Summary 

Draft Revised 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

May 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

2139 Ski Hill Road 

P.O. Box 2139 

Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139 

Alaska Regional Office 

Division of Conservation Planning & Policy 

1011 East Tudor Rd., MS-231 

Anchorage, AK 99503 
This page intentionally left blank.
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Regional Office, National Wildlife Refuge System-Alaska 

Division of Conservation Planning & Policy 

1011 East Tudor Road 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

 (907) 786-3357

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed is a summary of the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The final version of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

will guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years. This Plan outlines five management alternatives, 

including the preferred alternative, for addressing management issues raised during public scoping, and it 

describes the environmental impacts associated with implementing each alternative. 

This Summary document has been sent to you because public involvement in the planning process is essential 

for development of an effective plan. Please review and provide comment on the contents of this Summary by 

September 1, 2008. Comments should be specific, addressing merits of the alternatives and adequacy of the 

environmental analysis. We will consider your comments as we prepare the Final Plan. Environmental 

objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of 

the Final Plan. 

All public comments received, including respondent names and addresses will be included in the planning 

record which will be available for public review. If you, as an individual, wish us to withhold your name or 

address, state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your request to the extent 

allowed by law. All comments from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection. 

Anonymous comments will not be considered. 

Public meetings will be held in communities near Kenai Refuge and in the city of Anchorage during the public 

review period. Meeting dates, times, and locations will be announced once they are confirmed. 

You may view the Draft Plan online at: http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/planning/plans.htm, or obtain a paper 

copy or a compact disk of the full document by request at the address below. 

Comments should be mailed, e-mailed, or provided orally by September 1, 2008 to: 

 Rob Campellone, Planning Team Leader 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-231 

 Anchorage, AK 99503 

 Phone: (907) 786-3982 

 Email: fw7_kenai_planning@fws.gov 

 

Requests for further information about the Refuge should be directed to: 

Robin West, Refuge Manager 

 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

 2139 Ski Hill Road 

 P.O. Box 2139 

 Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139 

Phone: (907) 262-7021 

Email: kenai@fws.gov 

Thank you for participating in our planning process! 

Your comments will help us prepare a better plan for the future of Kenai Refuge. 
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... S-1

1.1 PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.................................................................................................... S-1 

1.2 WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN?............................................................. S-1 

1.3 PLAN CONTENTS...................................................................................................................... S-1 

1.4 PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... S-2 

2. KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ............................................................................... S-3

2.1 ROOTS IN HISTORY .................................................................................................................. S-3 

2.2 “ALASKA IN MINIATURE”........................................................................................................ S-3 

2.3 REFUGE VISION, PURPOSES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES........................................................... S-8 

3. THE PLANNING PROCESS...................................................................................................... S-24

3.1 PREPLANNING ........................................................................................................................ S-24 

3.2 INITIATE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING .................................................................... S-24 

3.3 DETERMINE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES .......................................................................................... S-24 

3.4 DEVELOP AND ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. S-24 

3.5 PREPARE DRAFT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ................................... S-25 

3.6 PREPARE AND ADOPT A FINAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............. S-25 

3.7 IMPLEMENT PLAN, MONITOR, AND EVALUATE..................................................................... S-25 

3.8 REVIEW AND REVISE PLAN.................................................................................................... S-25 

4. SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ISSUES ........................................................................................ S-26

4.1 ISSUE 1– HABITAT CHANGE AND USE OF FIRE ....................................................................... S-26 

4.2 ISSUE 2– FACILITIES MANAGEMENT...................................................................................... S-26 

4.3 ISSUE 3 – ENHANCING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES ....................... S-27 

4.4 ISSUE 4 – MANAGING INCREASING PUBLIC USE ................................................................... S-27 

4.5 ISSUE 5 – MANAGING MOTORIZED ACCESS........................................................................... S-27 

5. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................ S-28

5.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ........................... S-28 

5.2 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES....................................................................... S-30 

5.3 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES............................................. S-31 

5.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... S-34 

5.5 ALTERNATIVE A―CURRENT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... S-45 

5.6 ALTERNATIVE B .................................................................................................................... S-62 

5.7 ALTERNATIVE C .................................................................................................................... S-78 

5.8 ALTERNATIVE D .................................................................................................................... S-94 

5.9 ALTERNATIVE E — THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE........................................................... S-110 

6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... S-127

7. EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... S-129

8. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................... S-131

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-i 
List of Figures

FIGURE 1. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES IN ALASKA. ............................................................................ S-2 

FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. ............................................................... S-5 

FIGURE 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE VALUES ................................................................................................... S-9 

FIGURE 4. ALTERNATIVE A (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) – MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES........................ S-47 

FIGURE 5. ALTERNATIVE A (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) – FIRE MANAGEMENT...................................... S-51 

FIGURE 6 & 7. ALTERNATIVE A (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO LAKES IN 

DESIGNATED WILDERNESS..................................................................................................... S-55, S-57 

FIGURE 8. ALTERNATIVE A (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO CHICKALOON

 Flats.............................................................................................................S-59 

FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE B – MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES. ................................................................... S-63 

FIGURE 10. ALTERNATIVE B – FIRE MANAGEMENT............................................................................... S-65 

FIGURE 11 & 12. ALTERANTIVE B – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO LAKES IN DESIGNATED 

WILDERNESS .......................................................................................................................... S-71, S-73 

FIGURE 13. ALTERNATIVE B – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO CHICKALOON FLATS ........................................... S-75 

FIGURE 14. ALTERNATIVE C – MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES................................................................... S-79 

FIGURE 15. ALTERNATIVE C – FIRE MANAGEMENT................................................................................ S-81 

FIGURE 16 & 17. ALTERNATIVE C – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO LAKES IN DESIGNATED 

WILDERNESS .......................................................................................................................... S-87, S-89 

FIGURE 18. ALTERNATIVE C – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO CHICKALOON FLATS ............................................ S-91 

FIGURE 19. ALTERNATIVE D – MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES................................................................... S-95 

FIGURE 20. ALTERNATIVE D – FIRE MANAGEMENT................................................................................. S-99 

FIGURE 21 & 22. ALTERNATIVE D – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO LAKES IN DESIGNATED 

WILDERNESS..........................................................................................S-103, S-105 

FIGURE 23. ALTERNATIVE D – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO CHICKALOON FLATS .......................................... S-107 

FIGURE 24. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) – MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES ................... S-111 

FIGURE 25. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) – FIRE MANAGEMENT ................................. S-115 

FIGURE 26 & 27. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO LAKES IN 

DESIGNATED WILDERNESS................................................................................................. S-121, S-123 

FIGURE 28. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) – AIRPLANE ACCESS TO CHICKALOON 

FLATS..........................................................................................................S-125 

List of Tables 

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED BY ISSUE AND MANAGEMENT ACTION ... S-34 

TABLE 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND MINIMAL MANAGEMENT UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE A............................................................................................................................. S-46 

TABLE 3. ALTERNATIVE A BUDGET NEEDS............................................................................................ S-54 

TABLE 4. ALTERNATIVE A STAFFING NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS............................................. S-61 

TABLE 5. ALTERNATIVE B BUDGET NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS. .............................................. S-77 

TABLE 6. ALTERNATIVE B STAFFING NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS............................................. S-77 

TABLE 7. ALTERNATIVE C BUDGET NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS. .............................................. S-93 

TABLE 8. ALTERNATIVE C STAFFING NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS............................................. S-94 

TABLE 9. ALTERNATIVE D BUDGET NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS............................................. S-109 

TABLE 10. ALTERNATIVE D STAFFING NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS......................................... S-110 

TABLE 11. ALTERNATIVE E BUDGET NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS. .......................................... S-120 

TABLE 12. ALTERNATIVE E STAFFING NEEDS BEYOND CURRENT LEVELS. ........................................ S-120 

TABLE 13. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE ALTERNATIVES. ......... S-127 

TABLE 14. EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES BASED ON SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ISSUES ............ S-129

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-ii 
Summary Chapter 1: Introduction 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-1 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Planning for the Future 

This is a summary of the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge’s original plan, which was 

approved in 1985, provided broad policy guidance and established long-term 

goals for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management. As directed by Section 

304(g) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA), the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, Kenai Refuge’s 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan is being revised to guide management of the 

Refuge for the next 15 years. Revising the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

allows us to incorporate changing public interests, new scientific information, 

and revised management direction. 

1.2 What is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan? 

In general, a Comprehensive Conservation Plan serves to do the following: 

• Ensure that the purposes for which the refuge was established and the 

mission of the Refuge System are being fulfilled 

• Ensure that national policy is incorporated into the management of the 

Refuge 

• Provide continuity in refuge management 

• Ensure that opportunities are available for interested parties to participate 

in the development of management direction 

• Provide a systematic process for making and documenting refuge 

decisions 

• Establish a long-term vision for the refuge 

• Establish management goals and objectives 

• Define compatible uses 

• Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments 

• Provide a basis for budget requests 

1.3 Plan Contents 

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Kenai Refuge, the Refuge) Draft Revised 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft Plan) describes current management 

(Alternative A) plus four additional alternatives including the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s (the Service) Preferred Alternative (Alternative E) for 

managing the Refuge. Each alternative describes how it would address 

management concerns and public issues. The Draft Plan includes a description of 

the Refuge’s existing physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments, and 

an assessment of the environmental consequences of implementing each of the 

alternatives. 
Summary Chapter 1: Introduction 

1.4 Planning Context 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

1.4.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System 

The National Wildlife Refuge System (System, Refuge System) comprises more 

than 96 million acres of Federal lands, which encompass more than 545 national 

wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management 

areas. Alaska contains 16 national wildlife refuges (Figure 1). These refuges 

contain a wide range of habitats with varied terrain that includes mountains, 

glaciers, tundra, grasslands, wetlands, lakes, woodlands, and rivers. Together, the 

16 refuges in Alaska comprise 76.8 million acres and constitute about 80 percent 

of the Refuge System. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans. 

Figure 1. National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-2 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

2. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

2.1 Roots in History 

Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Kenai National Moose Range (Moose 

Range) on December 16, 1941, for the purpose of “. . . protecting the natural 

breeding and feeding range of the giant Kenai moose on the Kenai Peninsula, 

Alaska, which in this area presents a unique wildlife feature and an unusual 

opportunity for the study, in its natural environment, of the practical 

management of a big-game species that has considerable local economic 

value...”. 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 

substantially affected the Moose Range by modifying its boundaries and 

broadening its purposes from moose conservation to protection and conservation 

of a broad array of fish, wildlife, habitats, other resources, and educational and 

recreational opportunities. ANILCA also redesignated the Moose Range as the 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Kenai Refuge, the Refuge) (Figure 2), added 

nearly a quarter of a million acres of land, and established the 1.32 million-acres 

Kenai Wilderness. 

2.2 “Alaska in Miniature” 

2.2.1 Physical Environment 

The Kenai Refuge is considered by many to be “Alaska in Miniature.” The Kenai 

Mountains – within the eastern third of the Refuge – vary in elevation from 3,000 

to 6,600 feet and are heavily glaciated in many of the higher elevation areas. The 

largest glaciated area – the Harding Ice Field – covers more than 1,100 square 

miles and lies within the boundaries of both the Refuge and adjoining Kenai 

Fjords National Park. Located within the icefield, and on the Refuge, is Truuli 

Peak, the highest peak on the Kenai Peninsula at 6,600 feet. 

The Kenai Lowlands make up approximately two-thirds of the Refuge and 

contains thousands of lakes and boreal forest covering low hills, ridges, and 

muskeg. The largest two lakes on the Kenai Peninsula are the 73,000 acre 

Tustumena and 25,000 acre Skilak Lakes. 

The Kenai River is the dominant river system on the Refuge. Approximately 54 

percent of the watershed is on the Refuge. The four major tributaries providing 

the most water volume and fish habitat to the Kenai River system are the Funny, 

Moose, Killey, and Russian rivers. The Chickaloon, Swanson, and Kasilof rivers 

are three other significant systems contained wholly or mostly within the Refuge. 

2.2.2 Biological Environment 

More than 175 species of mammals and birds occur on the Refuge during at least 

part of the year. ANILCA mandated the conservation of all fish and wildlife 

populations and habitats in their natural diversity, but made specific mention of 

moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves, and other furbearers, salmonids 

and other fish, and waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds. Bald 

eagles, trumpeter swans, and common loons are frequently observed bird species 

on lakes and rivers of the Refuge. Slate-colored junco, myrtle warbler, orangecrowned warbler, Swainson’s thrush, boreal chickadee, ruby-crowned kinglet, 

gray jay, alder flycatcher, and American robin are common breeding landbirds in 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-3 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Refuge forests. Twenty species of fish are documented on the Refuge with 

salmon (Chinook, coho, sockeye, and pink) being most important from 

ecological, recreation, and off-Refuge commercial viewpoints. Anglers travel 

from all around the world to the Kenai area each year to fish for salmon, trout, 

and Dolly Varden. No reptiles and only one species of amphibian is found on the 

Kenai: the hardy wood frog, which survives long winters by burrowing into mud 

that will ultimately freeze for many months before spring thaw. 

Vegetation on the Refuge is diverse and rich, with 484 vascular plants, 97 fungi, 

35 lichen, and 90 moss species catalogued to date. Most of the vegetation falls 

into a few land cover types, including alpine tundra, estuarine or riparian areas, 

black spruce forest and peat bog, hardwood and mixed spruce–hardwood forests, 

black spruce forest, and white spruce forests. Wildfire is an important natural 

process in forests dominated by black spruce. Spruce bark beetle and, to a lesser 

extent, wildfire, are important natural processes in forests dominated by white 

spruce. Avalanches on steep slopes of the Kenai Mountains, receding glaciers, 

and drying wetlands in the Kenai Lowlands also continue to influence the 

landscape of the Refuge. 

2.2.3 Human Uses 

Approximately 1.2 million people travel through Kenai Refuge each year on the 

Sterling Highway, and an estimated 300,000 visitors spend extended periods of 

time on the Refuge enjoying a variety of outdoor activities, including fishing, 

camping, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing and photography, and canoeing. 

There are now also more than 50,000 year-round residents on the Kenai 

Peninsula. 

As the seasons change, so do the dominant human uses of the Refuge. Intense 

visitation from visitors enjoying fishing, hiking, sightseeing, and camping is most 

obvious in spring, summer, and fall. Hunting occurs throughout the year but is 

predominantly a fall activity. When winter snows come, Refuge users turn to 

crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, trapping, ice fishing, and snowmachine travel 

once portions of the Refuge have been opened to such use. Regulations allow for 

more than half of the Refuge to be opened to snowmachine use from December 1 

through April 30 each winter, once the Refuge Manager has determined adequate 

snowfall exists to protect underlying vegetation and soils. 

Hundreds of individuals make a portion of their livelihood directly from the 

Refuge, predominantly by being permitted guides or outfitters. Thousands of 

other Alaskans benefit indirectly as they take advantage of the economic input of 

the Refuge’s many visitors. Still others, such as those in the commercial fishing 

industry, benefit from the Refuge providing the majority of the critical spawning 

and rearing habitat for Upper Cook Inlet salmon. Finally, oil and gas 

development within the Refuge has provided a significant number of jobs and 

economic stability to the Region for nearly five decades.

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-4 
Placeholder: 

Figure 2 

Refuge Location 

Page 5 
Placeholder: 

Figure 2 

Refuge Location 

(backside) 

Page 6 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

2.2.4 Special Resource Values 

Comments received from the public during scoping indicated that people value 

the Refuge’s wilderness character, its accessibility, and the role it plays in 

conserving fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Some people also mentioned specific 

places on the Refuge that they valued (Figure 3), including: 

Chickaloon River Watershed and Estuary

The Chickaloon River watershed and associated estuary is the major waterfowl 

and shorebird migratory staging area on the Kenai Peninsula and the only estuary 

on the Refuge. Protection of the Chickaloon Flats was the major reason the 

Refuge’s northeastern boundary was extended to include most of the Chickaloon 

and Indian Creek watersheds. 

Harding Icefield

The Harding Icefield is one of four major ice fields in the United States. Its 

glaciers continue to carve valleys through the Kenai Mountains and feed rivers 

throughout the Peninsula; as a result of global climate change; however, the 

icefield itself is receding. 

Kenai River and its Tributaries

The Kenai River, together with its tributaries—the Moose, Funny, Killey, and 

Russian rivers—is the largest drainage system on the Kenai Peninsula. The Kenai 

River is important to the entire Refuge ecosystem. The Kenai River provides 

priceless spawning and rearing habitat for millions of salmon. 

Lowland Lakes System

The numerous lakes located throughout the northern lowlands are a unique 

geologic feature that provides a variety of aquatic habitats for Refuge wildlife. 

The Swanson River and Swan Lake canoe routes are the only nationally 

designated trails in the Alaska refuge system and annually provide thousands of 

refuge visitors the opportunity to enjoy this mix of forest and wetland habitats 

and their associated wildlife. 

Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area

The area north of Skilak Lake was first recognized as a unique recreation 

destination in 1958 when it, along with the Chickaloon Flats and SkilakTustumena Benchlands, was removed from potential oil and gas leasing. Today, 

the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area—which contains a variety of habitats, 

wildlife species, and scenic vistas that are road accessible to Refuge visitors—is 

recognized as a special area that provides opportunities for environmental 

education, interpretation, photography, wildlife viewing, and other nonconflicting wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

Tustumena Lake and its Watersheld

Tustumena Lake is the largest lake on the Kenai Peninsula and the fifth largest lake 

in Alaska. This immense glacial lake encompasses approximately 73,000 acres, 

and its Kasilof River drainage is second only to the Kenai River drainage in size. 

Rich in fisheries, wildlife, wilderness, and historical values, Tustumena Lake is 

popular with boaters and campers and provides a gateway, via several Refuge 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-7 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

trails, for wilderness hikers and hunters to the scenic glacier flats and tundra 

benchlands located nearby. Historic cabins remain along the lakeshore as a 

reminder to earlier years of gold mining and trapping in the area. Tustumena Lake 

and its tributaries are significant contributors to Cook Inlet area commercial, 

recreation, and personal use sockeye salmon fisheries. Whether visited via boat, 

horse, airplane, or snowmachine in winter, the Tustumena Lake area provides 

scenic outdoor wilderness experiences to thousands of Refuge visitors each year. 

Tustumena-Skilak Benchlands

This unique ecological area lies between Tustumena and Skilak lakes. It consists 

of alpine plateaus on the west side of the Kenai Mountains and is home to Dall 

sheep, caribou, mountain goat, brown and black bear, and moose. It is 

encompassed by the Andrew Simons Research Natural Area and lies within the 

Kenai Wilderness. 

2.3 Refuge Vision, Purposes, Goals, and Objectives 

2.3.1 Vision Statement 

Refuge staff identified their vision of the Refuge considering the Refuge System 

mission, the Refuge’s ANILCA purposes, the Wilderness Act, and other relevant 

Service mandates: 

Vision Statement 

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity on 

the Kenai Peninsula despite global climate change, increasing development, and 

competing demands for Refuge resources. Native wildlife and their habitats will 

find a secure place here, where Refuge staff and partners work together using the 

best science and technology available to ensure that biological health is 

maximized and human impacts are minimized. 

Visitors will feel welcomed and safe by means of a wide variety of wildlifedependent recreation opportunities, facilities, and interpretive and educational 

programs that encourage informed and ethical use of the Refuge’s natural 

resources. The Refuge will achieve excellence in land, water, and Wilderness 

stewardship; and—with careful planning, forethought, and human 

determination—an enduring legacy of abundant plant, fish and wildlife 

populations will be ensured for people to enjoy today and into the future for this 

phenomenal land we call “The Kenai.” 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-8 
Placeholder: 

 

Figure 3 

Special Values 

Page 9
Placeholder: 

 

Figure 3 

Special Values 

(backside) 

Page 10
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

2.3.2 Refuge Purposes, Goals, and Objectives 

Purpose (i): To conserve the fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity, including but not limited to moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall 

sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonoids and other fish, waterfowl and 

other migratory and nonmigratory birds.

GOAL 1: Research—Increase the services knowledge of fish and wildlife 

populations, their habitats, and their interrelationships. 

Objective 1.1: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Continue long-term 

monitoring of vegetative responses to fire at: Hakala plots (every 5 years), Fire 

Monitoring Handbook plots (every 3-5 years), and Fire Inventory and Analysis 

plots (every 10 years). 

Objective 1.2: Capacity Building―Continue to support the research plans 

identified and/or developed by the Interagency Brown Bear Study Team 

(IBBST). 

Objective 1.3: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Continue annual 

monitoring of snowshoe hare populations on five established sites. 

Objective 1.4: Capacity Building—Actively seek to fund at least one 

cooperative fire research project every three to five years on the Refuge to 

maintain established working relationships with the fire science community 

(universities, research stations and other agencies) and to improve the working 

knowledge of Refuge fire managers and ecologists in boreal ecosystems. 

Objective 1.5: Biological Inventories—Within two years of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan’s (Plan) approval, complete the ongoing population assessment of 

steelhead trout in the Kasilof River watershed. 

Objective 1.6: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Within two years of 

Plan’s approval, establish five permanent stations in peatlands to measure the 

annual accumulation rate of peat moss. 

Objective 1.7: Supporting Geographic Information System (GIS) 

Databases—Within two years of Plan’s approval, develop a supervised 

classification of vegetation communities on the Kenai Peninsula from 

LANDSAT imagery (30-meter resolution). 

Objective 1.8: Supporting GIS Databases—Within two years of Plan’s 

approval, complete the archiving of all historical fisheries and limnological 

information in a database that will be compatible with the Refuge’s GIS. 

Objective 1.9: Capacity Building—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

enhance the Peninsula-wide meteorological station network by increasing the 

number and quality of stations in cooperation with interagency partners. 

Objective 1.10: Capacity Building—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

develop a program that incorporates the five designated Research Natural Areas 

(RNAs) into an integrated ecological monitoring and research program. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-11 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 1.11: Supporting GIS Databases—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, complete fuels classification mapping to meet national fire plan goals 

for the LANDFIRE, Fire Regime/Condition Class (FRCC), and Fire Program 

Analysis (FPA) projects. 

Objective 1.12: Biological Inventories—Within three years of Plan’s approval, 

complete a population assessment of rainbow trout in the Kenai River below 

Skilak Lake. 

Objective 1.13: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Within five years of 

Plan’s approval, improve precision by 25 percent on estimates of historical 

wildfire rates in black and white spruce. 

Objective 1.14: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Within five years of 

Plan’s approval, improve precision by 25 percent on estimates of historical bark 

beetle outbreaks in white and Lutz spruce. 

Objective 1.15: Supporting GIS Databases—Within five years of Plan’s 

approval, complete a high-resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the 

Refuge. 

Objective 1.16: Capacity Building—Within five years of Plan’s approval, reestablish a remote-sensing, lightning detection capability for the Kenai 

Peninsula. 

Objective 1.17: Biological Inventories—Within seven years of Plan’s approval, 

complete a population assessment of lake trout in Hidden Lake. 

Objective 1.8: Biological Inventories—Within 10 years of Plan’s approval, 

complete a comprehensive inventory of vascular flora, vertebrate fauna, and 

selected invertebrate taxa as part of the Long-Term Ecological Monitoring 

Program (LTEMP). 

Objective 1.19: Capacity Building—Within 15 years of Plan’s approval, 

establish a nonprofit research institute to establish and manage research 

opportunities on the Refuge. 

Objective 1.20: Supporting GIS Databases—Within two years of funding, 

convert all historic aerial photography into geo-referenced, orthorectified digital 

images. 

Objective 1.21: Supporting GIS Databases—Within two years of funding, 

complete a spatially-explicit soil survey. 

Objective 1.22: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Within two years of 

funding, initiate research to estimate annual variation in marine-derived nutrient 

input and assess effects on terrestrial wildlife and habitat. 

Objective 1.23: Biological Inventories—Within four years of funding, enter 

into cooperative studies with ADF&G to assess populations of early-run Chinook 

salmon in the Kenai River. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-12 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 1.24: Biological Inventories—Within five years of funding, initiate 

four weir projects to enumerate anadromous fish populations returning to the 

Swanson River, Chickaloon River, Big Indian Creek, and Little Indian Creek. 

Objective 1.25: Natural Processes/Disturbance Regimes—Within five years of 

funding, estimate new rate trajectories for the wildfire regime, spruce bark beetle 

outbreaks, wetland drying, water budget, carbon budget, and biota redistribution 

in response to climate change predictions over the next 50 to 200 years. 

GOAL 2: Conservation and Management—Ensure natural diversity and 

viability of species, habitats, and ecosystems. 

Objective 2.1: Habitat and Population Management—Continue to develop 

and maintain partnerships with the public, other governmental agencies, and 

private organizations to increase the ability of the Refuge and those agencies with 

management responsibilities that overlay the Refuge to conserve fish, wildlife 

and their habitats. 

Objective 2.2: Habitat and Population Management—Continue cooperative 

and unilateral efforts to protect and restore riparian habitats along the Kenai 

River. 

Objective 2.3: Habitat and Population Management—Continue to maintain a 

rehabilitation program for injured bald eagles, owls, and other raptors. 

Objective 2.4: Monitoring—Continue contributions to regional and national 

monitoring efforts, including but not limited to the Christmas Bird Count (CBC), 

Alaska Landbird Monitoring System (ALMS), and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). 

Objective 2.5: Habitat and Population Management—Continue to work with 

the oil and gas industry to remediate and restore well pads, pipeline corridors, 

and roads to their natural condition within two years of well plugging and 

abandonment. 

Objective 2.6: Monitoring—At five-year intervals after Plan’s approval or after 

a significant natural perturbation, monitor landscape changes of both vegetation 

and physical features using pixel-by-pixel change analysis (30-meter resolution) 

from supervised classification of LANDSAT imagery. 

Objective 2.7: Monitoring—At five-year intervals after Plan’s approval, assess 

and report fire occurrence, fire cause, fire behavior, and fire effects trends using 

the best available technology to provide fire managers the information necessary 

to revise the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

Objective 2.8: Habitat and Population Management—Maintain caribou 

populations at or below two caribou per square kilometer for 10 years after 

Plan’s approval. 

Objective 2.9: Monitoring—Maintain Dall sheep and mountain goat 

populations (subadults and adults) within one standard error of the 20-year 

average for three count areas (Twin Lakes 355, Indian Creek 356, and Tustemena 

Glacier 357) within Refuge boundaries, and the percentage of young-of-year in 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-13 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

the counts will not drop below 20 percent for three consecutive years. In 

addition, the Refuge will work cooperatively with Chugach National Forest, 

Kenai Fjords National Park, and ADF&G to ensure that a Peninsula-wide survey 

is completed every three years. 

Objective 2.10: Habitat and Population Management—Within one year of 

Plan’s approval, initiate a rulemaking process to clearly describe prohibited 

actions and any exceptions to the non-development easement held on much of the 

Kenai riverfront property in the Moose Range Meadows Subdivision. 

Objective 2.11: Monitoring—Within two years of Plan’s approval, develop an 

interagency program to monitor population trends and/or health of wolves, 

wolverines, and brown and black bears on the Peninsula. 

Objective 2.12: Habitat and Population Management—Within two years of 

Plan’s approval, revise the 1995 Fisheries Management Plan. 

Objective 2.13: Habitat and Population Management—Within two years of 

Plan’s approval, revise the 1996 Moose Management Plan. 

Objective 2.14: Habitat and Population Management—Within two years of 

Plan’s approval, evaluate historical, current, and potential distributions of marten 

and red fox populations in the absence of active management, and identify 

possible actions to enhance habitats or populations on the Refuge. 

Objective 2.15: Habitat and Population Management—Within three years of 

Plan’s approval, complete a Wildland Fire Monitoring Plan that will include 

monitoring purposes, goals, objectives, and proposed activities for wildland fire, 

prescribed fire, wildland fire use, hazard fuels, and wildland-urban interface 

projects. This monitoring plan will become an amendment or an appendix to the 

Refuge Fire Management Plan. 

Objective 2.16: Habitat and Population Management—Within three years of 

Plan’s approval, complete development of a restoration and recreation plan for 

oil and gas units on the Refuge identified in this and other planning processes. 

Objective 2.17: Habitat and Population Management—Within five years of 

Plan’s approval, complete the development of a Terrestrial and Aquatic Invasive 

Species Management Plan. 

Objective 2.18: Habitat and Population Management—Within five years of 

Plan’s approval, use prescribed fire to maintain (condition class 1) or improve 

(condition class 2 or 3) the condition class on 2,000 to 4,000 acres of nonWilderness per year in at least three out of the five years. Use of prescribed fire 

will continue at that rate until the 1996 Moose Management Plan is revised. 

Objective 2.19: Monitoring—Within two years of funding, further expand the 

Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Program (LTEMP) to detect spatial and 

temporal changes in selected biota, including but not limited to, vascular plant 

community, breeding landbirds, mesocarnivores, selected insect assemblages, 

and exotic, invasive and injurious species. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-14 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

GOAL 3: Resource Assessment—Ensure that the integrity of ecological systems is 

protected and unimpaired for future generations. 

Objective 3.1: Resource Assessment—Continue and expand research on wood 

frogs until the cause of their abnormalities is identified. 

Objective 3.2: Resource Assessment—Continue and expand research on local 

bird populations until the cause of bill abnormalities is identified. 

Objective 3.3: Resource Assessment—Continue to work with Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and industry to monitor, 

assess, and remediate contaminated sites in existing oil and gas units. 

Objective 3.4: Resource Assessment—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

evaluate current management practices and infrastructure improvements to ensure 

that the ecological integrity of the five designated Research Natural Areas on the 

Refuge are not compromised. 

Objective 3.5: Resource Assessment—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

complete the development of landscape models at two scales (Refuge-wide and 

Peninsula-wide) to evaluate the cumulative effects of natural processes and 

anthropogenic perturbations on wildlife habitat. 

Objective 3.6: Resource Assessment—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

complete a Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan that will include statistical 

benchmarks and/or management action threshold for trust, harvested, and 

indicator species that are currently monitored. 

Objective 3.7: Resource Assessment—Within one year of completing an 

inventory, develop statistical models to explain how biotic and abiotic factors 

affect the distribution of species and communities at the landscape level. 

Objective 3.8: Resource Assessment—Within five years of Plan’s approval and 

after completion of a Refuge-wide fuels assessment (fire regime and condition 

class), develop a project plan to evaluate the fire suppression history of the 

Refuge and adjacent lands on the Kenai Peninsula with emphasis on the 

suppression of natural ignitions in Wilderness and Limited Fire Management 

Option areas. 

Objective 3.9: Resource Assessment—Within one year of funding, establish 

one air quality monitoring site within designated Wilderness to measure the 

concentration of fine (PM2.5) particles for mass, optical absorption, major and 

trace elements, organic and elemental carbon, and nitrate, and measure the 

concentration of PM10 particles for mass. Equipment and protocols should be 

consistent with the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) program. 

Objective 3.10: Resource Assessment—Within one year of funding, initiate 

research to determine the effects of roads within and/or adjacent to the Refuge on 

local moose, caribou, and brown bear movements and survival—specifically, to 

identify important crossings and/or high collision areas and recommend 

appropriate mitigation and management measures. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-15 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 3.11: Resource Assessment—Within two years of funding, determine 

baseline levels of selected contaminants, specifically organochlorines, 

organophosphates, and heavy metals that may have originated from the 

nonrenewable resource extraction, long-range atmospheric deposition, and/or 

past management practices. 

Objective 3.12: Resource Assessment—Within two years of completing 

baseline contaminant assessment, initiate research to evaluate uptake of identified 

contaminants by selected indicator species (e.g., brown bears, black bears, 

sculpins, salmonids). 

Refuge Purpose (ii): To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United 

States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats.

GOAL 4: International Treaties—Ensure that Refuge management practices 

affecting bird species contribute to the successful implementation of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Objective 4.1: International Treaties—Over the 15-year interval, post Plan’s 

approval, continue to seek guidance and context for Refuge management and 

scientific actions from regional, national, and international programs and plans 

(including but not restricted to the North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

[NABCI] and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna [CAFF], Area V). 

Objective 4.2: International Treaties—Continue to participate in and support 

international, national, and regional scientific information sharing, including 

making data available on the Refuge Web site, presenting papers at conferences, 

and publishing journal articles. 

Objective 4.3: International Treaties—Continue to provide information and 

permitting services to the public for Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) protected species. 

Refuge Purpose (iii): To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a 

manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and 

necessary water quantity within the Refuge.

GOAL 5: Water Resources—Ensure natural function and condition of water 

resources necessary to conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats in their natural diversity. 

Objective 5.1: Water Resources—Within two years of Plan’s approval, 

evaluate the need to increase the number of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

stations in cooperation with interagency partners. 

Objective 5.2: Water Resources—Within two years of Plan’s approval, develop 

a prioritized list of culverts, bridges, and other river and/or stream structures that 

need to be replaced or modified to restore fish passage and normal stream 

function. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-16 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 5.3: Water Resources—Within two years of funding, design and 

implement a ground water monitoring program. 

Objective 5.4: Water Resources—Within two years of funding, design and 

initiate a water quality monitoring program for waters within the Refuge, 

including the Kenai and Swanson River watersheds. 

Objective 5.5: Water Resources—Within five years of funding, develop a 

water budget and hydrologic models for the Refuge’s 10 major watersheds. 

Refuge Purpose (iv): To provide, in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) 

and (ii), opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental 

education, and land management training.

GOAL 6: Environmental Education and Training—Natural resource 

professionals, students, and the public value opportunities to increase 

their knowledge of Refuge ecosystems, issues, and management 

practices. 

Subgoal 6.1: Environmental Education and Interpretation—Diverse 

audiences will have equal opportunity to understand and appreciate 

all management programs and support the Refuge’s efforts to 

maintain and enhance wildlife populations and habitats. 

Objective 6.1.1: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Continue 

to maintain and develop the partnership with Alaska Natural History Association 

(ANHA) and/or other cooperating associations to provide interpretive and 

environmental sales products on the natural and cultural history of Kenai Refuge 

and surrounding public lands. 

Objective 6.1.2: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Continue 

cooperative efforts with area educators to increase the number of effective 

resource conservation education programs focusing on key Refuge resource 

issues. 

Objective 6.1.3: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

six months of the Plan’s approval and annually thereafter, conduct a review of 

the Visitor Service’s operating procedures, outreach information, and program 

content. 

Objective 6.1.4: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

one year of Plan’s approval, develop and make accessible for public use a Webbased information system that hosts current and comprehensive information 

about the Refuge, its regulations, safety tips, and recreation opportunities. 

Objective 6.1.5: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

one year of Plan’s approval, work with The Friends of Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge to define annual goals and objectives. 

Objective 6.1.6: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

two years of the Plan’s approval, hire a permanent seasonal employee to assist 

the education specialist and Student Conservation Association (SCA) 

conservation associate at the Environmental Education Center and the Outdoor 

Education Center. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-17 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 6.1.7: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

two years of Plan’s approval, curate objects from historic cabins, and catalog and 

manage them properly (including interpretation of the objects). 

Objective 6.1.8: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

two years of Plan’s approval, develop an interpretive strategy for including 

cultural heritage in the Refuge’s interpretive efforts. 

Objective 6.1.9: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

three years of Plan’s approval, develop and increase by 30 percent outreach 

materials on Refuge resources that reflect the importance of responsible 

management practices. 

Objective 6.1.10: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

three years of Plan’s approval, review all interpretive, educational, and 

information materials, and update them utilizing state-of-the-art media. 

Objective 6.1.11: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

three years of Plan’s approval, form partnerships with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe 

and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., (CIRI) to interpret their cultural history. 

Objective 6.1.12: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

three years of Plan’s approval, establish a formal relationship with the Kenaitze 

tribe by supporting the Kenaitze Indian Tribe’s Susten Camp. 

Objective 6.1.13: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

five years of the Plan’s approval, provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent 

of central Peninsula kindergarten through sixth grade students to participate in 

at least one of the current environmental education programs focusing on key 

Refuge resource conservation issues. 

Objective 6.1.14: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

five years of Plan’s approval, increase wildlife interpretive programs such as 

guided hikes, campfire programs, and wayside exhibits by 50 percent. 

Objective 6.1.15: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 

five years of Plan’s approval, record the Refuge’s human history, including but 

not limited to the Swanson River and Beaver Creek oil and gas fields and the 

Russian River Ferry area by finalizing the oral history collection currently 

underway. 

Objective 6.1.16: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 10 

years of the Plan’s approval, provide a larger variety of environmental education 

opportunities, including but not limited to day camps and after school programs, 

through the environmental education program. 

Objective 6.1.17: Effective Environmental Education Programming—Within 15 

years of the Plan’s approval, provide the opportunity for at least 20 percent of 

students in grades 7 through 12 from the central Peninsula schools to participate 

in at least one environmental education program on the Refuge as part of their 

school’s curriculum. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-18 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Subgoal 6.2 Land Management Training—Land managers, scientists, and 

other partners learn practices and techniques to study, manage, and 

monitor the boreal forest biome. 

Objective 6.2.1: Land Management Training—When nominations are again 

accepted, establish the Refuge as a designated National Wildlife Refuge System 

Fulfilling the Promises Land Management Research Demonstration Site 

(LMRD). 

Objective 6.2.2: Land Management Training—Annually survey Refuge staff to 

identify and nominate potential candidates for the national Technical Fire 

Management (TFM) program, a two-year continuing education and career 

development program that provides sufficient college credits within a natural 

science and fire curriculum to qualify the student in the 0401 job series (general 

biology/fire management). 

Objective 6.2.3: Land Management Training—Annually, to the extent 

practicable, host and/or conduct interagency fire management training (wildfire, 

prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and fire aviation) in conjunction with fire 

management projects and/or wildland fire incidents when possible. 

Objective 6.2.4: Land Management Training—Within two years of Plan’s 

approval, develop a program that establishes the Refuge as a boreal forest biome 

regional training facility. 

Objective 6.2.5: Land Management Training—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, develop a step-down management plan for the Stepanka (Skilak Outlet) 

Archaeological District to mitigate damage to cultural resources. 

Objective 6.2.6: Land Management Training—Within four years of Plan’s 

approval, identify priority areas to survey and begin to support fieldwork in 

cooperation with the University of Alaska tribes, and other cooperators 

conducting cultural resource related studies. 

Objective 6.2.7: Land Management Training—Within five years of Plan’s 

approval, develop a step-down management plan for the Sqilantnu (Russian 

River) Archaeological District to mitigate damage to cultural resources. 

Objective 6.2.8: Land Management Training—Within five years of Plan’s 

approval, develop interagency agreements with universities and agencies to use 

the Refuge as a designated center for research on boreal forest ecology and 

management (including global climate change), recreational use of boreal forest 

wildlife and habitat, and wilderness management. 

Refuge Purpose (v): To provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes, 

opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. 

GOAL 7: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Visitors of all skills and abilities 

enjoy wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities in safe and secure 

settings. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-19 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 7.1: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Continue to meet annually 

with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to review State and 

Federal regulations that affect Refuge users and to identify actions that may 

improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent opportunities. 

Objective 7.2: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Annually develop a trail 

maintenance plan to review current visitor use and identify maintenance needs of 

all foot, ski, water, and horse trails. 

Objective 7.3: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Annually review the Kenai Law 

Enforcement Plan and institute necessary revisions within one month of review. 

Objective 7.4: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within two years of Plan’s 

approval, patrol the Canoe Trails Systems and maintain it weekly during the 

intensive visitor use periods of May through October. 

Objective 7.5: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within two years of Plan’s 

approval, organize the Visitor Services program into three districts (north, 

central, and south) for operational efficiency. 

Objective 7.6: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within three years of plan’s 

approval, develop a Trail Needs Assessment by reviewing current and projected 

visitor use patterns and other appropriate information. 

Objective 7.7: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, make available 75 percent of visitor services staff for full 

implementation and operation of all interpretation, education, information, and 

recreation programs identified in this plan. 

Objective 7.8: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, place information materials at all trailheads, boat ramps, and 

campgrounds, including but not limited to current use regulations; “Leave No 

Trace” recreation practices; and bear awareness, fire prevention, and wilderness 

safety topics. 

Objective 7.9: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, repair or replace Refuge directional, regulatory, and location signs as 

necessary. Signs will be inspected on an annual basis. 

Objective 7.10: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within five years of Plan’s 

approval, increase patrol intervals on the Kenai River and all backcountry areas 

so that 25 percent of Refuge visitors report seeing and/or talking with a Refuge 

employee. 

Objective 7.11: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within five years of Plan’s 

approval, post boundary signs every 1,000 feet within one mile of all roads, 

trails, winter routes, and right-of-ways within or adjacent to the Refuge. 

Boundary signs will be inspected every two years and replaced as needed. 

Objective 7.12: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within ten years of Plan’s 

approval, improve overall recreation-related visitor satisfaction in the Skilak 

Wildlife Recreational Area to 90 percent or higher. Recreationists surveyed will 

include but not be limited to wildlife viewers, photographers, campers, and 

hikers. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-20 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 7.13: Wildlife-Oriented Recreation—Within ten years of Plan’s 

approval, implement the Refuge’s approved law enforcement deployment model. 

Enforcement officers will patrol front country and backcountry areas 365 days a 

year. 

GOAL 8: Facilities—Visitors and Refuge personnel value and enjoy safe, wellmaintained facilities and quality programs. 

Objective 8.1: Facilities—Continue to manage hazardous forest fuels, especially 

in the wildland-urban interface where beetle kill trees and other fuel hazards 

increase the threat of wildfire to communities or private lands. Adjacent private 

lands, inholdings, and Refuge structures will continue to receive the maximum 

possible fire protection through interagency agreements. 

Objective 8.2: Facilities—Continue to ensure fulfillment of obligations 

associated with maintaining the Moose Research Center as specified in the 

2004 Memorandum of Understanding between ADF&G and the Refuge. 

Objective 8.3: Facilities—Continue monthly and annual meetings with industry, 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to plan plugging and abandonment of wells; removal or 

abandonment of pipelines; remediation of known contaminant sites; and 

identification of potential contaminated sites on existing oil and gas units. 

Objective 8.4: Facilities—Within two years of Plan approval, complete a 

wildfire hazard and risk assessment for known historic cabins and cultural sites; 

then develop and implement a strategic 10-year plan to mitigate identified 

hazardous fuel conditions around cabins and sites where full protection is 

selected as the appropriate management option. 

Objective 8.5: Facilities—Within two years of Plan’s approval, implement the 

programmatic agreement for managing historic cabins. 

Objective 8.6: Facilities—Within three years of Plan approval, construct two 

six-bed cabin kits for additional educational group housing at the Outdoor 

Education Center. 

Objective 8.7: Facilities—Within three years of Plan approval, develop a Kenai 

Refuge Sign Plan. The plan will contain location and graphic information for 

every sign used on the Refuge and will establish maintenance and replacement 

schedules and procedures. 

Objective 8.8: Facilities—Within three years of Plan’s approval, complete and 

submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer the nomination form to have the 

Stepanka Archaeological District listed on the National Register. 

Objective 8.9: Facilities—Within five years of Plan’s approval, service all 

campground restrooms at least once a week. 

Objective 8.10: Facilities—Within five years of Plan’s approval, begin to patrol, 

service, and/or restock all frontcountry trailheads with appropriate information 

materials daily by Refuge staff. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-21 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Objective 8.11: Facilities—Within five years of Plan’s approval, begin to 

check, service, maintain, and/or restock all backcountry facilities and trails with 

information materials as needed by assigned backcountry staff. 

Objective 8.12: Facilities—Within five years of Plan's approval, develop and 

implement best management practices to reduce waste, pollution, and energy 

inefficiency by 50 percent across all Refuge programs. 

Objective 8.13: Facilities—Within five years of Plan’s approval, upgrade (as 

appropriate) and increase maintenance of Refuge roads, including but not limited 

to grading, snow removal, vegetation and invasive species control, dust control, 

and culvert replacement. 

Objective 8.14: Facilities—Within five years of Plan’s approval, construct 

facilities to house up to 60 summer interns, volunteers, and seasonal employees, 

including Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Office (KFWFO). 

Objective 8.15: Facilities—Within seven years of Plan’s approval, construct a 

new visitor center with capacity for 150 visitors. 

Objective 8.16: Facilities—Within seven years of Plan’s approval, complete a 

6,000-square-foot warehouse for storage of Refuge equipment. 

Objective 8.17: Facilities—Within one year of funding, renovate the Refuge 

laboratory and equip it with new facilities and analytical equipment. 

 

The Wilderness Act Purpose for the Kenai Wilderness Area: To secure an 

enduring resource of wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness character 

of areas within the National Wilderness Preservation System, and to administer 

[the areas] for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will 

leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

GOAL 9: Wilderness Stewardship—Preserve and where necessary, restore the 

character and integrity of Wilderness for present and future 

generations. 

Objective 9.1: Wilderness Stewardship—Immediately following Plan’s 

approval, develop a Wilderness Stewardship Plan for the Refuge. 

Objective 9.2: Wilderness Stewardship—Immediately following Plan’s 

approval, begin conducting Minimum Requirements Analyses on all 

administrative activities in designated Wilderness. 

Objective 9.3: Wilderness Stewardship—Within three years of Plan’s 

approval, initiate a program to assess and model the natural soundscape of 

designated Wilderness and other areas. 

Objective 9.4: Wilderness Stewardship—Within five years of Plan’s approval, 

initiate research to assess and model motorized and non-motorized humanwildlife interactions as a result of recreational activities, including 

snowmachines, boats, road traffic, campgrounds, and trail use in Wilderness. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-22 
Summary Chapter 2: The Refuge 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-23 

Objective 9.5: Wilderness Stewardship—Within five years of Plan’s approval, 

develop a model that evaluates human-caused disturbances on wilderness 

character. 

Objective 9.6: Wilderness Stewardship—Within 15 years of Plan’s approval, 

identify or purchase inholdings from willing sellers to minimize landowner 

conflicts, protect Refuge resources, and provide for priority recreation activities. 
Summary Chapter 3: The Planning Process 

3. The Planning Process 

The process we are using to revise Kenai Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan contains eight steps. 

3.1 Preplanning 

The first step in the planning process helps the planning team decide whether the 

original Plan should be revised or a new Plan developed. For the Kenai Refuge 

planning effort, a number of preplanning meetings were held throughout 2004. 

Based on the assessment conducted during preplanning, the team determined that 

a revision was necessary and that the Draft Plan would focus on specific issues 

that need to be addressed rather than on developing a new Plan. It was also 

concluded that new and amended laws (e.g., Refuge System Improvement Act) 

and new or revised regulations and policies needed to be included in the Refuge’s 

management policies and guidelines. 

3.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping 

The purpose of this step was to let people know that the planning process was 

beginning and to solicit ideas on what issues should be addressed in the Draft 

Plan. Formal scoping began with publication of a notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was published in the Federal 

Register on November 26, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 228, pp. 66476-66478). 

In December 2003, a planning update, which announced the planning effort and 

solicited comments from the public, was mailed to more than 3,100 individuals; 

local businesses; local, State, and Federal agencies; and organizations 

nationwide. This update contained information about the Refuge, the planning 

process, and some preliminary issues identified by Refuge staff. The update 

included an optional issues workbook to make it easier for people to identify 

their issues and concerns. 

Public open house meetings were held in the towns of Cooper Landing, Homer, 

Soldotna, and Seward on the Kenai Peninsula, and in the city of Anchorage. A 

total of one hundred people attended the meetings, and 313 written or telephone 

responses were received during the scoping period (December 2003–May 2004). 

More than 50 separate concerns were identified, grouped, and categorized into 

six topic areas. 

3.3 Determine Significant Issues 

To determine the significant planning issues being addressed in the Draft Plan, 

the planning team reviewed the concerns identified by the public, the Service, 

other Federal agencies, and the State of Alaska. Significant planning issues are 

those issues for which multiple approaches to resolving the issue will be 

evaluated as part of the planning process. 

3.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives 

The fourth step is to develop alternative approaches to address the issues. These 

alternatives meet the Refuge’s purposes and goals and comply with the Service 

and Refuge System mission. The planning team developed a range of alternatives 

that responded to the significant planning issues. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-24 
Summary Chapter 3: The Planning Process 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-25 

In March 2005, approximately 2,700 postcards were mailed to individuals, 

organizations, businesses, and local, State, and Federal government agencies on 

the Kenai mailing list to notify them that draft alternatives were available for 

public review and comment via the Internet. 

The draft alternatives were refined based on comments received from the public. 

The environmental effects of the alternatives were analyzed, and the results are 

presented in chapter 4 of the Draft Plan and summarized in chapter 6 of this 

document. 

3.5 Prepare Draft Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

The purpose of the fifth step is to produce a Draft Plan/EIS. The Draft Plan/EIS 

contains five management alternatives, including one that describes continuation 

of current management (the No Action Alternative) and one that is currently the 

Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative E). 

3.6 Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

In the sixth step, comments received on the Draft Plan/EIS will be reviewed and 

analyzed. The Draft Plan/EIS will be modified as needed, including refining the 

Preferred Alternative, after which the Final Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (Final Revised Plan) will be published. Following a 30-day 

comment period, the Service’s regional director will issue a decision that 

describes the alternative that will be implemented. 

3.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate 

After the decision notice and Final Revised Plan are distributed, Refuge staff will 

begin to initiate any changes called for in the Conservation Plan. 

3.8 Review and Revise Plan 

Agency policy directs that the Conservation Plan be reviewed annually to assess 

the need for changes. The Conservation Plan will be revised when significant 

new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, or the need to 

do so is identified during the annual review. If major changes are proposed, 

public meetings may be held, or new environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements may be necessary. 
Summary Chapter 4: Significant Planning Issues 

4. Significant Planning Issues 

The Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft Plan) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses five issues that were 

identified from public comments and from within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service: 

4.1 Issue 1 – How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat 

changes and the use of fire? 

Members of the general public and the planning team expressed concerns 

about the state of the Refuge’s ageing forests and the impacts associated 

with beetle kill. Numerous people noted that wildfire was being 

suppressed on the landscape and that prescribed fire was being 

inadequately used as a management tool to enhance wildlife habitat. In 

some cases, prescribed fire was advocated as a tool to protect life and 

property by reducing hazardous fuels. Examples of comments include: 

 “The lack of letting the forest burn naturally, the habitat for many Refuge 

species is deteriorating quickly. [Need to] burn or log—clear.” 

“I understand and accept the value of Wilderness fires and the desire to 

provide healthy regrowth and habitat for wildlife. I oppose road-building 

for this purpose. Aerial management [is] ok if feasible and enough 

equipment and management available to protect nearby communities.” 

4.2 Issue 2 – How will the Refuge manage existing facilities for public 

use while ensuring natural resource protection? 

Members of the general public, the State of Alaska, and the planning team 

raised concerns about trails, highway pullouts and rest stops, and oil and gas 

field infrastructure. Trail-related comments focused on the need for 

additional planning, design, and maintenance. The State of Alaska is 

specifically interested in developing trails to lakes that support sportfishing. 

Comments related to highway pullouts and rest stops focused on the need for 

additional parking and related rest stop facilities along the Sterling Highway. 

Comments related to oil and gas field infrastructure focused on future public 

use and restoration of associated roads, bridges, buildings, and pads after 

operations close. Examples of comments include: 

“[I’m concerned about . . .] maintaining the quality of the visitor 

experience, maintaining facilities (trails, campgrounds, roads, etc.) and 

wildlife habitat in an era of increased visitor use and shrinking budgets.” 

“I don’t like to see pristine areas become developed on the Refuge. Every 

year more and more man-made infrastructure (roads, oil pads, pipelines, 

campgrounds, highways, utility ROW) impacts pristine natural areas.” 

“The oil fields should be returned to wildlife habitat. The main road in the 

Swanson River area should be left for nonmotorized access for public 

recreation (including the use of mountain bikes for wildlife related 

recreation). Otherwise, rehabilitate all roads, bridges, pads.” 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-26 
Summary Chapter 4: Significant Planning Issues 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-27 

4.3 Issue 3 – How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities? 

Members of the general public, the State of Alaska, and the planning team 

identified opportunities to improve wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

An example of comments include the following: 

“Non-commercial, personal use collecting should be permitted as an 

encouragement of enjoying nature’s bounty and healthy wildlands. 

Commercial quantity and collecting for resale should continue to be 

prohibited.” 

4.4 Issue 4 – How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure protection of resources and visitor experience? 

Members of the general public and the planning team raised concerns about 

increasing public use of Refuge resources. There is a sense that Refuge use 

has grown substantially since the development of the 1985 Plan and that such 

use has affected Refuge resources and visitor experiences. The Kenai River 

corridor and the Swanson River and Swan Lake Canoe System were 

specifically identified by the public as areas in need of additional 

management. The State of Alaska supports the need for additional 

development of public use facilities along the Kenai River to address 

resource impacts and to minimize public conflicts associated with crowding. 

Examples of comments include: 

“The proliferation of guides has put so many boats on the river that it’s 

hard for me and my family to find a place to fish. They bring so many 

people and drop-offs just line the banks. It’s just terrible. For peace and 

serenity fishing before 6:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. is necessary. I’m 

ready to sell my boat! I’m disgusted!” 

“People [are] loving it to death. The canoe trails are seeing a lot more 

traffic than in the past. Not everyone is good about cleaning up after 

themselves or as courteous as in the past.” 

4.5 Issue 5 – How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Members of the general public, the State of Alaska, and the planning team 

raised concerns about various motorized access issues on the Refuge. 

Comments focused on snowmachines and aircraft. Snowmachine-related 

concerns focused on impacts on Refuge resources and visitor experiences, 

although a number of stakeholders stated their interest in maintaining access 

without additional restriction. Aircraft-related concerns focused on visitor 

experience impacts, although some stakeholders and the State of Alaska 

stated their interest in modifying the availability of landing sites in the 

Chickaloon Flats and Kenai Wilderness of the Refuge. Examples of 

comments include: 

“Too much area in the Refuge is closed to motorized access.” 

“There is increasing mechanized recreation and an inadequate effort to 

protect opportunities for ‘quiet’ users.” 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

5. Alternatives 

This section of the Summary presents five alternatives for managing Kenai 

Refuge, including continuation of current management (Alternative A) and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative E). 

5.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Many potential actions were eliminated from further consideration because 

they were impractical, unfeasible, or too expensive to implement. Actions 

considered in preliminary alternatives but subsequently eliminated from 

detailed consideration include the following: 

5.1.1 Issue: Crowding on the Upper Kenai River 

Action Considered: Reducing the Number of Float Starts by Commercial 

Guides 

The Refuge and the Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Office conducted public 

use studies on the Upper Kenai River in 1994, 1999, and 2004 to determine 

the types and levels of use on the river. The results of these studies indicate 

that the principal and increasing use is by private, non-commercial watercraft 

consisting of either inflatable rafts or drift boats. As such, limiting 

commercial use alone would not address the crowding issue. Although 

reducing the number of commercial starts would reduce the number of 

guided boats on the river at any given time, this alternative was eliminated 

from further consideration because it was not the most effective management 

action the Refuge could take to address crowding. 

5.1.2 Issue: Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness 

Action Considered: Developing Management Objectives for Trumpeter 

Swans 

An alternative to identify specific management objectives for trumpeter swan 

populations was eliminated from further consideration because the primary 

purpose of the Refuge is to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their 

habitats in their natural diversity. Natural diversity implies allowing wildlife 

populations to vary naturally over time (i.e., not sustaining them at 

artificially high levels through management activities or allowing population 

declines due to management activities). Consequently, development of 

specific population objectives for trumpeter swans would be inconsistent 

with Refuge mandates. 

Action Considered: Providing Airplane Access Later in the Season 

An alternative to allow airplane access to lakes on September 11 was 

eliminated from further consideration because trumpeter swan broods are still 

flightless 13–15 weeks after hatching, resulting in many broods not fledging 

until well into September. Allowing airplane access during the suggested 

time period would lead to premature brood breakup and poor survivorship 

because brood success is poor prior to fledging. 

Action Considered: Phasing the Opening of Lakes and Studying the Impacts 

to Trumpeter Swan Broods 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-28 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

An alternative to allow a phased opening of lakes to airplane access in 

conjunction with research studies designed to assess the impacts of such 

access on trumpeter swan brood success was eliminated from further 

consideration because additional research was not deemed justifiable. A 

preponderance of studies already exists which identify the negative impacts 

of airplane disturbance on broods. Furthermore, current management 

strategies demonstrate the positive effects on swan populations (i.e., the 

number of breeding swan pairs has increased from less than 40 pairs to more 

than 60 pairs since 1985). 

5.1.3 Issue: Airplane Access to Uplands 

Action Considered: Providing Access to the Funny River Airstrip, and North 

and South Alaska Pipeline airstrips 

An alternative to consider opening the Funny River Airstrip, and North and 

South Alaska Pipeline airstrips to facilitate airplane access to upland areas 

was eliminated from further consideration because the Funny River airstrip 

was not a constructed strip, but rather an upland landing area that was closed 

to use over 40 years ago due to resource concerns. The area has naturally 

revegetated and is largely not discernable to the casual observer as an 

airstrip. The North and South Alaska Pipeline airstrips were constructed 

airstrips along the Mystery Creek pipeline corridor to help facilitate pipeline 

construction. They have become part of the largely unmaintained route with 

highway vehicles driving on them in summer and fall and snowmachines and 

dog teams using them in winter. These old airstrips were designed for 

industrial purpose access and not with public use in mind. They would have 

inherent safety concerns associated with airplane use and do not provide 

critical access to inaccessible areas. Additionally, the pipeline operator has 

expressed concerns about vandalism to their industrial infrastructure and has 

requested restricted access on their right-of-way. 

5.1.4 Issue: Snowmachine Access 

Action Considered: Providing Snowmachine Access to Canoe Systems 

An alternative to consider opening the Swanson River and Swan Lake Canoe 

Systems to snowmachine access was eliminated from further consideration 

because: snowmachine use has been and is currently permitted on 1.25 

million acres (64 percent) of the Refuge. Such use has been managed for 

decades to balance visitor interests and resource protection needs. The canoe 

systems have been closed to snowmachine use since the 1970s, pre-dating 

ANILCA and Wilderness designation. Public sentiments range from 

providing more liberal snowmachine use to reducing it, largely dependent 

upon individual personal values. No information currently available suggests 

the Refuge should look at opening or closing specific additional areas to 

snowmachine use beyond what has been historically allowed. The range of 

alternatives accepted for this planning process, however, does include an 

alternative that would examine this issue—evaluate use patterns, intensity, 

and impacts of snowmachine use—the results of which could conceivably 

propose additional open areas, such as part or all of the canoe systems, or 

perhaps additional closures, such as restrictions in the Caribou Hills. 

 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-29 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

5.1.5 Issue: Use of Canoe Carriers 

Action Considered: Allowing Canoe Carriers in the Canoe System 

An alternative to consider allowing wheeled canoe carriers throughout the 

canoe systems was eliminated because wheeled carts are currently prohibited 

on the Refuge except on roads designated and open for public vehicular 

access (50 CFR 36.39 [i] [7] [v]). While wheeled carts might be useful on 

some trails, variable trail standards, soil types, and other factors likely make 

them inappropriate or impractical in many areas. Any consideration of 

wheeled carts would require a detailed inventory and analysis of current trail 

conditions and uses to ensure the continued protection of resources and 

visitor experiences. That level of detail is best provided in a specific, stepdown management plan rather than in a Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from 

further consideration. However, the Refuge-wide trails assessment proposed 

as part of this plan will provide the needed foundation for making informed 

decisions about if and where to allow wheeled carts in the future. 

5.1.6 Issue: Wild and Scenic River Recommendations 

As a result of concerns expressed by the State of Alaska and subsequent 

analysis of those concerns by the Service, alternatives that would have 

recommended that Congress consider rivers for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System were considered but eliminated from detailed 

study. In compliance with section 304 (g) of ANILCA, special values of the 

Refuge, including river-related values, are discussed in chapter 3; however, 

recommendations for designations are not included in the range of 

alternatives. Current and proposed management direction provides adequate 

protection for all river-related values. 

5.1.7 Issue: Wilderness Recommendations 

As a result of concerns expressed by the State of Alaska and subsequent 

analysis of those concerns by the Service, alternatives that would have 

recommended that Congress consider lands for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System were considered but eliminated from 

detailed study. The Service has a recommendation for Wilderness 

designation (approximately 195,500 acres) from the Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Wilderness Proposal of the Final 

Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement/Wilderness Review (USFWS 1988). This recommendation will 

remain in effect unless withdrawn or until submitted to Congress. Wilderness 

values are discussed in chapter 3 of the Draft Plan, but recommendations for 

additional designations are not included in the range of alternatives. Current 

and proposed management direction provides adequate protection for all 

wilderness values. 

5.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives 

This section identifies some of the key elements that will be included in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan regardless of the alternative selected. 

Each of the alternatives would do the following: 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-30 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

• Contribute to achieving the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established, as set forth in Executive Order 8979 (December 16, 

1941), and section 303(4)(B) of ANILCA 

• Ensure that rural residents have access to and priority use of Refuge 

resources for the purposes of subsistence, as determined by law 

• Ensure that Refuge management complies with all other Federal laws 

and regulations that provide direction for managing units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

• Protect and maintain fish and wildlife in their natural diversity 

• Maintain opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence activities; 

scientific research; and hunting, fishing, and other wildlifedependent recreation activities 

• Maintain most of the Refuge in a relatively undeveloped state 

• Minimize disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and populations 

• Allow public use of the Refuge using traditional access methods, 

provided use remains compatible with the purposes of the Refuge 

5.3 Management Direction Common To All Alternatives 

The following management direction will be implemented regardless of 

which alternative is ultimately selected: 

5.3.1 Beetle Kill Trees/Fire Safety 

Spruce bark beetle outbreaks will not be managed. However, the Refuge will 

continue its collaborative interagency efforts to promote wildland fire safety 

and implement wildfire mitigation principles on Refuge lands, especially in 

wildland urban interface areas. 

5.3.2 Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management will be enhanced through cooperative 

research, planning and education efforts, and increased law enforcement 

presence. 

5.3.3 Existing Oil and Gas Units 

Industrial facilities will operate under current State and Federal regulations. 

Facility operators will prevent, to the maximum extent possible, releases of 

hazardous materials and substances, crude oil, and produced water. Each 

facility will have a current oil discharge prevention and contingency plan 

outlining procedures for accidental releases. Sampling, remediation, and 

restoration of contaminated sites will be the responsibility of the company 

operating the facility and will occur in consultation with the Service and the 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. All sites no longer 

being used by industry will be sampled for contaminants to ensure proper 

disposal of material and to ensure that Refuge staff or visitors are not 

exposed to contaminants if re-use is planned. 

5.3.4 Integrated Research and Monitoring 

An integrated research and monitoring program will provide opportunities 

for scientific research. An enhanced informational infrastructure will be 

developed, including a state-of-the-art Geographic Information System, an 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-31 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-32 

enhanced air and water quality and meteorological monitoring network, 

permanent research study sites, and a multi-species landscape-level 

inventorying and monitoring program. Collaborative research and monitoring 

opportunities will be pursued through the development of a Boreal Forest 

Research, Monitoring, and Management Training Program (see Land 

Management Training Facility in section 5.3.6 below). 

5.3.5 Kenai River Scenic Float Trip Guides 

Kenai River scenic float trip guides will continue to be limited to no more 

than nine permits issued through a competitive bid process, and of which no 

more than four would be high volume businesses as described in the 

prospectus. Numbers of permits and conditions to reduce crowding would be 

reviewed and revised annually before each open bid process. Incidental use 

permits for scenic float trips, similar to sport fishing incidental use permits 

would be continued to be issued (to include blackout dates and quotas to 

avoid crowding during high use periods). 

5.3.6 Land Management Training Facility 

A Boreal Forest Research, Monitoring, and Management Training Facility 

will be developed that provides classroom and field opportunities to learn 

state-of-the art monitoring and management methodologies. The facility will 

be available for use by Service personnel and other Federal and State 

agencies, organizations, and academic institutions. A nonprofit research 

institute will be created to promote and coordinate research efforts. 

5.3.7 Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement presence will be increased Refuge-wide by implementing 

the Service’s deployment model. 

5.3.8 Moose Range Meadows Non-Development Easement 

Regulations will be developed to provide landowners with a clear description 

of the affected lands, concise definitions of the easement and its conditions, 

and unambiguous language relating to non-development restrictions. 

5.3.9 Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area 

The 44,000-acre Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area, where special restrictions 

on hunting and trapping apply, will be managed to provide enhanced 

opportunities for wildlife viewing, environmental education, interpretation, 

and photography. 

5.3.10 Subsurface Entitlements to Minerals 

Any new development where subsurface entitlements exist or in the Birch 

Hill Oil and Gas Unit would be designed and constructed to have the least 

negative environmental impact possible. Once exploration and/or production 

ceases, all industrial roads, pipelines, and other related facilities will be 

completely removed and the area restored. Sampling for contaminants, 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternatives 

remediation, and restoration of the site to predevelopment conditions will be 

required. 

5.3.11 Visitor Center 

A visitor center with the capacity to serve 150 visitors at any given time will 

be constructed in the headquarters area. 

5.3.12 Wildlife/Habitat Restoration 

Ongoing methods for assessing the distribution and status of multiple species 

at the landscape level to ensure against local extirpation of wildlife will 

continue. New trajectories for species distributions and abundance due to 

global climate change and changes in natural processes (wildfire and spruce 

bark beetle rates) will continue to be modeled. Exotic, injurious, and invasive 

species will be eliminated, controlled, or minimized through development of 

a comprehensive step-down management plan. Research will be promoted 

that evaluates possible endemism in flora and fauna, particularly brown bear 

and wolverine. Marten and red fox populations will continue to be evaluated 

in the absence of active management, and restoration opportunities will be 

identified and implemented as appropriate.

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-33 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

5.4 Comparison of the Alternatives Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives Identified By Issue and Management Action 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes and the use of fire? Management Categories: Intensive Management 

54,500 acres (2.7%) Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

Moderate Management 

179,000 acres (9.1%) 204,000 acres (10.3%) Same as Alternative A 49,450 acres (2.5%) in 

Mystery Creek area retained during the life of the Alaska Pipeline project. These lands would convert to the Minimal management category after the life of the project 

Traditional Management 

189,000 acres (9.6%) 0 Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B 

Minimal Management 

196,000 acres (9.7%) 360,000 acres (18.1%) 385,000 acres (19.4%) 514,550 acres (25.9%) 

during the life of the Alaska Pipeline project; 564,000 acres (28.4%) after the life of the project. 

Designated Wilderness 

1,320,500 acres (66.4%) Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool: 

Fire use allowed to improve habitats for select wildlife species. Prescribed fire allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, 

Fire use allowed as the principle management tool to improve wildlife habitats, reduce hazardous accumulations of wildland 

Fire use allowed as the principle management tool to improve wildlife habitats, reduce hazardous accumulations of wildland 

Fire use allowed as the principle management tool to improve wildlife habitats, reduce hazardous accumulations of wildland 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Traditional, and Minimal management categories, though its use would be limited in the Minimal management category. Wildland fire use allowed in the Moderate, Traditional, Minimal, and Wilderness management categories. 

fuels, and maintain or restore natural fire regimes. Prescribed fire allowed in the Intensive and Moderate management categories. Use allowed in the Minimal management category but only on lands not adjoining designated Wilderness. Wildland fire use allowed in the Minimal and Wilderness management categories. 

fuels, and maintain or restore natural fire regimes. Prescribed fire allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, and Minimal management categories. Wildland fire use allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and Wilderness management categories, but use would be emphasized in the Minimal management category and the default management action in designated Wilderness. 

fuels, and maintain or restore natural fire regimes. Prescribed fire allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and Wilderness management categories, though its use in Wilderness would only be allowed under specific conditions. Wildland fire use allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and Wilderness management categories, but use would be the default management action in the Minimal and Wilderness management categories. 

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use while ensuring natural resources protection? Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit: 

Most industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though some may be retained for possible public and administrative uses. Most facilities would be removed and the sites restored, though some would be retained for possible public and administrative uses. Camping facilities would not be provided, and bicycles would not be 

All industrial roads (except Swanson River Road) would be removed and the sites restored. All pipelines and associated fixtures would be removed and the sites restored. All facilities would be removed and the sites restored. Camping facilities would not be provided, and bicycles would not be allowed. 

Some industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though most would be converted to trails for pedestrian and horse use. All pipelines and associated fixtures would be removed and the sites restored. All facilities would be removed and the sites restored. Up to five primitive camping facilities would be provided for walk-in use 

Some industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though most would be retained and maintained for public and administrative uses. Most pipelines and associated fixtures that have not adequately revegetated would be removed and the sites restored. In cases where more environmental damage would occur by removing pipelines than 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

allowed. only, and bicycles would 

not be allowed. 

by leaving them in place, pipelines would be cleaned, capped, and left in place. Most facilities would be removed and the sites restored, though some would be retained for administrative uses. Up to two developed campgrounds would be provided, and bicycles would be allowed on roads and trails. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit: 

Most industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though some may be retained for possible public and administrative uses. Most facilities would be removed and the sites restored, though some would be retained for possible public and administrative uses. Camping facilities would not be provided, and bicycles would not be allowed. 

All industrial roads (except Marathon Road) would be removed and the sites restored. All pipelines and associated fixtures would be removed and the sites restored. All facilities would be removed and the sites restored. Camping facilities would not be provided, and bicycles would not be allowed. 

Some industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though most would be converted to trails for pedestrian and horse use. All pipelines and associated fixtures would be removed and the sites restored. All facilities would be removed and the sites restored. Up to two primitive camping areas would be provided for walk-in use only, and bicycles would not be allowed. 

Some industrial roads would be removed and the sites restored, though most would be retained and maintained for public and administrative uses. Most pipelines and associated fixtures that have not adequately revegetated would be removed and the sites restored. In cases where more environmental damage would occur by removing pipelines than by leaving them in place, pipelines would be cleaned, capped, and left in place. Most facilities would be removed and the sites restored, though some would be retained 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

for administrative uses. Up to one developed campground would be provided, and bicycles would be allowed on roads and trails. 

Contaminated Sites: 

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., contaminant releases are cleaned up, areas no longer in use are restored). 

Same as Alternative A, plus industry would be required to test suspected contaminated sites and clean them if contamination is present. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Mystery Creek Access Road and Alaska Pipeline Corridor: 

Maintenance of the unimproved access road would be conducted by ENSTAR during the life of the pipeline project. Public use registration would not be required. Public vehicle use of the access road and pipeline corridor north to Chickaloon Bay would be allowed from start of moose hunting season (approximately August 9) until snow cover. Pedestrian, horse, and snowmachine use would be allowed. Bicycle use would be allowed approximately August 9 until snow cover. After 

Maintenance of an improved access road would be increased and conducted by ENSTAR during the life of the pipeline project. Road improvements would facilitate public access, enhance public safety, and ensure environmental protection. Public use registration would be required at points of entry. Public vehicle use of the access road and pipeline corridor north to Chickaloon Bay and southwest to the East Fork of the Moose River would be allowed from July 1 through November 30. 

Maintenance of an improved access road would be conducted by ENSTAR during the life of the pipeline project and would continue to provide for a backcountry experience. Road improvements would be limited to those necessary for public safety and environmental protection. Public use registration would be required at points of entry. Public vehicle use of the access road and pipeline corridor north to Chickaloon Bay and southwest to the East Fork of the Moose River would be allowed from 

Maintenance of the unimproved access road would be conducted by ENSTAR during the life of the pipeline project. Public use registration would not be required. Public vehicle use of the access road and pipeline corridor would not be allowed. Pedestrian, horse, and snowmachine use would be allowed. Bicycle use would not be allowed. After the life of the project, the access road and pipeline corridor would be restored, and a trail would be provided for pedestrian and horse use only. 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

the life of the project, the access road and pipeline corridor would be restored. 

Pedestrian, horse, and snowmachine use would be allowed. Bicycle use would be allowed generally from May 1 through November 30. Public use and/or restoration opportunities would be re-evaluated after the life of the project. 

August 9 through November 30. Pedestrian, horse, and snowmachine use would be allowed. Bicycle use would be allowed approximately August 9 through November 30. Public use and/or restoration opportunities would be reevaluated after the life of the project. 

Trail Maintenance and Planning:

The development of new trails would be allowed in all management categories except Wilderness. Maintenance decisions would continue to be driven by availability of funding. 

A trail needs assessment would be developed that identifies and prioritizes construction and/or maintenance needs and construction standards for a variety of trails. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Ski Hill Road: 

Maintenance of the graveled road conducted by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle use allowed. 

Maintenance of the graveled road conducted by the Service. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle use allowed. 

Maintenance and road improvements conducted by the Service. The northern section of the road would remain graveled and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle use only. The southern section of the road would be improved and hardsurfaced, and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and public vehicle use. 

Maintenance and road improvements conducted by the Service. The northern section of the road would remain graveled and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle use only. The southern section of the road would be improved and hardsurfaced for public vehicle use, and a trail would be constructed in 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

the road right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout (mile post 62.5):

Maintenance not 

conducted, and public use facilities not provided. 

A formal rest stop at MP 62 would be developed through a cooperative effort with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities? Personal Collection of Natural Resources: 

Personal collection of 

berries, mushrooms, and other edible plants, and/or the collection of shed antlers would not be allowed. 

Personal collection and use of unlimited quantities of berries, mushrooms, and other edible plants; and up to eight naturally shed moose or caribou antlers per person per year would be allowed. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting: 

Harvesting one black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day for personal use would be allowed upon general announcement. 

Amend Refuge-specific regulations to allow for harvesting one black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day for personal use. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to ensure resource and visitor experience protection? Swanson River / Swan Lake Canoe System: 

Public use registration would be required. Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-day period. 

Public use registration would be required, and enforcement would be increased. Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-day period. Conduct a Limits-of-Acceptable Change (LAC) framework with stakeholders to guide future management actions. 

Public use registration would be required. Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-day period. Dispersed campsites would be monitored and evaluated regularly using standard protocols. Management actions may be implemented as needed. Regulations requiring appropriate disposal of human waste would be adopted. 

All visitors would be required to register via a reservation system. Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. Camping would be allowed in designated sites only. Regulations requiring the use of outhouses provided at designated campsites would be adopted. 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake): 

Non-guided public use would be allowed without restriction. Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits would be limited to 20 issued. Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if 

Work cooperatively with stakeholders to modify, as needed, existing management agreements or plans (or develop new ones) to address Upper Kenai River crowding issues related to nonguided public use. Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits 

Implement a program to restrict or redirect nonguided public use for the Upper Kenai River if more than 25% of anglers surveyed (outside of the confluence area) report difficulty in finding an uncrowded fishing spot. Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. 

Implement a limited permit program to address non-guided public use. A public rulemaking process would provide stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on the program. Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits would be reduced 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

demand for commercial recreational services increases. State-licensed sport fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued incidental use permits for as many as three trips per year subject to quotas and blackout dates. Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-day period. Camping would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

would be limited to 20 issued. The timing of boats and starts for each permit would be managed beyond current levels. State-licensed sport fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued an incidental use permit for as many as one trip per year subject to quotas and blackout dates. Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River would be limited to 24 hours within any 14 day period. Camping would not be allowed within onequarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

Permits would be reduced to 18 thru attrition and issued competitively. Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial recreational services increases. State-licensed sport fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued incidental use permits for as many as three trips per year subject to additional quotas and blackout dates beyond current levels. Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River or within onequarter mile of the Sterling Highway would not be allowed. 

to 15 through attrition and issued competitively. Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial recreational services increases. The Incidental Use Permit Program for State-licensed sport fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits would be eliminated. Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River plus camping within one mile of the inlet or outlet of the Kenai River and Skilak Lake would be limited to 48 hours within any 14-day period. Camping would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to the Refuge Boundary):

Non-guided public use would be allowed without restriction. Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits would be issued without limit. 

Non-guided public use would be allowed without restriction. Following the conclusion of the Kenai River-wide guide limitation process, evaluate the need to implement a RefugeNon-guided public use would be allowed without restriction on the number of users until a Limits-of- Acceptable-Change (LAC) planning process is completed with stakeholders. Sport Non-guided public use would be managed by a limited permit program. A public rulemaking process would provide stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on the program. 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

specific permitting process for guided sport fishing. 

fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits would be limited to the number of existing permittees, and existing permittees would be “grandfathered” in. 

Sport fishing guides would be required to have special use permits. Permits would be limited to 20 through a competitive selection process, and management of the timing of boats and/or starts would be initiated. 

Issue 5: How will the Refuge balance motorized use with resource and visitor experience protection? Airplane Access to Lakes Located in Designated Wilderness: 

Airplane access would be allowed on 46 lakes in designated Wilderness. Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake, located within the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake, located within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure would be May 1 through September 10. 

Airplane access would be allowed on 45 lakes in designated Wilderness, plus an environmental assessment would be conducted to determine the amount of airplane use and any associated impacts on Refuge resources, recreation opportunities, and Wilderness values. Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake, located within the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy 

Airplane access would be allowed on 50 lakes in designated Wilderness. Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake, located within the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake, located within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure would be May 1 through September 10. 

Airplane access would be allowed on 59 lakes in designated Wilderness plus one additional lake. Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present except on five lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic, King, and Bird lakes, located within the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness; Windy and Harvey Lake, located within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness; plus one lake outside of designated Wilderness—Beaver Lake—where the closure would be May 1 through 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Lake, located within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure would be May 1 through September 10. 

September 10. 

Airplane Access to Chickaloon Flats: 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed yearround within designated areas, including three upland landing zones, a designated beach landing zone, and the unmaintained Big Indian Creek airstrip. Floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River. 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed on 21 square miles of the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated and the unmaintained Big Indian Creek airstrip. Floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River. 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed on 21 square miles of the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated and the maintained Big Indian Creek airstrip. Floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River. 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed on 21 square miles of the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated and the maintained Big Indian Creek airstrip, an additional 6.8 square miles of the flats from September 1 to December 15 (or to coincide with future waterfowl hunting seasons). Floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River. 

Snowmachine Access: 

Snowmachines would be 

allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 30 if the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snowcover. 

Snowmachines would be allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 30 if the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snowcover. Studies with stakeholders would evaluate the effects of use on Refuge resources and visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to 

Snowmachines would be allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 30 if the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snowcover except certain zones within designated areas may be opened earlier or later, depending on local snow conditions. Studies would be conducted with 

Snowmachines would be allowed in designated areas when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snowcover; certain zones within designated areas would be opened earlier or later depending on local snow conditions. Studies would be conducted to evaluate the effects of use on Refuge resources and 
Summary Chapter 5: Compariso

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

support future management decisions. 

stakeholders to evaluate the effects of use on Refuge resources and visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to support future management decisions. 

visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to support future management decisions. 

Staffing and Budget Needs: (Beyond Current Levels) 

Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term 

Permanent Full-Time Employees 

5 20 1 16 5 16 5 16 

Permanent Seasonal Employees 

4 14 5 21 5 21 5 21 

Temporary Seasonal Employees 

25 45 10 50 10 50 10 50 

Volunteers 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 Total Staff 104 179 36 147 40 147 40 147 Annual Budget Needs 

$5,115,000 $21,489,410 $5,515,000 $21,864,410 $7,800,000 $21,864,410 $8,050,000 $21,864,410 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

5.5 Alternative A―Current Management 

This alternative, the “no-action alternative,” describes current and future 

management of the Refuge assuming present actions and initiatives are 

carried forward. It provides the baseline against which to compare the action 

alternatives (Alternatives B–E). 

5.5.1 General Management Direction 

Management of the Refuge would continue to follow the 1985 Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 1985) 

and Record of Decision (USFWS 1985) as amended by subsequent stepdown management plans. Seventy-six percent of the Refuge would continue 

to be managed to protect existing wilderness values (66.4 percent as 

designated Wilderness and 9.7 percent in the Minimal management category, 

areas which are recommended for Wilderness designation). Fish and wildlife 

management outside Wilderness would continue to focus on species of 

special interest such as moose, wolves, trumpeter swans, and salmon. 

Populations of predators would be maintained at relatively natural levels in 

relation to prey. Hunting, fishing, and trapping would continue to be allowed 

consistent with State and Federal regulations. 

5.5.2 Management Categories 

Kenai Refuge would continue to be managed under five management 

categories (Figure 4). 

Intensive Management – This least protective category encompasses areas of 

high public use and development. Natural processes are modified, and the 

influence of human activities is evident. Public facilities, administrative sites, 

industrial development, and transportation systems are allowed in this 

category. Approximately 54,500 acres (2.7 percent) of land will be managed 

under the Intensive management category. 

Moderate Management – This category manages areas easily accessible to the 

public and manipulates a significant amount of habitat to benefit populations of 

selected species (principally moose). Although some natural processes are 

altered, habitat management is designed to maintain natural andscapes. 

Permanent facilities may be provided for public recreation or public safety. 

Approximately 179,000 acres (9.1 percent) of land will be managed under the 

Moderate management category. 

Traditional Management – This category encompasses undeveloped areas 

where habitat and public use are managed to provide a mixture of benefits in 

a natural setting. No roads occur within this category. Management of forest 

habitats relies on natural tools such as prescribed burning with no mechanical 

manipulation of commercial timber harvest. Approximately 189,000 acres 

(9.6 percent) of land will be managed under the Traditional management 

category. Table 2 depicts the differences between the Traditional and 

Minimal management categories. 

Minimal Management – Management under this category would be directed at 

maintaining the pristine conditions of areas that have important fish and 

wildlife and wilderness values. These areas generally would not be subject to 

planned habitat manipulation. Restrictions are placed on motorized access, 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-45 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

recreation, and economic uses. Lands in this category represent the Service’s 

recommendations for future Wilderness designation. Approximately 196,000 

acres (9.7 percent) of land will be managed under the Minimal management 

category. 

Table 2. Differences Between Traditional and Minimal Management Under 

Alternative A.

Land Management 

Activity 

Traditional Management 

Category 

Minimal Management 

Category 

Prescribed Fire Permitted Restricted to the 

protection of life or 

property or significant 

resource value 

Sand and Gravel Removal Permitted on a sitespecific basis for use on 

Refuge subject to 

reasonable regulation 

Not Permitted 

Oil and Gas Exploration Permitted on a sitespecific basis subject to 

reasonable regulation 

Not Permitted 

Oil and Gas Leasing Permitted on a sitespecific basis subject to 

reasonable regulation 

Not Permitted 

Wilderness Management – This category includes those areas of the Refuge 

currently designated as Wilderness. It preserves the pristine and unmodified 

character of these areas. Natural fish and wildlife population dynamics and 

habitats are emphasized although regulated hunting, fishing, and trapping is 

allowed. Motorized access is permitted for traditional activities subject to 

reasonable regulations to protect natural resources, including wilderness 

values. Regulations limiting motorized access on Kenai Refuge, including 

Congressionally-designated Wilderness, can be found at 50 CFR 36.39(i). 

This management category is the most protective. Approximately 1,320,500 

acres (66.4 percent) of land will be managed under the Wilderness 

management category. 

5.5.3 Management Direction Identified By Issue 

The following discussion describes how Alternative A would address the 

issues identified during the scoping process. It provides management 

direction for major Refuge programs as they would be implemented under 

the alternative.

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-46 
Placeholder: 

Figure 4 

Alternative A 

Management Categories 

Page 47
Placeholder: 

Figure 4 

Alternative A 

Management Categories 

(backside) 

Page 48 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes 

and the use of fire? 

Fire Management Program 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool

Management direction would allow prescribed fire and wildland fire use to 

improve habitats for select wildlife species (Figure 5). 

Prescribed fire would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Traditional, and 

Minimal management categories (approximately 618,500 acres or 31percent 

of the Refuge), though its use would be limited in the Minimal management 

category (approximately 196,000 acres or 9.7 percent of the Refuge). 

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Moderate, Traditional, Minimal, 

and Wilderness management categories (approximately 1,883,500 acres or 

95 percent of the Refuge). Undesirable wildland fires (i.e., those not 

contributing to Refuge management goals) would be suppressed through the 

use of an “appropriate management response.” 

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use 

while ensuring natural resources protection? 

Facilities Program 

Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit 

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each Unit Operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, most industrial roads and facilities may be 

removed and the sites restored, though some industrial roads and facilities 

may be retained for possible public and administrative uses at the Refuge 

Manager’s discretion. If roads are retained and vehicles are allowed on those 

roads, bicycles would be allowed. Bicycles would not be allowed otherwise, 

and camping facilities would not be provided. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit 

Same as Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit (see previous text). 

Contaminated Sites

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., , 

known contaminant releases are cleaned up in a timely manner, areas no 

longer in use are restored to predevelopment conditions). 

Mystery Creek Road and Pipeline Corridor

Maintenance of the unimproved access road from the Sterling Highway to 

the Alaska Pipeline corridor would be conducted by ENSTAR during the life 

of the project. Public use of the area would not require registration, and 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-49 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

vehicle use of the unimproved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor north 

to Chickaloon Bay would be allowed from the start of moose hunting season 

(approximately August 9) until snow cover. Pedestrian and horse use would 

be allowed year-round with no seasonal restrictions. Snowmachine use 

would be allowed when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate 

snow cover and when adjacent areas are open. Bicycle use would be allowed 

when the access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor are open to public vehicle 

use (approximately August 9 until snow cover). After the life of the pipeline 

project, the unimproved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor would be 

restored at the discretion of the Refuge Manager. 

Ski Hill Road 

If the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

continues to maintain the graveled road on an irregular basis, the Refuge 

would continue to conduct grading and plowing on an “as needed” basis. The 

northern and southern routes would remain open to pedestrian, bicycle, and 

public vehicle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout 

Maintenance of the undeveloped pullout at mile post 62 would not be 

conducted, and public use facilities would not be provided. 

Trail Maintenance and Planning

The development of new trails would be allowed in all management 

categories except Wilderness. New trails would be only developed in 

response to a documented need and when compatible with Refuge purposes. 

Maintenance decisions would be driven by availability of funding. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation 

opportunities? 

Visitor Services Program 

Personal Collection of Natural Resources 

Personal collection of berries, mushrooms, other edible plants, and/or shed 

antlers would not be allowed by regulations 50 CFR 27.51 and 27.61, which 

generally prohibit such activities. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting 

Harvesting one black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height at 

least 150 feet from roads, trailheads, campgrounds, picnic areas, and 

waterways per family per year between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day for 

personal use would be allowed upon general announcement. 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure resource and visitor experience protection? 

Visitor Services Program 

Swanson River/Swan Lake Canoe Systems 

All canoeists would be required to register at entrance points. Maximum 

group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-

day period. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-50 
Placeholder: 

Figure 5 

Alternative A 

Fire Management 

Page 51
Placeholder: 

Figure 5 

Alternative A 

Fire Management 

(backside) 

Page 52
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake) 

Non-Guided Public Use — Non-guided public use would be allowed without 

restriction. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits issued would be limited to 20. Each permit 

would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per day. 

Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial 

recreational services increases. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing Incidental Use Program ― State-licensed sport 

fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued 

incidental use permits for as many as three trips per year, subject to quotas 

and blackout dates. 

Camping — Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 

days in any 30-day period. Camping would not be allowed within onequarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to Refuge Boundary)

Non-Guided Public Use — Non-guided public use would be allowed without 

restriction on the number of users. 

Guided Public Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required 

for sport fishing guides. Permits would be issued without limit. 

Issue 5 — How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness

Airplane access would be allowed on 46 lakes in designated Wilderness 

(Figure 6 and Figure 7). 

• Dave Spencer Unit: Scenic, Nekutak, Shoepac, Norak, Grouse, King, 

Bedlam, Taiga, Snowshoe, Wilderness, Mull, Tangerra, Bird, Cook, 

Sandpiper, and Vogel lakes, plus Pepper, Gene, and Swanson lakes 

would be open for ice fishing only. 

• Andy Simons Unit: Upper Russian, East Twin, West Twin, Emerald, 

High, Dinglestadt Glacier terminus, Lower Russian, Iceberg, Green, 

North Kolomin, South Kolomin, Wosnesenski Glacier terminus, 

Pothole, Harvey, Martin, Windy, Tustumena and all wilderness lakes 

within one mile of the shoreline of Tustumena Lake (Fox, Nikolai, 

and Point lakes), and all unnamed lakes in sections 1 and 2, T. 1 S., 

R. 10 W, and sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, T. 1 S., R 9 W., Seward 

Meridian, AK (six lakes). 

• Mystery Creek Unit: An unnamed lake in section 11, T. 6 N., R. 5 

W., Seward Meridian, AK. 

Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on 

any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present 

except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake, located within 

the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake, located 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-53 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure 

would be May 1 through September 10. 

Airplane Access to the Chickaloon Flats Area

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed year-round within designated 

areas including three upland landing zones, a designated beach landing zone, 

and the unmaintained Big Indian Creek airstrip; and floatplane access would 

be allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River (Figure 8). 

Snowmachine Access

Snowmachines less then 46 inches in width and less than 1,000 pounds in 

weight would be allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 

30 if the Refuge Manager determines that there is adequate snowcover to 

protect underlying vegetation and soils. 

5.5.4 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

Base Funding 

The base Refuge operational budget in fiscal year (FY) 2007 was 

$3,245,000. Additional funds necessary to operate Refuge programs were 

received for annual maintenance ($312,000), one-time operations ($390,000) 

and fire operations ($528,000). To maintain the current level of services, 

adjustments will be necessary to balance the offsets of fixed costs and 

inflation. Current funding levels are inadequate to fully implement existing 

biological and visitor services programs, and the one-time operations 

addition was necessary to operate at FY 2005 levels. 

Table 3 reflects the funds necessary to implement Alternative A. The figures 

demonstrate the level of funding needed to maintain programs plus inflation 

adjustments for the short term. Long-term adjustments to the base budget 

reflect not only short-term adjustments, but also implementation of projects 

currently identified in the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) 

database. These figures represent the funding and accomplishment of 

established goals and objectives previously identified. 

Table 3. Alternative A Budget Needs. 

Item 

Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Refuge Operations $3,635,000 $14,216,410 

Annual Maintenance $360,000 $1,620,000 

Fire Funding $1,120,000 $5,653,000 

Total Annual Budget Needs $5,115,000 $21,489,410 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-54 
Placeholder: 

Figure 6 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

Page 55
Placeholder: 

Figure 6 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Accesss to Lake 

Nouth 

(backside) 

Page 56 
Placeholder: 

Figure 7 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

Page 57
Placeholder: 

Figure 7 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

(backside) 

Page 58
Placeholder: 

Figure 8 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

Page 59
Placeholder: 

Figure 8 

Alternative A 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

(backside) 

Page 60
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative A―Current Management 

RONS/SAMMS Projects 

RONS is the mechanism that the Refuge uses to justify needed funds and 

personnel for new programs and projects necessary to meet legal mandates, 

Refuge plans, and U.S. Department of the Interior and Service directives. 

This Internet accessible database is used by all refuges to compete for dollars 

to adequately fund programs. The needs currently listed in Kenai’s RONS 

database date back to 1985; there are 50 projects totaling $10,747,000 and 25 

new staff positions. 

The Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) is a 

database the Refuge uses to document and justify significant maintenance 

projects and equipment replacement. Kenai’s SAMMS project list currently 

has 253 projects identified for a total of $50,142,000. 

Other 

Management of oil and gas related activities on the Refuge is a time 

consuming and difficult process necessary to meet the Service’s legal 

obligations for Federal leases. In FY 2007, it is estimated that oil and gas 

management costs amounted to approximately $300,000. This includes costs 

associated with aircraft and vehicle utilization, personnel, and travel for 

meetings and site inspections. This program has never been fully funded at 

the current level of management. 

Current and Additional Staffing Needs 

In FY 2007, Kenai Refuge had a staff size of 118 employees and volunteers: 

35 permanent full-time employees, 8 permanent seasonal employees, 12 

temporary seasonal employees, and 63 volunteers. Table 4 identifies the 

number of staff needed beyond current levels to fully implement 

Alternative A. 

Table 4. Alternative A Staffing Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Action Type Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Permanent Full-Time 

Employees 

5 20 

Permanent Seasonal 

Employees 

4 14 

Temporary Seasonal 

Employees 

25 45 

Volunteers 20 60 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-61 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

5.6 Alternative B 

5.6.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in Alternative 

A would continue, some specific direction and actions occurring under 

current management would be altered under Alternative B. 

5.6.2 Management Categories 

Four management categories would be applied to Kenai Refuge under 

Alternative B (Figure 9). 

Intensive Management – Approximately 54,500 acres (2.7 percent) of land 

would be managed under the Intensive management category. 

Moderate Management – Approximately 204,000 acres (10.3 percent) of land 

would be managed under the Moderate management category. 

Traditional Management – This category would be eliminated. Of the 

189,000 acres of land currently identified as Traditional Management, 

approximately 25,000 acres would convert to the Moderate management 

category, and 164,000 acres would convert to the Minimal management 

category. 

Minimal Management – Approximately 360,000 acres (18.1 percent) of land 

would be managed under the Minimal management category. 

Wilderness Management – Approximately 1,320,500 acres (66.4 percent) of 

land would be managed under the Wilderness management category. 

5.6.3 Management Direction Identified By Issue 

The following discussion describes how Alternative B would address the 

issues identified during the scoping process. It provides management 

direction for major Refuge programs as they would be implemented under 

the alternative. 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes 

and the use of fire? 

Fire Management Program 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool

Management direction would allow prescribed fire and wildland fire use as 

the principle management tools to improve wildlife habitats, reduce 

hazardous accumulations of wildland fuels, and maintain or restore natural 

fire regimes (Figure 10). 

Prescribed fire would be allowed in the Intensive and Moderate management 

categories (approximately 258,500 acres or 13 percent of the Refuge), though 

its use would also be allowed in the Minimal management category 

(approximately 360,000 acres or 18 percent of the Refuge) but only on lands 

not adjoining designated Wilderness. 

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Minimal and Wilderness 

management categories (approximately 1,679,500 acres or 84.5 percent of 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-62 
Placeholder: 

Figure 9 

Alternative B 

Management Categories 

Page 63 
Placeholder: 

Figure 9 

Alternative B 

Management Categories 

(backside) 

Page 64 
Placeholder: 

Figure 10 

Alternative B 

Fire Management 

Page 65 
Placeholder: 

Figure 10 

Alternative B 

Fire Management 

(backside) 

Page 66
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

the Refuge). Undesirable wildland fires (i.e., those not contributing to Refuge 

management goals) would be suppressed through the use of an “appropriate 

management response.” 

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use 

while ensuring natural resources protection? 

Facilities Program 

Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each unit operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, all industrial roads (except the Swanson River 

Road); pipelines and associated fixtures, regardless of whether they are 

located along industrial roads, on gravel well pads, or traverse the landscape; 

and all facilities built to support oil and gas operations would be removed 

and the sites restored to match the surrounding landscape. No industrial roads 

or facilities built to support oil and gas operations would be retained for 

public and/or administrative uses. Camping facilities would not be provided, 

and bicycles would not be allowed. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit

Same as Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit. 

Contaminated Sites 

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., 

known contaminant releases are cleaned up in a timely manner, and that 

areas no longer in use are restored to predevelopment conditions). Industry 

would be required to investigate, and if necessary, test suspected 

contaminated sites to confirm the existence and identity of contaminates and 

to clean sites if contamination is present. 

Mystery Creek Road and Pipeline Corridor 

Maintenance of the improved access road from the Sterling Highway to the 

Alaska Pipeline corridor would be increased and conducted by ENSTAR 

during the life of the project. Road improvements would facilitate public 

access, enhance public safety, and ensure environmental protection. Public 

use of the area would require registration at points of entry. Public vehicle 

use of the improved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor north to 

Chickaloon Bay and southwest to the East Fork of the Moose River would be 

allowed from July 1 through November 30. Pedestrian and horse use would 

be allowed year-round with no seasonal restrictions. Snowmachine use 

would be allowed when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate 

snow cover and when adjacent areas are open. Bicycle use would be allowed 

generally from May 1 through November 30. After the life of the pipeline 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-67 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

project, public use and/or restoration opportunities would be re-evaluated. If 

the improved access road is retained, maintenance would revert to the 

Refuge. 

Ski Hill Road

Maintenance of the graveled road would be conducted on a regular basis by 

the Refuge; and the northern and southern routes would remain open to 

pedestrian, bicycle, and public vehicle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout 

A formal rest stop at mile post 62 would be developed through a cooperative 

effort with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities. 

Trail Maintenance & Planning

A trail needs assessment would be developed that identifies and prioritizes 

construction and/or maintenance needs and construction standards for a 

variety of trails. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation 

opportunities? 

Visitor Services Program 

Personal Collection of Natural Resources 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow the personal 

collection and use of unlimited quantities of berries, mushrooms, and other 

edible plants. Such collection would be for non-commercial use only and 

could only be undertaken in a manner that does not unduly damage other 

resources (e.g., an individual could not cut down live trees to harvest the 

seeds and/or cones). Additionally, the collection of up to eight naturally shed 

moose or caribou antlers per person per year for non-commercial purposes 

would be allowed. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow for harvesting one 

black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year 

between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Trees could not be taken within 

the two-square-mile Refuge Visitor Center area on Ski Hill Road or closer 

than 150 feet from roads, trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, and waterways 

(lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds). Additionally, for safety reasons, stumps 

from harvested trees must be trimmed less than six inches from the ground. 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure resource and visitor experience protection? 

Visitor Services Program 

Swanson River/Swan Lake Canoe Systems

All canoeists would be required to register at entrance points, and Refuge 

officers would spot-check and enforce the registration requirement. 

Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special 

use permit. Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-68 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-69 

days in any 30-day period. A Limits-of-Acceptable-Change framework 

would be implemented to guide future management of the canoe systems. 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake) 

Non-Guided Public Use — Work cooperatively with stakeholders to modify, 

as needed, existing management agreements or plans (or develop new ones) 

to address Upper Kenai River crowding issues for non-guided public use. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to 20 issued. The timing of 

boats and starts for each permit would be managed beyond current 

conditions. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing Incidental Use Program ― State-licensed sport 

fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued an 

incidental use permit limited to one trip per year subject to quotas and 

blackout dates. 

Camping — Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River would 

be limited to 24 hours within any 14-day period. Camping would not be 

allowed within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to Refuge Boundary)

Non-Guided Public Use — Non-guided public use would be allowed without 

restriction on the number of users. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Following the conclusion of the Kenai Riverwide guide limitation process conducted by the Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, the Refuge 

would evaluate the need to implement a Refuge-specific permitting process 

similar to the system used on the Upper Kenai River. 

Issue 5 — How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness

Airplane access would be allowed on 45 lakes in designated Wilderness 

(Figure 11 and Figure 12). 

• Dave Spencer Unit: Scenic, Nekutak, Shoepac, Norak, Grouse, King, 

Bedlam, Taiga, Snowshoe, Wilderness, Mull, Tangerra, Cook, 

Sandpiper, and Vogel lakes plus Pepper, Gene, and Swanson lakes would 

be open for ice fishing only. 

• Andy Simons Unit: Upper Russian, East Twin, West Twin, Emerald, 

High, Dinglestadt Glacier terminus, Lower Russian, Iceberg, Green, 

North Kolomin, South Kolomin, Wosnesenski Glacier terminus, Pothole, 

Harvey, Martin, Windy, Tustumena and all wilderness lakes within one 

mile of the shoreline of Tustumena Lake (Fox, Nikolai, and Point lakes), 

and all unnamed lakes in sections 1 and 2, T. 1 S., R. 10 W., and sections 

4, 5, 8, and 9, T. 1 S., R. 9 W., Seward Meridian, AK (six lakes).
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

• Mystery Creek Unit: An unnamed lake in Section 11, T. 6 N., R. 5 W., 

Seward Meridian, AK. 

Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on 

any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present 

except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake, located within 

the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake, located 

within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure 

would be May 1 through September 10. 

An environmental assessment would be conducted to determine the amount 

of airplane use and any associated impacts on Refuge resources, recreation 

opportunities, and Wilderness values. 

Airplane Access to Chickaloon Flats 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed year-round on 21 square miles of 

the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated and the unmaintained Big 

Indian Creek airstrip; floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of the 

Chickaloon River (Figure 13). 

Snowmachine Access 

Snowmachines less than 46 inches wide and less than 1,000 pounds in weight 

would be allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 30 if 

the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snow cover to protect 

underlying vegetation and soils. Studies with the State of Alaska and other 

stakeholders would evaluate the effects of use on Refuge resources and 

visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to support future 

management decisions. 

5.6.4 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

Base Funding 

All current management programs would continue under Alternative B, and 

some new programs would begin. The base Refuge operational budget 

($3,245,000) would continue with additions to cover the new programs. 

Additional funds necessary to operate Refuge programs received for annual 

maintenance ($312,000) and fire operations ($528,000) would continue to be 

needed. To maintain the current level of services and adequately fund new 

programs, the one-time operations addition in fiscal year (FY) 2007 

($390,000) would continue to be required to operate at FY 2005 levels, and 

adjustments would be necessary to balance the offsets of fixed costs and 

inflation. 

Current funding levels are inadequate to fully implement existing biological 

and visitor services programs, so new funds will be necessary. 

Table 5 reflects the funds necessary to implement Alternative B in addition 

to those base funds already received. The figures demonstrate the level of 

funding needed to maintain programs plus inflation adjustments for the short 

term. Long-term adjustments to the base budget reflect not only short-term 

adjustments, but also implementation of projects currently identified in the 

RONS database plus those needed to implement this alternative.

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-70 
Placeholder: 

Figure 11 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

Page 71
Placeholder: 

Figure 11 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

(backside) 

Page 72
Placeholder: 

Figure 12 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

Page 73
Placeholder: 

Figure 12 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

(backside) 

Page 74
Placeholder: 

Figure 13 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

Page 75
Placeholder: 

Figure 13 

Alternative B 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

(backside) 

Page 76
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative B 

Table 5. Alternative B Budget Needs Beyond Current Levels. 

Item Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Total Annual Budget Needs $5,515,000 $21,864,410 

Additional Staffing Needs 

Selection of this alternative would require additional staff. One additional 

law enforcement officer, in addition to those positions currently identified in 

the RONS package, would be required. Costs for this position would be 

approximately $150,000 in year one and $80,000 in subsequent years. Year 

one costs would include a move, vehicle, salary, and necessary equipment. 

A seasonal trail crew, consisting of five permanent seasonal employees 

would also be added at a cost of approximately $250,000. Table 6 identifies 

the number of staff needed beyond current levels to fully implement 

Alternative B. 

Table 6. Alternative B Staffing Needs Beyond Current Levels

Action Type Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Permanent Full-Time Employees 1 16 

Permanent Seasonal Employees 5 21 

Temporary Seasonal Employees 10 50 

Volunteers 20 60 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-77 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

5.7 Alternative C 

5.7.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in Alternative 

A would continue, some specific direction and actions occurring under 

current management would be altered under Alternative C. 

5.7.2 Management Categories 

Four management categories would be applied to Kenai Refuge under 

Alternative C (Figure 14). 

Intensive Management – Approximately 54,500 acres (2.7 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Intensive management category. 

Moderate Management – Approximately 179,000 acres (9.0 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Moderate management category. 

Traditional Management – This category would be eliminated. All of the 

189,000 acres (9.6 percent) of land currently identified as Traditional 

Management would convert to the Minimal management category. 

Minimal Management – Approximately 385,000 acres (19.4 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Minimal management category. 

Wilderness Management – Approximately 1,320,500 acres (66.4 percent) of 

land would be managed under the Wilderness management category. 

5.7.3 Management Direction Identified By Issue 

The following discussion describes how Alternative C would address the 

issues identified during the scoping process. It provides management 

direction for major Refuge programs as they would be implemented under 

the alternative. 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes 

and the use of fire? 

Fire Management Program 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool 

Management direction would allow prescribed fire and wildland fire use as 

the principle management tools to improve wildlife habitats, reduce 

hazardous accumulations of wildland fuels, and maintain or restore natural 

fire regimes (Figure 15). 

Prescribed fire would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, and Minimal 

land management categories (approximately 618,500 acres or 31 percent of 

the Refuge). 

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness management categories (approximately 1,938,000 acres or 97.5 

percent of the Refuge), but use would be emphasized in the Minimal 

management category (approximately 385,000 acres or 19.5 percent of the 

Refuge) and the default management action in the Wilderness management 

category (approximately 1,319,500 acres or 66.4 percent of the Refuge) 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-78 
Placeholder: 

Figure 14 

Alternative C 

Management Categories 

Page 79
Placeholder: 

Figure 14 

Alternative C 

Management Categories 

(backside) 

Page 80
Placeholder: 

Figure 14 

Alternative C 

Fire Management 

Page 81
Placeholder: 

Figure 14 

Alternative C 

Fire Management 

(backside) 

Page 82
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

unless safety, resource availability, or other planning objectives dictate a 

different response is warranted. Undesirable wildland fires (i.e., those not 

contributing to Refuge management goals) would be suppressed through the 

use of an “appropriate management response.”

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use 

while ensuring natural resources protection? 

Facilities Management Program 

Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each unit operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, some industrial roads; all pipelines and 

associated fixtures, regardless of whether they are located along industrial 

roads, on gravel well pads, or traverse the landscape; and all facilities built to 

support oil and gas operations would be removed and the sites restored to 

match the surrounding landscape. Most industrial roads would be converted 

to trails for pedestrian and horse use at the Refuge Manager’s discretion. 

Although no facilities built to support oil and gas operations would be 

retained for public and/or administrative uses, up to five primitive camping 

facilities would be provided for walk-in use only. Bicycles would not be 

allowed. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit

Same as Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit except up to two primitive 

camping facilities would be provided for walk-in use only. 

Contaminated Sites 

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., 

known contaminant releases are cleaned up in a timely manner, areas no 

longer in use are restored to predevelopment conditions). Industry would be 

required to investigate, and if necessary, test suspected contaminated sites to 

confirm the existence and identity of contaminates and to clean sites if 

contamination is present. 

Mystery Creek Road and Pipeline Corridor 

Maintenance of the improved access road from the Sterling Highway to the 

Alaska Pipeline corridor would be conducted by ENSTAR to continue to 

provide for a backcountry experience. Road improvements would be limited 

to those necessary for public safety and environmental protection. Public use 

of the area would require registration at points of entry. Public vehicle use of 

the improved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor north to Chickaloon 

Bay and southwest to the East Fork of the Moose River would be allowed 

from August 9 through November 30. Pedestrian and horse use would be 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-83 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

allowed year-round with no seasonal restrictions. Snowmachine use would 

be allowed when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snow 

cover and when adjacent areas are open. Bicycle use would be allowed when 

the access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor are opened to public vehicle use 

(approximately August 9) until snow cover. After the life of the pipeline 

project, public use and/or restoration opportunities would be re-evaluated. If 

the improved access road is retained, maintenance would revert to the 

Refuge. 

Ski Hill Road 

Maintenance and road improvements would be conducted by the Refuge 

upon transfer of the road from the State to the Service. The northern route 

would remain graveled and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency 

vehicle use only. The southern route would be improved and hard-surfaced, 

and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and public vehicle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout 

A formal rest stop at mile post 62 would be developed through a cooperative 

effort with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities. 

Trail Maintenance & Planning

A trail needs assessment would be developed that identifies and prioritizes 

construction and/or maintenance needs and construction standards for a 

variety of trails. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation 

opportunities? 

Visitor Services Program 

Personal Collection of Natural Resources 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow the personal 

collection and use of unlimited quantities of berries, mushrooms, and other 

edible plants. Such collection would be for non-commercial use only and 

could only be undertaken in a manner that does not unduly damage other 

resources (e.g., an individual could not cut down live trees to harvest the 

seeds and/or cones). Additionally, the collection of up to eight naturally shed 

moose or caribou antlers per person per year for non-commercial purposes 

would be authorized. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow for harvesting one 

black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year 

between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Trees could not be taken within 

the two-square-mile Refuge Visitor Center area on Ski Hill Road or closer 

than 150 feet from roads, trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, and waterways 

(lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds). Additionally, for safety reasons, stumps 

from harvested trees must be trimmed less than six inches from the ground. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-84 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-85 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure resource and visitor experience protection? 

Visitor Services Program 

Swan Lake and Swanson River Canoe Systems

All canoeists would be required to register at entrance points. Maximum 

group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-

day period. Campsites would be monitored and evaluated regularly using 

standard protocols. Management actions taken to address resource concerns, 

including temporary closures of selected campsites to encourage natural 

rehabilitation, may be implemented as needed. Regulations requiring 

appropriate disposal of human waste would be adopted. 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake)

Non-Guided Public Use — Implement a program to restrict or redirect nonguided public use for the Upper Kenai River if more than 25 percent of 

anglers surveyed (outside of the confluence area) report difficulty in finding 

an uncrowded fishing spot. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to 18 issued through attrition. 

Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per 

day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial 

recreational services increases. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing Incidental Use Program ― State-licensed sport 

fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued 

incidental use permits for as many as three trips per year subject to additional 

quotas and blackout dates. 

Camping — Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River or 

within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway would not be allowed. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to Refuge Boundary)

Non-Guided Public Use — Non-guided public use would be allowed without 

restriction on the number of users until a Limits-of-Acceptable-Change 

planning process is completed with stakeholders, including the State of 

Alaska, which would lead to the development of a step-down management 

plan. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to the number of permittees 

existing upon completion of this comprehensive conservation planning 

process, and existing permittees would be “grandfathered” in. 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

Issue 5 — How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness 

Airplane access would be allowed on 50 lakes in designated Wilderness 

(Figure 16 and Figure 17). 

• Dave Spencer Unit: Falcon, Wren, Neckshorta, Scenic, Nekutak, 

Shoepac, Norak, Grouse, King, Bedlam, Taiga, Snowshoe, 

Wilderness, Mull, Tangerra, Bird, Cook, Sandpiper, and Vogel lakes 

plus Pepper, Gene, and Swanson lakes would be open for ice fishing 

only. 

• Andy Simons Unit: An unnamed lake southwest of Goat Lake in 

section 28; Upper Russian, East Twin, West Twin, Emerald, High, 

Dinglestadt Glacier terminus, Lower Russian, Iceberg, Green, North 

Kolomin, South Kolomin, Wosnesenski Glacier terminus, Pothole, 

Harvey, Martin, Windy, Tustumena and all wilderness lakes within 

one mile of the shoreline of Tustumena Lake (Fox, Nikolai, and 

Point lakes), and all unnamed lakes in sections 1 and 2, T. 1 S., R. 10 

W., and sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, T. 1 S., R. 9 W., Seward Meridian, 

AK (six lakes). 

• Mystery Creek Unit: An unnamed lake in section 11, T. 6 N., R. 5 

W., Seward Meridian, AKs. 

Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on 

any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present 

except on two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake located within 

the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake located 

within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure 

would be May 1 through September 10. 

Airplane Access to Chickaloon Flats 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed year-round on 21 square miles of 

the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated, regular maintenance would be 

conducted on the Big Indian Creek airstrip, and floatplane access would be 

allowed on 6.5 miles of the Chickaloon River (Figure 18). 

Snowmachine Access 

Snowmachines less than 46 inches wide and less than 1,000 pounds in weight 

would be allowed in certain zones within designated areas from December 1 

through April 30 depending on local snow conditions when the Refuge 

Manager determines there is adequate snow cover to protect underlying 

vegetation and soils. Studies would be conducted with the State of Alaska 

and other stakeholders to evaluate the effects of snowmachine use on Refuge 

resources and visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to 

support future management decisions. 

5.7.4 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

Base Funding 

All current management programs would continue under Alternative C, and 

some new programs would begin. The base Refuge operational budget 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-86 
Placeholder: 

Figure 16 

Alternative C 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

Page 87 
Placeholder: 

Figure 16 

Alternative C 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

(backside) 

Page 88 
Placeholder: 

Figure 17 

Alternative C 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

Page 89
Placeholder: 

Figure 17 

Alternative C 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

(backside) 

Page 90 
Placeholder: 

Figure 18 

Alternativie C 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

Page 91 
Placeholder: 

Figure 18 

Alternative C 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

(backside) 

Page 92 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative C 

($3,245,000) would continue with additions to cover the new programs. 

Additional funds necessary to operate Refuge programs received for annual 

maintenance ($312,000) and fire operations ($528,000) would continue to be 

needed. To maintain the current level of services and adequately fund new 

programs, the one-time operations addition in fiscal year (FY) 2007 

($390,000) would continue to be required to operate at FY 2005 levels, and 

adjustments would be necessary to balance the offsets of fixed costs and 

inflation. Current funding levels are inadequate to fully implement existing 

biological and visitor services programs, so new funds would be necessary. 

Table 7 reflects the funds necessary to implement Alternative C in addition 

to those base funds already received. The figures demonstrate the level of 

funding needed to maintain programs plus inflation adjustments for the short 

term. Long-term adjustments to the base budget reflect not only short-term 

adjustments, but also implementation of projects currently identified in the 

RONS database plus those needed to implement this alternative. Significant 

new funding would be required to implement this alternative to harden 

roadways ($2,500,000), develop new visitor facilities for wildlife observation 

($1,500,000), and pay salaries for six additional personnel needed to 

accomplish these new programs ($750,000). 

Table 7. Alternative C Budget Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Item Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Total Annual Budget Needs $7,800,000 $21,864,410 

Additional Staffing Needs 

Selection of this alternative would require additional staff: Two additional 

law enforcement officers, in addition to those positions currently identified in 

the RONS package would be required. Costs for these positions would be 

approximately $300,000 in year one, and $160,000 in subsequent years. Year 

one costs would include moves, vehicle, salary, and necessary equipment. 

Other required personnel would include two maintenance professionals (year 

one costs approximately $250,000; subsequent years approximately 

$160,000), and two park rangers (Visitor Services) to provide services at new 

facilities (year one costs approximately $250,000; subsequent years 

approximately $160,000). A seasonal trail crew consisting of five permanent 

seasonal employees would also be added at a cost of approximately 

$250,000. Table 8 identifies the number of staff needed beyond current levels 

to fully implement Alternative C. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-93 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

Table 8. Alternative C Staffing Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Action Type Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Permanent Full-Time 

Employees 

5 16 

Permanent Seasonal 

Employees 

5 21 

Seasonal Employees 10 50 

Volunteers 20 60 

5.8 Alternative D 

5.8.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in Alternative 

A would continue, some specific direction and actions occurring under 

current management would be altered under Alternative D. 

5.8.2 Management Categories 

Four management categories would be applied to Kenai Refuge under 

Alternative D (Figure 19). 

Intensive Management – Approximately 54,500 acres (2.7 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Intensive management category. 

Moderate Management – This category would be reduced and eventually 

eliminated after the life of the Alaska Pipeline project. Approximately 

129,550 acres (6.5 percent) of the land would convert to the Minimal 

management category immediately. The remaining 49,450 acres (2.5 percent) 

of land would be retained as Moderate management during the life of the 

Alaska Pipeline project. These lands would convert to the Minimal 

management category after the life of that project. 

Traditional Management – This category would be eliminated. All of the 

189,000 acres (9.6 percent) of land currently identified under this category 

would convert to the Minimal management category. 

Minimal Management – Approximately 514,550 acres (25.9 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Minimal management category during the 

life of the Alaska Pipeline project. After the life of the project, 564,000 acres 

(28.4 percent) would be managed under the Minimal management category. 

Wilderness Management – Approximately 1,320,500 acres (66.4 percent) of 

the land would be managed under the Wilderness management category. 

5.8.3 Management Direction Identified By Issue 

The following discussion describes how Alternative D would address the 

issues identified during the scoping process. It provides management

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-94 
Placeholder: 

Figure 19 

Alternative D 

Management Categories 

Page 95
Placeholder: 

Figure 19 

Alternative D 

Management Categories 

(backside) 

Page 96
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

direction for major Refuge programs as they would be implemented under 

the alternative. 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes 

and the use of fire? 

Fire Management Program 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool 

Management direction would allow prescribed fire and wildland fire use as 

the principle management tools to improve wildlife habitats, reduce 

hazardous accumulations of wildland fuels, and maintain or restore natural 

fire regimes (Figure 20). 

Prescribed fire would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness management categories (approximately 1,938,000 acres or 97.5 

percent of the Refuge), though its use in the Wilderness management 

category would only occur under specific conditions defined in national 

Wilderness and Fire Management policies. 

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness land management categories (approximately 1,938,000 acres or 

97.5 percent of the Refuge), but use would be the default management action 

in the Minimal and Wilderness management categories (approximately 

1,883,500 acres or 95 percent of the Refuge). Undesirable wildland fires (i.e., 

those not contributing to Refuge management goals) would be suppressed 

through the use of an “appropriate management response.” 

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use 

while ensuring natural resources protection? 

Facilities Management Program 

Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit 

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each unit operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, some industrial roads; most pipelines, sections of 

pipelines, and associated fixtures, regardless of whether they are located 

along industrial roads, on gravel well pads, or along utility corridors that 

have not adequately revegetated; and most facilities built to support oil and 

gas operations would be removed and the sites restored to match the 

surrounding landscape. In cases where more environmental damage would 

occur by removing pipelines (or sections of pipelines) than by leaving them 

in place, the pipeline (or sections of pipeline) would be cleaned, capped, and 

left in place. Most industrial roads would be retained and maintained for 

public and administrative uses at the Refuge Manager’s discretion. Some 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-97 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

facilities built to support oil and gas operations may be retained for 

administrative uses (e.g., research, law enforcement, or seasonal programs) at 

the Refuge Manager’s discretion; and up to two developed campgrounds, 

consisting of “hardened” campsites, vault toilets, tables, and fire rings, would 

be provided. Bicycles would be allowed on roads and trails. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit

Same as Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit except up to one developed 

campground would be provided. 

Contaminated Sites 

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., 

known contaminant releases are cleaned up in a timely manner, areas no 

longer in use are restored to predevelopment conditions). Industry would be 

required to investigate, and if necessary, test suspected contaminated sites to 

confirm the existence and identity of contaminates and to clean sites if 

contamination is present. 

Mystery Creek Road and Pipeline Corridor 

Maintenance of the unimproved access road from the Sterling Highway to 

the Alaska Pipeline corridor would be conducted by ENSTAR during the life 

of the project. Public use of the area would not require registration. Public 

vehicle use and bicycles would not be allowed; pedestrian and horse use 

would be allowed year-round with no seasonal restrictions. Snowmachine 

use would be allowed when the Refuge Manager determines there is 

adequate snow cover and when adjacent areas are open. After the life of the 

pipeline project, the unimproved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor 

would be restored, and a trail would be constructed for pedestrian and horse 

use only. 

Ski Hill Road 

Maintenance and road improvements would be conducted by the Refuge. The 

northern route would remain graveled and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and 

emergency vehicle use only. The southern route would be improved, hardsurfaced and open to public vehicle use, and a trail would be provided within 

the road right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout 

Develop a formal rest stop at milepost 62 through a cooperative effort with 

the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 

Trail Maintenance & Planning

Develop a trail needs assessment that identifies and prioritizes construction 

and/or maintenance needs and construction standards for a wide variety of 

trails. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation 

opportunities? 

Visitor Services Program 

Personal Collection of Natural Resources 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow the personal 

collection and use of unlimited quantities of berries, mushrooms, and other 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-98 
Placeholder: 

Figure 20 

Alterantive D 

Fire Management 

Page 99
Placeholder: 

Figure 20 

Alternative D 

Fire Management 

(backside) 

Page 100
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

edible plants. Such collection would be for non-commercial use only and 

could only be undertaken in a manner that does not unduly damage other 

resources (e.g., an individual could not cut down live trees to harvest the 

seeds and/or cones). Additionally, the collection of up to eight naturally shed 

moose or caribou antlers per person per year for non-commercial purposes 

would be authorized. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow for harvesting one 

black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year 

between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Trees could not be taken within 

the two-square-mile Refuge Visitor Center area on Ski Hill Road or closer 

than 150 feet from roads, trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, and waterways 

(lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds). Additionally, for safety reasons, stumps 

from harvested trees must be trimmed less than six inches from the ground. 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure resource and visitor experience protection? 

Visitor Services Program 

Swan Lake and Swanson River Canoe Systems 

All canoeists would be required to register via a reservation system. 

Maximum group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special 

use permit. Camping would be allowed in designated sites only. Regulations 

requiring the use of outhouses provided at designated campsites would be 

adopted. 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake)

Non-Guided Public Use — Implement a limited permit program for the 

Upper Kenai River to address non-guided sport fishing and scenic float trips 

between Sportsman’s Lodge and Jim’s Landing. A public rulemaking 

process would provide stakeholders an opportunity to make suggestions on 

how best to implement the system. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to 15 issued through attrition. 

Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per 

day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial 

recreational services increases. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing Incidental Use Program ― The Incidental Use 

Program would be eliminated. 

Camping — Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River and 

camping within one mile of the inlet or outlet of the Kenai River and Skilak 

Lake would be limited to 48 hours within any 14-day period. Camping would 

not be allowed within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to Refuge Boundary)

Non-Guided Public Use — A limited permit program for all non-guided 

public use would be developed. A public rulemaking process would provide 

stakeholders an opportunity to make suggestions on how best to implement 

the program. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-101 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-102 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to 20 issued through a 

competitive selection process, and management of the timing of boats and/or 

starts would be initiated. 

Issue 5 — How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness 

Airplane access would be allowed on 59 lakes in designated Wilderness and 

1 additional lake outside of designated Wilderness (Figure 21 and Figure 22). 

• Dave Spencer Unit: Falcon, Wren, Neckshorta, Rabbit Foot, 

Muskrat, Scenic, Nekutak, Shoepac, Norak, Grouse, King, Bedlam, 

Taiga, Snowshoe, Wilderness, Mull, Tangerra, Bird, Cook, 

Sandpiper, and Vogel, plus Angler, Pepper, Gene, and Swanson 

lakes would be open for ice fishing only. 

• Andy Simons Unit: An unnamed lake southwest of Goat Lake in 

section 28, an unnamed lake west of Koloman lake in section 31, 

four lakes north of Harvey lake (Round Lake in section 29, an 

unnamed lake northwest of Round Lake in section 30, an unnamed 

lake southwest of Round Lake in section 30, and an unnamed lake 

southwest of Round Lake in section 31), Kaknu, Upper Russian, East 

Twin, West Twin, Emerald, High, Dinglestadt Glacier terminus, 

Lower Russian, Iceberg, Green, North Kolomin, South Kolomin, 

Wosnesenski Glacier terminus, Pothole, Harvey, Martin, Windy, 

Tustumena and all wilderness lakes within one mile of the shoreline 

of Tustumena Lake (Fox, Nikolai, and Point lakes), and all unnamed 

lakes in Sections 1 and 2, T. 1 S., R. 10 W., and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 

9, T. 1 S., R. 9 W., Seward Meridian, AK (six lakes).

• Mystery Creek Unit: An unnamed lake in Section 11, T. 6 N., R. 5 

W., Seward Meridian, AK. 

Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 through September 30 on 

any lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present 

except on five lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic, King, and Bird lakes 

located within the Dave Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy 

and Harvey lakes located within the Andy Simons unit of the Kenai 

Wilderness—and one lake outside of designated Wilderness (Beaver Lake), 

where the closure would be May 1 through September 10. 

Airplane Access to Chickaloon Flats 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed year-round on 21 square miles of 

the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated; an additional 6.8 square miles 

would be open from September 1 to December 15 (or to coincide with future 

waterfowl hunting seasons). Regular maintenance of the Big Indian Creek 

airstrip would be conducted, and floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 

miles of the Chickaloon River (Figure 23).
Placeholder: 

Figure 21 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

Page 103
Placeholder: 

Figure 21 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

(backside) 

Page 104
Placeholder: 

Figure 22 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

Page 105
Placeholder: 

Figure 22 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

(backside) 

Page 106
Placeholder: 

Figure 23 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

Page 107
Placeholder: 

Figure 23 

Alternative D 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

(backside) 

Page 108
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative D 

Snowmachine Access 

Snowmachines less than 46 inches wide and less than 1,000 pounds in weight 

would be allowed in certain zones within designated areas depending on 

local snow conditions when the Refuge Manager determines there is 

adequate snow cover to protect underlying vegetation and soils. Studies 

would be conducted with the State of Alaska and other stakeholders to 

evaluate the effects of snowmachine use on Refuge resources and visitor 

experiences, the results of which would be used to support future 

management decisions. 

5.8.4 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

Base Funding 

All current management programs would continue under Alternative D, and 

some new programs would begin. The base Refuge operational budget 

($3,245,000) would continue with additions to cover the new programs. 

Additional funds necessary to operate Refuge programs received for annual 

maintenance ($312,000) and fire operations ($528,000) would continue to be 

needed. To maintain the current level of services and adequately fund new 

programs, the one-time operations addition in fiscal year (FY) 2007 

($390,000) would continue to be required to operate at FY 2005 levels, and 

adjustments would be necessary to balance the offsets of fixed costs and 

inflation. Current funding levels are inadequate to fully implement existing 

biological and visitor services programs, so new funds would be necessary. 

Table 9 reflects the funds necessary to implement Alternative D in addition 

to base funds already received. The figures demonstrate the level of funding 

needed to maintain programs plus inflation adjustments for the short term. 

Long-term adjustments to the base budget reflect not only short-term 

adjustments, but also implementation of projects currently identified in the 

RONS database plus those needed to implement this alternative. Significant 

new funding will be required to implement this alternative to pave some 

roadways ($26,000,000), harden surfaces of other roadways ($2,500,000), 

develop new visitor facilities for wildlife observation ($1,500,000), develop 

new trails ($1,500,000), and pay salaries for six full time personnel 

($750,000) and a seasonal trail crew ($250,000) needed to accomplish these 

new programs. 

 

Table 9. Alternative D Budget Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Item Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Total Annual Budget Needs $8,050,000 $21,864,410 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-109 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

Additional Staffing Needs 

Selection of this alternative would require additional staff: Two additional 

law enforcement officers, in addition to those positions currently identified in 

the RONS package, would be required. Costs for these positions would be 

approximately $300,000 in year one and $160,000 in subsequent years. Year 

one costs would include moves, vehicle, salary, and necessary equipment. 

Other required personnel would include two maintenance professionals (year 

one costs approximately $250,000; subsequent years approximately 

$160,000), and two park rangers (Visitor Services) to provide services at new 

facilities (year one costs approximately $250,000; subsequent years 

approximately $160,000). A seasonal trail crew consisting of five permanent 

seasonal employees would also be added at a cost of approximately 

$250,000. Table 10 identifies the number of staff needed beyond current 

levels to fully implement Alternative D. 

Table 10. Alternative D Staffing Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Action Type Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Permanent Full-Time 

Employees 

5 16 

Permanent Seasonal 

Employees 

5 21 

Seasonal Employees 10 50 

Volunteers 20 60 

5.9 Alternative E — The Preferred Alternative 

5.9.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in Alternative 

A would continue, some specific direction and actions occurring under 

current management would be altered or not pursued under Alternative E. 

5.9.2 Management Categories 

Four management categories would be applied to Kenai Refuge under 

Alternative E (Figure 24). 

Intensive Management – Approximately 54,500 acres (2.7 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Intensive management category. 

Moderate Management – This category would be reduced and eventually 

eliminated after the life of the Alaska Pipeline project. Approximately 

129,550 acres (6.5 percent) of the land would convert to the Minimal 

management category immediately. The remaining 49,450 acres (2.5 percent)

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-110 
Placeholder: 

Figure 24 

Alternative E 

Management Categories 

Page 111
Placeholder: 

Figure 24 

Alternative E 

Management Categories 

(backside) 

Page 112
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

of land would be retained as Moderate management during the life of the 

Alaska Pipeline project. These lands would convert to the Minimal 

management category after the life of that project. 

Traditional Management – This category would be eliminated. All of the 

189,000 acres (9.6 percent) of land currently identified under this category 

would convert to the Minimal management category.

Minimal Management – Approximately 514,550 acres (25.9 percent) of the 

land would be managed under the Minimal management category during the 

life of the Alaska Pipeline project. After the life of the project, 564,000 acres 

(28.4 percent) would be managed under the Minimal management category. 

Wilderness Management – Approximately 1,320,500 acres (66.4 percent) of 

the land would be managed under the Wilderness management category. 

5.9.3 Management Direction Identified By Issue 

The following discussion describes how Alternative E would address the 

issues identified during the scoping process. It provides management 

direction for major Refuge programs as they would be implemented under 

the alternative. 

Issue 1: How will the Refuge address large-scale habitat changes 

and the use of fire? 

Fire Management Program 

Use of Fire as a Management Tool

Management direction would allow prescribed fire and wildland fire use as 

the principle management tools to improve wildlife habitats, reduce 

hazardous accumulations of wildland fuels, and maintain or restore natural 

fire regimes (Figure 25). 

Prescribed fire would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness management categories (approximately 1,938,000 acres or 97.5 

percent of the Refuge), though its use in the Wilderness management 

category occur under specific conditions defined in national Wilderness and 

Fire Management policies. 

Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness land management categories (approximately 1,938,000 acres or 

97.5 percent of the Refuge), but use would be the default management action 

in the Minimal and Wilderness management categories (approximately 

1,883,500 acres or 95 percent of the Refuge). Undesirable wildland fires (i.e., 

those not contributing to Refuge management goals) would be suppressed 

through the use of an “appropriate management response.”

Issue 2: How will the Refuge manage facilities for public use 

while ensuring natural resources protection? 

Facilities Management Program 

Swanson River Oil and Gas Unit

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-113 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each unit operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, some industrial roads; most pipelines, sections of 

pipelines, and associated fixtures, regardless of whether they are located 

along industrial roads, on gravel well pads, or along utility corridors that 

have not adequately revegetated; and most facilities built to support oil and 

gas operations would be removed and the sites restored to match the 

surrounding landscape. In cases where more environmental damage would 

occur by removing pipelines (or sections of pipelines) than by leaving them 

in place, the pipeline (or sections of pipeline) would be cleaned, capped, and 

left in place. Most industrial roads would be retained and maintained for 

public and administrative uses at the Refuge Manager’s discretion. Some 

facilities built to support oil and gas operations may be retained for 

administrative uses (e.g., research, law enforcement, or seasonal programs) at 

the Refuge Manager’s discretion; and up to two developed campgrounds, 

consisting of “hardened” campsites, vault toilets, tables, and fire rings, would 

be provided. Bicycles would be allowed on roads and trails. 

Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit

Industrial roads, pipelines, and facilities may be authorized in support of 

exploration, discovery, development, and production of oil and gas found 

within the unit by the current unit operator. Such operations would be subject 

to prior approval of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. An annual 

Development and Operations Plan for each unit operator would be required 

for comment and approval by the Refuge Manager. During the life of the 

project, the Refuge would request, on a case-by-case basis, that industrial 

roads, pipelines and associated fixtures, and facilities not needed to support 

ongoing operations be removed and the sites restored. 

After the life of the project, all industrial roads (except Marathon Road); 

pipelines and associated fixtures, regardless of whether they are located 

along industrial roads, on gravel well pads, or traverse the landscape; and all 

facilities built to support oil and gas operations would be removed and the 

sites restored to match the surrounding landscape. No industrial roads, or 

facilities built to support oil and gas operations would be retained for public 

and/or administrative uses. Camping facilities would not be provided, and 

bicycles would not be allowed. 

Contaminated Sites

Industrial facilities would be required to operate in a clean manner (e.g., 

known contaminant releases are cleaned up on a timely manner, areas no 

longer in use are restored to predevelopment conditions). Industry would be 

required to investigate, and if necessary, test suspected contaminated sites to 

confirm the existence and identity of contaminates and to clean sites if 

contamination is present. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-114 
Placeholder: 

Figure 25 

Alternative E 

Fire Management 

Page 115
Placeholde: 

Figure 25 

Alternative E 

Fire Management 

(backside) 

Page 116
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

Mystery Creek Access Road and Pipeline Corridor

Maintenance of the improved access road from the Sterling Highway to the 

Alaska Pipeline corridor would be conducted by ENSTAR to continue to 

provide for a backcountry experience. Road improvements would be limited 

to those necessary for public safety and environmental protection. Public use 

of the area would require registration at points of entry. Public vehicle use of 

the improved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor north to Chickaloon 

Bay and southwest to the East Fork of the Moose River would be allowed 

from August 9 through November 30. Pedestrian and horse use would be 

allowed year-round with no seasonal restrictions. Snowmachine use would 

be allowed when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snow 

cover and when adjacent areas are open. Bicycle use would be allowed when 

the access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor are open to public vehicle use 

(approximately August 9) until November 30. After the life of the pipeline 

project, the unimproved access road and Alaska Pipeline corridor would be 

restored, and a trail would be constructed for pedestrian and horse use only. 

Ski Hill Road

Maintenance and road improvements would be conducted by the Refuge. The 

northern route would remain graveled and open to pedestrian, bicycle, and 

emergency vehicle use only. The southern route would be improved, hardsurfaced and open to public vehicle use, and a trail would be provided within 

the road right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use. 

Sterling Highway Pullout

A formal rest stop at milepost 62 would be developed through a cooperative 

effort with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities. 

Trail Maintenance and Planning

A trail needs assessment would be developed that identifies and prioritizes 

construction and/or maintenance needs and construction standards for a 

variety of trails. 

Issue 3: How will the Refuge enhance wildlife-oriented recreation 

opportunities? 

Visitor Services Program 

Personal Collection of Natural Resources

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allow the personal 

collection and use of unlimited quantities of berries, mushrooms, and other 

edible plants. Such collection would be for non-commercial use only and 

could only be undertaken in a manner that does not unduly damage other 

resources (e.g., an individual could not cut down live trees to harvest the 

seeds/cones). Additionally, the collection of up to eight naturally shed moose 

or caribou antlers per person per year for non-commercial purposes would be 

authorized. 

Christmas Tree Harvesting 

Refuge-specific regulations would be amended to allowed for harvesting one 

black or white spruce tree no larger than 20 feet in height per family per year 

between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Trees could not be taken within 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-117 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

the two-square-mile Refuge Visitor Center area on Ski Hill Road or closer 

than 150 feet from roads, trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, and waterways 

(lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds). Additionally, for safety reasons, stumps 

from harvested trees must be trimmed less than six inches from the ground. 

Issue 4: How will the Refuge manage increasing public use to 

ensure resource and visitor experience protection? 

Visitor Services Program 

Swan Lake and Swanson River Canoe Systems

All canoeists would be required to register at entrance points. Maximum 

group size would be limited to 15 individuals without a special use permit. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed but may not exceed 14 days in any 30-

day period. Campsites would be monitored and evaluated regularly using 

standard protocols. Management actions taken to address resource concerns, 

including temporary closures of selected campsites to encourage natural 

rehabilitation, may be implemented as needed. Regulations requiring 

appropriate disposal of human waste would be adopted. 

Upper Kenai River (Russian River to Skilak Lake)

Non-Guided Public Use — Implement a program to restrict or redirect nonguided public use for the Upper Kenai River if more than 25 percent of 

anglers surveyed (outside the confluence area) report difficulty in finding an 

uncrowded fishing spot. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to 18 issued through attrition. 

Each permit would allow 10 starts per week with no more than 4 starts per 

day. Additional restrictions may be imposed if demand for commercial 

recreational services increases. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing Incidental Use Program ― State-licensed sport 

fishing guides not having Refuge special use permits may be issued 

incidental use permits for as many as three trips per year subject to additional 

quotas and blackout dates. 

Camping — Dispersed camping within 100 yards of the Kenai River or 

within one-quarter mile of the Sterling Highway would not be allowed. 

Middle Kenai River (Skilak Lake Downstream to Refuge Boundary)

Non-Guided Public Use ― Non-guided public use would be allowed without 

restriction on the number of users until a Limits-of-Acceptable-Change 

planning process is completed with stakeholders, including the State of 

Alaska, which would lead to the development of a step-down management 

plan. 

Guided Use: Sport Fishing — Special use permits would be required for 

sport fishing guides. Permits would be limited to the number of permittees 

existing upon completion of this comprehensive conservation planning 

process, and existing permittees would be “grandfathered” in. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-118 
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-119 

Issue 5―How will the Refuge balance motorized access with 

protection of resources and visitor experiences? 

Airplane Access to Lakes in Designated Wilderness 

Airplane access would be allowed on 46 lakes in designated Wilderness 

(Figure 26 and Figure 27). 

• Dave Spencer Unit: Scenic, Nekutak, Shoepac, Norak, Grouse, King, 

Bedlam, Taiga, Snowshoe, Wilderness, Mull, Tangerra, Bird, Cook, 

Sandpiper, and Vogel lakes, plus Pepper, Gene, and Swanson lakes 

would be open for ice fishing only. 

• Andy Simons Unit: Upper Russian, East Twin, West Twin, Emerald, 

High, Dinglestadt Glacier terminus, Lower Russian, Iceberg, Green, 

North Kolomin, South Kolomin, Wosnesenski Glacier terminus, 

Pothole, Harvey, Martin, Windy, Tustumena and all wilderness lakes 

within one mile of the shoreline of Tustumena Lake (Fox, Nikolai, 

and Point lakes), and all unnamed lakes in Sections 1 and 2, T. 1 S., 

R. 10 W., and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, T. 1 S., R. 9 W., Seward 

Meridian, AK (six lakes). 

• Mystery Creek Unit: An unnamed lake in Section 11, T. 6 N., R. 5 

W., Seward Meridian, AK 

Airplane access would not be allowed from May 1 to September 30 on any 

lake where nesting trumpeter swans and/or their broods are present except on 

two lakes in designated Wilderness—Scenic Lake located within the Dave 

Spencer unit of the Kenai Wilderness, and Windy Lake located within the 

Andy Simons unit of the Kenai Wilderness, where the closure would be May 

1 through September 10. 

Airplane Access to Chickaloon Flats 

Wheeled airplane access would be allowed year-round on 21 square miles of 

the Chickaloon Flats area that are unvegetated and the unmaintained Big 

Indian Creek airstrip; and floatplane access would be allowed on 6.5 miles of 

the Chickaloon River (Figure 28). 

Snowmachine Access

Snowmachines less than 46 inches wide and less than 1,000 pounds in weight 

would be allowed in designated areas from December 1 through April 30 

when the Refuge Manager determines there is adequate snow cover to protect 

underlying vegetation and soils. Studies would be conducted with the State 

of Alaska and other stakeholders to evaluate the effects of use on Refuge 

resources and visitor experiences, the results of which would be used to 

support future management decisions. 

5.9.4 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

Base Funding 

All current management programs would continue under Alternative E, and 

some new programs would begin. The base Refuge operational budget 

($3,245,000) would continue with additions to cover the new programs.
Summary Chapter 5: Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative 

Additional funds necessary to operate Refuge programs received for annual 

maintenance ($312,000) and fire operations ($528,000) would continue to be 

needed. To maintain the current level of services and adequately fund new 

programs, the one-time operations addition in fiscal year (FY) 2007 

($390,000) would continue to be required to operate at FY 2005 levels, and 

adjustments would be necessary to balance the offsets of fixed costs and 

inflation. Current funding levels are inadequate to fully implement existing 

biological and visitor services programs, so new funds would be necessary. 

Table 11 reflects the funds necessary to implement Alternative E in addition 

to base funds already received. The figures demonstrate the level of funding 

needed to maintain programs plus inflation adjustments for the short term. 

Long-term adjustments to the base budget reflect not only short-term 

adjustments, but also implementation of projects currently identified in the 

RONS database plus those needed to implement this alternative. 

Table 11. Alternative E Budget Needs Beyond Current Levels. 

Item Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Total Annual Budget Needs $5,115,000 $22,414,410 

Additional Staffing Needs 

Selection of this alternative would require new staff. One additional law 

enforcement officer, in addition to those positions currently identified in the 

RONS package, would be required. Costs for this position would be 

approximately $150,000 in year one, and $80,000 in subsequent years. Year 

one costs will include a move, vehicle, salary, and necessary equipment. A 

seasonal trail crew consisting of five permanent seasonal employees would 

also be added at a cost of approximately $250,000. Table 12 identifies the 

number of staff needed beyond current levels to fully implement 

Alternative E. 

Table 12. Alternative E Staffing Needs Beyond Current Levels.

Action Type Short-Term Needs 

(1 – 3 Years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(3 – 15 Years) 

Permanent Full-Time 

Employees 

1 26 

Permanent Seasonal 

Employees 

5 16 

Seasonal Employees 5 30 

Volunteers 20 60 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-120 
Placeholder: 

Figure 26 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

Page 121
Placeholder: 

Figure 26 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

North 

(backside) 

Page 122
Placeholder: 

Figure 27 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

Page 123
Placeholder: 

Figure 27 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Lakes 

South 

(backside) 

Page 124
Placeholder: 

Figure 28 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

Page 125
Placeholder: 

Figure 28 

Alternative E 

Aircraft Access to Chickaloon 

(backside) 

Page 126
Summary Chapter 6: Environme

6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 13. Summary Comparison of the Effects of Implementing the Alternatives. 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Air Quality 

Adverse Impacts Some temporal declines Similar to Alternative A Similar to Alternative A; 

notable differences 

depend on fire events 

Similar to Alternative A; 

notable differences 

depend on fire events 

Soil Resources 

Adverse Impacts Some site-specific 

impacts observed 

More impacts observed 

than Alternative A 

More impacts observed 

than Alternative A 

More impacts observed 

than Alternative A 

Beneficial Impacts 

Most benefits obtained 

after life of energy 

projects 

More benefits obtained 

than Alternative A after 

life of energy projects 

Benefits obtained after 

life of energy projects but 

slightly less than 

Alternative A 

Benefits obtained after 

life of energy projects but 

slightly less than 

Alternative A 

Water Quality 

Adverse Impacts Some short-term impacts 

observed 

Similar to Alternative A; 

notable differences due to 

fire events 

Similar to Alternative A; 

notable differences due to 

fire events 

Similar to Alternative A; 

notable differences due to 

fire events 

Beneficial Impacts 

Few benefits obtained 

during life of pipeline 

project 

More benefits obtained 

during life of pipeline 

project 

More benefits obtained 

during life of pipeline 

project 

More benefits obtained 

during and after life of 

pipeline project 

Vegetation / Wildlife Habitat 

Adverse Impacts Site-specific impacts 

observed 

Similar to Alternative A More site-specific 

impacts than Alternative 

A 

More site-specific 

impacts than Alternative 

A 

Beneficial Impacts 

Benefits obtained from 

fire events and 

restoration projects 

Less benefits from fire 

events; more from 

restoration projects 

More benefits from fire 

events; slightly less from 

restoration projects 

More benefits from fire 

events; slightly less from 

restoration projects 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 
Summary Chapter 6: Environme

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildlife 

Adverse Impacts Some short-term 

disturbance at sitespecific locations 

More short-term 

disturbance at sitespecific locations 

More short-term 

disturbance at sitespecific locations 

More short-term 

disturbance at sitespecific locations 

Beneficial Impacts 

Benefits obtained from 

public use management 

and restoration projects 

Additional benefits 

obtained from restoration 

projects 

Similar to Alternative A Less benefits obtained 

from public use 

management and 

restoration projects 

Cultural Resources 

Adverse Impacts Some site-specific 

impacts observed 

Potentially more sitespecific impacts than 

Alternative A 

Potentially more sitespecific impacts than 

Alternative A 

Potentially more sitespecific impacts than 

Alternative A 

Local Economy 

Beneficial Impacts 

Benefits obtained from 

public use management 

prescriptions 

Less benefits obtained 

due to guided use 

restrictions 

Less benefits obtained 

due to guided use 

restrictions 

Less benefits obtained 

due to non-guided and 

guided use restrictions 

Recreation 

Adverse Impacts Some long-term, local 

scale impacts observed 

Similar to Alternative A Slightly more long-term, 

local impacts than 

Alternative A 

More long-term, local 

scale impacts than 

Alternative A 

Beneficial Impacts 

Benefits obtained from 

public use management 

prescriptions 

More benefits obtained, 

largely from additional 

access prescriptions 

More benefits obtained, 

largely from additional 

access prescriptions 

More benefits obtained, 

largely from additional 

access prescriptions 

Wilderness Values 

Adverse Impacts Some long-term, local 

scale impacts observed 

More impacts than 

Alternative A 

More impacts than 

Alternative A 

More impacts than 

Alternative A 

Beneficial Impacts 

Some long-term, local 

scale benefits observed 

More benefits than 

Alternative A 

More benefits than 

Alternative A 

More benefits than 

Alternative A 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary 
Summary Chapter 7: Evaluation of the Alternatives 

7. Evaluation of the Alternatives 

7.1 Evaluation Criteria 

The alternatives described in the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan were evaluated against six criteria based on existing law and policy. These 

criteria were selected as being the most important factors for selecting the 

preferred alternative. Following are the criteria in order of importance. 

1. How well does the alternative satisfy the purpose of the Refuge and other 

provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA)? 

2. How well does the alternative satisfy the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System, Refuge System)? 

3. How well does the alternative contribute to meeting the goals of the Refuge? 

4. How do the alternatives address the issues and concerns identified during 

scoping? 

5. How well does the alternative maintain biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health at the Refuge and ecosystem scales and contribute to 

managing the Refuge as part of an ecosystem? 

6. How well does the alternative agree with Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) management plans for the area? 

Table 14. Evaluation of the Alternatives Based on Significant Planning Issues

Issue / 

Concern 

Alternative A 

(Current 

Management) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

How will the Refuge Address Large-Scale Habitat Changes and the Use of Fire? 

Habitats managed 

with prescribed 

fire use on 

618,500 acres and 

wildland fire use 

on 1,883,500 

acres. 

Less 

management 

flexibility to 

address habitat 

changes. 

Slightly more 

management 

flexibility to 

address habitat 

changes. 

Much more 

management 

flexibility to 

address habitat 

changes. 

Much more 

management 

flexibility to 

address habitat 

changes. 

How will the Refuge Manage Existing Facilities for Public Use While Ensuring Resource Protection? 

Facilities 

managed for 

public use include 

oil and gas units 

(after the life of 

the projects), 

Mystery Creek 

area, trails, Ski 

Hill Road, and 

Sterling Highway 

pullout. 

Slightly more 

management of 

facilities for 

public use; more 

resource 

protection. 

More 

management of 

facilities for 

public use; 

slightly less 

resource 

protection. 

More 

management of 

facilities for 

public use; more 

resource 

protection. 

Much more 

management of 

facilities for 

public use; 

slightly less 

resource 

protection. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-129
Summary Chapter 7: Evaluation of the Alternatives 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-130

Issue / 

Concern 

Alternative A 

(Current 

Management) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

How will the Refuge Enhance Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Opportunities? 

Opportunities to 

collect natural 

resources and 

harvest Christmas 

trees for personal 

use limited. 

More 

opportunities for 

wildlifedependent 

opportunities. 

More 

opportunities for 

wildlifedependent 

opportunities. 

More 

opportunities for 

wildlifedependent 

opportunities. 

More 

opportunities for 

wildlifedependent 

opportunities. 

How will the Refuge Manage Increasing Public Use to Ensure Resource and Visitor-Experience Protection? 

Public use 

managed at 

Swanson River 

and Swan Lake 

canoe systems 

and Kenai River. 

Slight increases 

in management 

of public use to 

ensure protection 

of visitor 

experiences. 

Increases in 

management of 

public use to 

ensure protection 

of visitor 

experiences. 

Additional 

increases in 

public use to 

ensure protection 

of visitor 

experiences. 

Increases in 

management of 

public use to 

ensure protection 

of visitor 

experiences. 

How will the Refuge Balance Motorized Access with Resource and Visitor-Experience Protection? 

Airplane and 

snowmachine 

access managed 

refuge-wide. 

Motorized access 

slightly increased 

to enhance visitor 

experience; 

slightly less 

resource 

protection. 

Motorized access 

increased to 

enhance visitor 

experience; less 

resource 

protection. 

Motorized access 

increased more to 

enhance visitor 

experience; less 

resource 

protection. 

Motorized access 

slightly increased 

to enhance visitor 

experience; 

slightly less 

resource 

protection. 
Summary Chapter 8: References 

8. References 

USFWS. 1985. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 193 pp. 

USFWS. 1985. “Record of Decision: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and 

Wilderness Review.” June 27, 1985. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

USFWS. 1988. “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Wilderness 

Proposal of the Kenai Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kenai NWR Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary S-131