitoring 

program and an adaptive management approach to allow flexibility to make needed adjustments over 

the plan period. 

My decision does not directly authorize any ground-disturbing activities or projects. Future grounddisturbing activities and projects must be consistent with the final land management plan and are 

subject to additional site-specific public involvement, environmental analysis, and pre-decisional 

review processes. The final land management plan is fully compliant with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations. 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

41

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act requires the development, maintenance, amendment, and 

revision of land management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. Under the Act, the 

Forest Service is to ensure coordination of the multiple uses and sustained yield of products and 

services of the National Forest System.

The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations 

for developing and maintaining land management plans. On April 9, 2012, the Department of 

Agriculture issued a Final Planning Rule for National Forest System land management planning (36 

CFR 219; refer to the Federal Register at 77 FR 68, pages 21162–21276). 

My review of the planning process, the final environmental impact statement, and the information 

provided in this record of decision (see sections titled “Rationale for the Decision” and “Requirements 

of the 2012 Planning Rule”) document that the final land management plan and its preparation meet 

requirements for revising land management plans under the provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule, and 

is fully compliant with the National Forest Management Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act

Alaska’s State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the draft land management plan and found no 

potential for the land management plan to affect cultural resources. The State Historic Preservation 

Officer stated that the revised plan adequately addressed the Forest Service’s responsibilities under the 

National Historic Preservation Act and that further consultation on the land management plan was not 

required, as the land management plan is administrative direction rather than physical alteration of the 

landscape that could have the potential to affect cultural and historic sites. Therefore, I find that the 

final land management plan fully complies with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

As stated in Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations, this Act establishes a National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System with three classifications of rivers: wild, scenic, and recreational. The purpose of the 

act is to protect the designated rivers “for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” 

and to preserve the rivers’ free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires an evaluation of eligible wild, scenic, or recreational rivers in 

land management planning. During the revision process, the team completed the 2015 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Evaluation; they reviewed over 760 named rivers and found that there were no changed 

circumstances that would alter the suitability of the identified rivers in the 2002 land management 

plan. The evaluation and analysis resulted in the nine suitable river segments (82.4 miles total) that I 

am recommending for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (see map 4 in 

appendix A of this decision and table 33 of appendix E in the final land management plan). 

Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers in the final land management plan provides 

plan components for the protection of free-flowing conditions and the outstandingly remarkable values 

identified for the eligible segments of rivers on the Chugach National Forest. Therefore, the final land 

management plan is compliant with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Only suitable river segments can be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Childs Glacier was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System based on the outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and geologic feature 

values; however, the suitability analysis has not been completed. To maintain the eligibility of Childs 

Glacier, I have included it in Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers but have not 

recommended it for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

42

Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be administered 

in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. It 

provides the statutory definition of wilderness, how areas are assessed for addition to the wilderness 

system, and management requirements for congressionally designated areas.

As stated in Revision Topic 1: Land Allocations, the evaluation of the existing Nellie Juan-College 

Fiord Wilderness Study Area in the final environmental impact statement led to the acres 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System in this record of decision.

The final land management plan provides direction for the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study 

Area through plan components that preserves the presently existing wilderness character in 

Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area. Therefore, the revised land management plan is 

compliant with this act.

Rules 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Management direction for inventoried roadless areas is compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B, published at 66 FR 3244-3273). The 2001 Roadless 

Conservation Rule includes a prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction in inventoried 

roadless areas and prohibitions on timber cutting, sale, or removal except in certain circumstances. The 

land management plan is a programmatic-level planning effort and does not directly authorize any 

road construction, reconstruction, or timber removal. Therefore, the land management plan is fully 

compliant with this Rule. 

Travel Management Rule

The final rule for Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use 

(commonly referred to as the 2005 Travel Management Rule), implements provisions of Executive 

Orders 11644 and 11989, to address the use of off-road motor vehicles on federal lands. Regulations 

implementing this Rule are found at 36 CFR 212. The portion of the rule pertaining to motor vehicle 

use is Subpart B; the portion of the Rule pertaining to motorized over-snow vehicle use is Subpart C, 

which was updated in January 2015. 

Prior to this plan revision, the Chugach National Forest designated specific roads, areas, and trails for 

the use of motor vehicles (including off-road vehicles), and displayed these routes on Motor Vehicle 

Use Maps (https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugach/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5346707) as required 

by 36 CFR 212 Subpart B. The Chugach National Forest completed 2007 Kenai Winter Access Record 

of Decision, which shows over-snow vehicle use on the Kenai Peninsula and this decision carries 

forward motorized and non-motorized vehicle use decisions in the 2002 land management plan as 

required by 36 CFR 212 Subpart C. This programmatic plan decision does not authorize additional 

motor vehicle use, or prohibit existing motor vehicles uses, therefore the Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

remain unchanged. 

Executive Orders 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

As required by Executive Order 12898, all federal actions must consider potentially disproportionate 

effects on minority or low-income communities (also known as environmental justice populations). 

Land management plans are strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. These plans do not create, authorize, or execute any ground-
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

43

disturbing activity, although they do provide for the consideration of certain types of activities. Future

site-specific activities will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income 

communities during project planning. 

Analysis in the “Social and Economic Contribution” section of the final environmental impact 

statement did not identify any disproportionate impacts resulting from the proposed management 

direction for the Chugach National Forest because a wide range of opportunities, activities, and 

services are offered. There are no changes to the availability and access to subsistence resources. 

Therefore, there are no anticipated effects to minority or low-income populations. In addition, 

collaboration on the final land management plan with local agencies and members of the public did 

not identify any concerns regarding disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations. 

Floodplains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990)

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short- and 

long-term effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and the modification 

or destruction of wetlands. The final land management plan provides forestwide standards and 

guidelines for soil and water, wetlands, and riparian areas to minimize effects to floodplains and 

wetlands. Additionally, project-level analysis for subsequent activities under the final land 

management plan will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of 

Alaska water quality standards.

Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species

(Executive Orders 13112 and 13751)

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 (Invasive Species), called upon executive departments and 

agencies to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, and to support efforts 

to eradicate and control invasive species that are established. Executive Order 13751 amends 

Executive Order 13112 and directs actions to continue coordinated federal prevention and control 

efforts related to invasive species. This Executive Order maintains the National Invasive Species 

Council and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee; expands the membership of the National 

Invasive Species Council; clarifies the operations of the National Invasive Species Council; 

incorporates considerations of human and environmental health, climate change, technological 

innovation, and other emerging priorities into federal efforts to address invasive species; and 

strengthens coordinated, cost-efficient federal action. 

The final land management plan provides forestwide plan components, including desired conditions, 

objectives, and guidelines to prevent or minimize the establishment or spread of invasive species.

Additionally, project-level analysis for subsequent activities implemented under the final land 

management plan must be consistent with the final land management plan. The final land management 

plan includes monitoring questions to track the effectiveness of the plan components related to 

invasive species.

Effective Date

The Chugach National Forest final land management plan will become effective 30 calendar days after 

publication of the notice of the approval of this final record of decision in the Federal Register (36 

CFR 219.17(a), 2012 Planning Rule). 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

44

Plan Implementation

Existing Authorizations 

Authorizations for occupancy and use made before this plan goes into effect may proceed unchanged 

until time of reauthorization. At time of reauthorization, all permits, contracts, and other authorizing 

instruments must be made consistent with the final land management plan, subject to existing valid 

rights, as provided at 36 CFR 219.15(d). 

Project Consistency 

As required by National Forest Management Act and the 2012 Planning Rule, subject to valid existing 

rights, all projects and activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of this land 

management plan must be consistent with the applicable plan components (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) as 

described at 36 CFR 219.15. 

Previously approved and ongoing projects and activities, where initiation date preceded approval of 

the final land management plan, are not required to meet the direction of the final land management 

plan and will remain consistent with the direction in the 2002 land management plan, as amended.

With the exception of previously approved and ongoing projects mentioned in the paragraph above, 

projects and activities authorized after approval of the final land management plan must be consistent 

with the plan components of the final land management plan. After the effective date of the final land 

management plan, all project or activity approval documents prepared will describe how the project or 

activity is consistent with the applicable plan components. When a proposed project or activity would 

not be consistent with the applicable plan components, the responsible official shall take one of the 

following steps, subject to valid existing rights: 

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components. 

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity. 

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. 

4. Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the project 

or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be limited to apply 

only to the project or activity.

Resource plans developed by the Chugach National Forest (such as the travel management plan) that 

apply to the resources or land areas within the plan area must be consistent with the plan components 

of the final land management plan. Resource plans developed prior to this decision must be evaluated 

for consistency with the final land management plan and updated, if necessary, to be consistent with 

the final land management plan. Updates to the travel management plan, or any other resource plan, 

will tier to the goals, desired conditions, and objectives of the final land management plan. 

Maintaining the Plan 

A land management plan is an integral part of an adaptive management cycle including assessment, 

plan revision or amendment, and monitoring. This adaptive management cycle will enable the 

Chugach National Forest to identify and respond to changing conditions, changing public desires, and 

new information, such as that obtained through research and scientific findings. The final land 

management plan monitoring program is an integral part of this adaptive management cycle.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan 

A land management plan may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of the 

need to change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on 

a new assessment, land management plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information, 

cl,langed conditions, or changed circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is 

described at 36 CFR219.17(b)(2) of the 2012 Planning Rule. 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision, please contact David Fitz-Enz, Chugach National 

Forest Planner; 161 East 1st Ave., Door 8, Anchorage, AK 99501; (907) 743 9595; david.fitzenz@usda.gov. 

Signature and Date 

DATE 

Forest Supervisor 

Chugach National Forest 

45 
46
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

47

Appendix A – Maps

This appendix to the record of decision consists of the following maps: 

• Record of Decision – Wilderness Recommendation 

• Record of Decision – Desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

• Record of Decision – Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
48
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

49

Map 2. Record of decision – wilderness recommendation
50
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

51

Map 3. Record of decision – desired recreation opportunity spectrum 
52
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

53

Map 4. Record of decision – river segments of the Chugach National Forest deemed suitable and 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Note: Childs Glacier is deemed 

eligible so has not been recommended but is part of Management Area 2 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational 

Rivers. 
54
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

55

Appendix B – Changes

This appendix to the record of decision consists of changes to the final environmental impact 

statement and final land management plan made between August 30, 2019 and February 2020. Many 

of these changes were required by the Regional Forester to respond to objections. In addition, 

typographical errors, number inconsistencies, and misspellings were corrected throughout the land 

management plan. These corrections are not listed in this appendix. An example of this type of change 

is on page 4, where Canyon Creek was misspelled Cannon Creek; this is corrected in the final land 

management plan. 

Errata for the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

This section lists the corrections (known as errata) to the 2019 Chugach Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Errata are entered chronologically by 

chapter and page number from the electronic final environmental impact statement. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1

Chapter 1

Page 13: Changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements – Chapter 3 – 

Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitats

Update this section:

Updates to text were made for clarification purposes in response to comments. The Threats to 

Abundance, Distribution, or Persistence section was updated. The text on domestic goats, sheep, or 

lamas was updated.

With this section:

Updates to text were made for clarification purposes in response to comments. The Threats to 

Abundance, Distribution, or Persistence section was updated.

Chapter 3

Pages 439–440: Effects to Key Wildlife Species – Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli) 

Update this section:

Since Dall sheep, mountain goats, or both are present within most areas of the national forest regularly 

used for land based recreational activities, the potential for contact with domestic pack animals is 

substantial (see table 115). Even a single contact with infected domestic sheep or goats carries the risk 

of irreparable harm to all interconnected native Dall sheep and mountain goat populations, making it 

imperative that the Forest Service implement measures to prevent such contact. Personnel conducting 

Forest Service management actions or authorized activities (employees, contractors, cooperators, 

special use permit holders) shall not use or keep domestic goats, sheep, or lamas on National Forest 

System lands within the Chugach National Forest. This measure is designed to maintain separation of 

Dall sheep and mountain goats from domestic livestock and to reduce the risk of wild herds becoming 

infected with M. ovi, a primary pathogen believed to be responsible for epizootic pneumonia (WAFWA 

2017). 

With this section:

Since Dall sheep, mountain goats, or both are present within most areas of the national forest regularly 

used for land based recreational activities, the potential for contact with domestic pack animals is 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

56

substantial (see table 115). Even a single contact with infected domestic sheep or goats carries the risk 

of irreparable harm to all interconnected native Dall sheep and mountain goat populations, making it 

imperative that the Forest Service implement measures to prevent such contact. Personnel conducting 

Forest Service management actions or authorized activities (employees, contractors, cooperators, 

special use permit holders) shall not use or keep domestic goats or sheep on National Forest System 

lands within the Chugach National Forest. This measure is designed to maintain separation of Dall 

sheep and mountain goats from domestic livestock and to reduce the risk of wild herds becoming 

infected with M. ovi, a primary pathogen believed to be responsible for epizootic pneumonia (WAFWA 

2017). 

Page 442: Effects to Key Wildlife Species – Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) 

Update this section:

Concern over the potential for disease transmission from domestic goats and sheep to Dall sheep and 

mountain goats is growing in Alaska (Jex et al. 2016; TWS-AAWV 2015). Thinhorn sheep and 

mountain goats in Alaska and northwestern Canada have not been exposed to many pathogens 

commonly carried by domestic sheep species (Garde et al. 2005; Miller et al. 2008), but evidence 

suggests they are as sensitive as bighorn sheep to some respiratory pathogens (Jex et al. 2016). 

Neither Dall sheep nor mountain goats in the Kenai and Chugach mountains have yet suffered from a 

major disease outbreak, but the prevalence of livestock on private lands adjacent to the national forest, 

and the use of domestic goats and other hooved mammals as pack animals increases the exposure risk 

(Schommer and Woolever 2008) and the probability of disease affecting wild sheep and goats over the 

entire Kenai Peninsula. Concern for disease transmission led the Alaska Board of Game to ban the use 

of domestic goats as pack animals while hunting wild sheep, mountain goats, or muskox. Since Dall 

sheep, mountain goats or both are present in most areas of the national forest regularly used for land 

based recreational activities, the potential for contact with domestic pack animals is substantial. Even a 

single contact with infected domestic sheep or goats carries the risk of irreparable harm to all 

interconnected Dall sheep and mountain goat populations, making it imperative that the Forest Service 

implement measures to prevent such contact. Personnel conducting Forest Service management 

actions or authorized activities (employees, contractors, cooperators, special use permit holders) shall 

not use or keep domestic goats, sheep or lamas on National Forest System lands within the Chugach 

National Forest. This measure is designed to maintain separation of Dall sheep and mountain goats 

from domestic livestock and reduce the risk of wild herds becoming infected with M. ovi, the primary 

pathogen believe responsible for epizootic pneumonia (WAFWA 2017). 

With this section:

Concern over the potential for disease transmission from domestic goats and sheep to Dall sheep and 

mountain goats is growing in Alaska (Jex et al. 2016; TWS-AAWV 2015). Thinhorn sheep and 

mountain goats in Alaska and northwestern Canada have not been exposed to many pathogens 

commonly carried by domestic sheep species (Garde et al. 2005; Miller et al. 2008), but evidence 

suggests they are as sensitive as bighorn sheep to some respiratory pathogens (Jex et al. 2016). 

Neither Dall sheep nor mountain goats in the Kenai and Chugach mountains have yet suffered from a 

major disease outbreak, but the prevalence of livestock on private lands adjacent to the national forest, 

and the use of domestic goats and other hooved mammals as pack animals increases the exposure risk 

(Clifford et al. 2009) and the probability of disease affecting wild sheep and goats over the entire 

Kenai Peninsula. Concern for disease transmission led the Alaska Board of Game to ban the use of 

domestic goats as pack animals while hunting wild sheep, mountain goats, or muskox. Since Dall 

sheep, mountain goats, or both are present in most areas of the national forest regularly used for land 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

57

based recreational activities, the potential for contact with domestic pack animals is substantial. Even a 

single contact with infected domestic sheep or goats carries the risk of irreparable harm to all 

interconnected Dall sheep and mountain goat populations, making it imperative that the Forest Service 

implement measures to prevent such contact. Personnel conducting Forest Service management 

actions or authorized activities (employees, contractors, cooperators, special use permit holders) shall 

not use or keep domestic goats or sheep on National Forest System lands within the Chugach National 

Forest. This measure is designed to maintain separation of Dall sheep and mountain goats from 

domestic livestock and reduce the risk of wild herds becoming infected with M. ovi, the primary 

pathogen believed responsible for epizootic pneumonia (WAFWA 2017).

References 

Pages 413, 439, and 442

Replace in-text citation for (Schommer and Woolever 2008) with (Clifford et al. 2009). 

Replace this reference:

Schommer, T.J.; Woolever, M.M. 2008. A review of disease related conflicts between domestic sheep 

and goats and bighorn sheep. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-209. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p. 

With this reference

Clifford, D.L.; Schumaker, B.A.; Stephenson, T.R. [et al.]. 2009. Assessing disease risk at the wildlife–

livestock interface: A study of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Biological Conservation. 142: 2559–

2568. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.001. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2

Page 157: Ecological Sustainability – Wildlife

Update this section:

Response: National forests have a proclaimed boundary that surrounds the entire Forest and often 

includes lands and waters that are not owned or managed by the Forest Service. The standard 

prohibiting domestic goats, sheep, and lamas applies only to National Forest System lands within the 

Chugach National Forest as stated in the original language (draft land management plan page 69, #14). 

It does not apply to any other federal, state, tribal, or private lands located within or outside the 

boundaries of the Chugach National Forest.

With this section:

Response: National forests have a proclaimed boundary that surrounds the entire forest and often 

includes lands and waters that are not owned or managed by the Forest Service. The standard 

prohibiting domestic goats and sheep applies only to National Forest System lands within the Chugach 

National Forest as stated in the original language (draft land management plan, page 69, #14). It does 

not apply to any other federal, state, tribal, or private lands located within or outside the boundaries of 

the Chugach National Forest. 

Page 158: Ecological Sustainability – Wildlife

Update this section:

Response: The land management plan guideline prohibiting domestic goats, sheep, and lamas on 

National Forest System lands applies only to activities authorized by the Forest Service through 

special use permits, contracts or agreements, and actions conducted by Forest Service personnel (draft 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

58

land management plan page 1, line 23). Any limitations on the public’s use of domestic goats, sheep or 

lamas on National Forest System lands, and the manner in such limitations would be implemented will 

be addressed at a later time through development of a forest order (draft land management plan page 

69, #14). 

With this section:

Response: The land management plan guideline prohibiting domestic goats and sheep on National 

Forest System lands applies only to activities authorized by the Forest Service through special use 

permits, contracts or agreements, and actions conducted by Forest Service personnel (draft land 

management plan, page 1, line 23). Any limitations on the public’s use of domestic goats and sheep on 

National Forest System lands, and the manner in such limitations would be implemented will be 

addressed at a later time through development of a forest order (draft land management plan, page 69, 

#14). 

Changes between the 2019 Land Management Plan and the 

Final Land Management Plan 

Changes made to the land management plan are identified below, by section and page number. These 

changes appear in the final land management plan. In addition, typographical errors, number 

inconsistencies, and misspellings were corrected throughout the land management plan. These

corrections are not listed in this appendix. An example of this type of change is on page 4, where 

Canyon Creek was misspelled Cannon Creek; this is corrected in the final land management plan. 

Final Land Management Plan

Forestwide Direction

Page 27: Invasive Species (INV), Desired Conditions

Updated this sentence:

There are no forestwide desired conditions for invasive species.

With this sentence:

The forestwide desired condition for invasive species is contained in FW-GL3-EPC-DC-5 

(see Ecosystem Processes and Conditions).

Page 55: Wildlife Management (WL) Mountain Goats and Dall Sheep (Goat) – FW-WLGOAT-S-2 

Modified forestwide standard FW-WLGOAT-S-2 to remove the word “llama” due to the Regional 

Forester concerns regarding the misspelling of “lama” and the final environmental impact statement 

lack of rationale as to why llamas were the only domestic livestock species, aside from sheep and 

goats, identified as a potential vector for transmitting pathogens to Dall sheep and mountain goats. 

Updated this section:

2. Personnel conducting Forest Service management actions or authorized activities (employees, 

contractors, cooperators, and special use permit holders) shall not use or keep domestic goats, 

sheep, or lamas on National Forest System lands within the Chugach National Forest. [Standard] 

With this section:

2. Personnel conducting Forest Service management actions or authorized activities (employees, 

contractors, cooperators, and special use permit holders) shall not use or keep domestic goats or 

sheep on National Forest System lands within the Chugach National Forest. [Standard] 
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

59

Special Areas Direction

Pages 57–58: Special Areas Desired Conditions and Guidelines – Iditarod National Historic Trail 

(INHT)

Removed the management approach SA-INHT-MAP, related to building new sections of trail that 

parallel the primary route of the Iditarod National Historic Trail within the highway right-of-way and 

that these trail sections would not be recommended for inclusion as part of the Iditarod National 

Historic Trail. Removal of this management approach was requested by the State of Alaska.

Management Areas Direction

Starting on Page 73: Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area 

Replaced several Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area standards and guidelines referencing the 

need to complete “minimum requirements analyses” with guidelines that apply the minimum 

requirement concept. The terminology “minimum requirement analysis” was removed from the final 

land management plan after the Regional Forester clarified his interpretation of the Forest Service 

Manual R-10 Supplement 2300-2008-2. In an April 4, 2019, memo to the Chugach National Forest, 

the Regional Forester stated that the intent of Forest Service Manual R-10 Supplement 2300-2008-2 is 

not to manage the wilderness study area as if it is congressionally designated wilderness. He directed 

the Chugach National Forest to follow section 2320.3 of this supplement, which states the policy for 

wilderness study areas is to maintain presently existing character and potential for inclusion into the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. The Regional Forester further directed the Chugach 

National Forest to follow direction provided for designated wilderness areas “only to the extent 

necessary to maintain presently existing character and to preserve the area’s potential for designation 

as wilderness.” The Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area is not designated wilderness, 

and therefore there is no legal requirement to complete a minimum requirements analysis for activities 

in the wilderness study area.

Page 75: Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area – MA1-OBJ-3 

Added a Management Area 1 Wilderness Study Area objective to define the presently existing 

character of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area within one year of land management 

approval. 

Added Text: 

3. Within 1 year of land management plan approval, define the presently existing character of the 

Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area. 

Page 88: Management Area 6 EVOS-Acquired Lands – Management Area 6 (MA6) Management 

Intent

Updates were made to be consistent with direction from the Regional Forester. Language regarding 

Management Area 6 EVOS-Acquired Lands was updated to read:

This management area was developed to specify management direction for lands or interests acquired 

with EVOS Trustee Council funds. Purchase agreements and related documents for the sale, purchase, 

or protection of lands and interests in lands among the Chenega Corporation, Eyak Corporation, 

Tatitlek Corporation, the United States of America, and the State of Alaska contain specific covenants 

that apply to each protected property. These purchase agreements and related documents identify 

detailed management requirements.
Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan

60

Page 89: Management Area 6 EVOS-Acquired Lands – MA6 Standards (S) and Guidelines (G)

Management Area 6 EVOS-Acquired Lands standards and guidelines updates were made to be 

consistent with direction from the Regional Forester. Language regarding the Exxon Valdez oil spillacquired lands was updated to read: 

(MA6-S)

1. All lands shall be managed consistent with the terms and conditions of the conservation easements 

that encumber the lands and the reserved rights of the grantors from whom the United States 

acquired the lands. [Standard]

3. Construction of power generation and transmission lines, communication sites, and utility corridors 

shall not be authorized unless specifically needed to reasonably develop the subsurface estate. 

[Standard] 

Page 142: Conditional in Management Area 6: EVOS-Acquired Lands

Updates were made to be consistent with direction from the Regional Forester. Language in appendix 

F regarding suitability of the Exxon Valdez oil spill-acquired lands was updated to read: 

NOTE: The first standard for Management Area 6: EVOS-Acquired Lands states: All lands shall be 

managed consistent with the rights acquired, recognizing the rights reserved in the conveyance 

documents and consistent with the conservation easements. [MA6-S-1 Standard]. These easements are 

the primary reason why many uses are “conditional.” For those uses that have easements, additional 

constraints are listed below. Check site-specific easement covenants before proposing projects in this 

management area.

Glossary 

Added definitions of terms. 

National Historic Trail: National Historic Trails recognize original trails or routes of travel of 

national historic significance including past routes of exploration, migration, and military action. 

These trails can only be designated by an Act of Congress.

Recreation opportunity spectrum terms

• semi-primitive non-motorized (winter motorized allowed): area is characterized by a 

predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction 

between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a 

way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but would be subtle. 

Motorized recreation use is allowed in winter months. Motorized use may be permitted other 

times of the year as provided for in ANILCA (Section 811). Use of roads for other resource 

management activities may be present on a limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to 

minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities.