Kenai Winter Access 

United States Record of Decision 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Chugach 

National 

Forest 

R10-MB-596 

July 2007 
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.” 
July 2007 1 

Kenai Winter Access 

Record of Decision 

USDA Forest Service, Region 10 

Chugach National Forest

Seward Ranger District 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision concerning winter 

access on the Seward Ranger District. I have selected the Modified Preferred 

Alternative described in the Kenai Winter Access Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS). Through this decision I am also approving a non-significant 

amendment to the Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan of 2002 (Forest Plan). This decision is based upon: the FEIS, 

the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD), and the FEIS for the 

Forest Plan. In addition, this decision is shaped through extensive public 

participation in the planning process. A map depicting this is included as an 

appendix to this decision. 

Background 

On May 31, 2002, the Record of Decision for the Chugach National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan was signed. The closure of the 

Carter Crescent Lakes area to winter motorized activities was an issue in many 

of the Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

appeals. Upon review of the appeals, the Regional Forester withdrew that 

portion of his decision closing the area to winter motorized access and asked the 

Forest to take another look at this closure and possible alternatives to ensure fair 

consideration and disclosure with all potentially affected parties. It is with this 

direction that the Kenai Winter Access analysis was initiated. 

Winter activities and recreation are both traditional lifestyle and valued uses of 

National Forest System lands on the Kenai Peninsula because of its accessibility, 

proximity to communities, topography, and recreation infrastructure. In particular, 

the Seward Ranger District provides outstanding opportunities for winter 

recreation activities, including: snowmachining, cross-country skiing, ice skating, 

backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing. In addition, the Seward Ranger District 

has many opportunities for natural quiet and winter rural lifestyle activities such 

as firewood gathering, ice fishing, and hunting. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

2 July 2007 

Although the Seward Ranger District offers valuable winter recreation 

opportunities across a large landscape, motorized and non-motorized winter 

activities are not always compatible. Often this is because of different 

experiences sought and, in cases, different values held by motorized and nonmotorized users. On the Kenai Peninsula, this is further compounded because 

mountainous topography often confines a mix of activities into valley bottoms and 

non-forested areas with abundant snow. This decision is necessary in order to 

address both motorized and non-motorized activities, address user safety, and 

create opportunities for a range of interests on the Seward Ranger District. 

This decision has been shaped by extensive public collaboration. In February 

2004 community meetings were held across the Kenai Peninsula and in 

Anchorage to discuss winter access in the Carter Crescent Lakes area. At these 

meetings strong views were expressed “that the agency needed to take a Kenaiwide look at the issue and not just a focused solution to the Carter Crescent 

area” to allow for more flexibility in a decision to manage winter motorized and 

non-motorized access. Based on this public interest, the Chugach National 

Forest began an effort to establish a framework for a community based problem 

solving approach, through a series of workshops hosted in many rural 

communities and Anchorage. Through these workshops, more than 18 citizen 

designed scenarios were developed as approaches to address the diversity of 

views and interests on winter access and recreation. With these ideas and a 

volume of written input, open interdisciplinary team meetings were held 

throughout Kenai Peninsula communities. 

From these combined efforts, alternatives were established and analyzed in a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), distributed in March of 2006. 

After the distribution of the DEIS, another round of collaborative workshops were 

held to seek insights as to how effective the DEIS alternatives were in striking the 

correct balance of interests, views, and perspectives brought together through 

the previous workshops and written input. Again, excellent feedback was 

received and used to further refine alternatives. Based on this feedback the 

agency produced a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(SDEIS) incorporating, into a preferred alternative, citizen input on the DEIS. 

The SDEIS was distributed in the late fall of 2006 with the public comment period 

closing December 12, 2006. 

My decision is significantly shaped from the extensive information given by the 

many citizens who contributed their time, knowledge of the area, and 

collaborative spirit to find creative solutions to management of their National 

Forest. My decision strikes a delicate but important balance of desire, interest, 

and opportunity. In each planning unit, significant review of citizen interests has 

been incorporated striving to address a blend of non-motorized, motorized, 

lifestyle, and natural quiet opportunities across the Seward Ranger District. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 3

Decision 

The decision I am making is to select the Modified Preferred Alternative as 

described in the FEIS. My decision establishes a mix of winter activities on the 

Seward Ranger District that respond to public demand for these activities. In 

addition, this decision will also assure that rural communities retain connections 

to traditional lifestyle activities. 

This decision will continue to provide for winter motorized activities across 61% 

of the Seward Ranger District. This decision will also set aside 21% of the 

Seward Ranger District for non-motorized winter recreation. The remaining 18% 

of the Seward Ranger District will be managed under a Season A/Season B 

scenario. 

The following describes the key elements of my decision: 

Key Features

Non-motorized Areas – My decision will increase non-motorized areas primarily 

in the Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units from current 

conditions. There will be 41 miles of trail in designated non-motorized areas. 

Motorized Areas – My decision will designate the entirety of the 

Carter/Crescent, Hope, and Ptarmigan/Grant and the majority of the Lost Lake, 

Johnson Pass, and Tern Lake units for motorized use. There will be 120 miles of 

trail in designated motorized areas. 

Season A/Season B Scenario – This management scenario only applies to the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units. This scenario alternates motorized 

and non-motorized use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units 

annually, generally from December 1 through April 30. That is, one year, 

Resurrection and West Resurrection would be motorized from December 1 

through April 30; the following year, both units would be non-motorized. Fifty-five 

miles of trail are located in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units. 

In the season that Resurrection and West Resurrection are motorized, there will 

be a total of 175 miles of trail designated for motorized use and a total 41 miles 

of trail designated for non-motorized use. In the next season, there will be a total 

of 120 miles of trail designated for motorized and a total of 96 miles of trail 

designated for non-motorized use. The Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units will be motorized for the 2007/2008 season and non-motorized for the 

2008/2009 season, continuing to alternate each year.

Access Corridors – My decision will allow, and the FEIS discloses, the 

environmental consequences of the development of two new non-motorized 

access corridors, one in the Carter/Crescent unit and one in the Lost Lake unit. 

The access corridor in the Carter/Crescent unit would begin at the Trail River 

Campground Access Road and continue west along Kenai Lake and then north 

through Crescent Saddle. The access corridor in the Lost Lake unit would run 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

4 July 2007 

along the east side of Lost Creek from the southern tip of the non-motorized area 

to the Grouse Lake area. An easement from the State would be required for the 

Lost Lake corridor. 

This decision will designate a motorized access corridor in the Snow River unit 

along the South Fork of the Snow River to the Nellie Juan area. The Snow River 

route would be generally along the river bottom. Where the river braids, the 

boundary would be the outside edge of the river. 

Trail River Campground – Trail River Campground will be designated nonmotorized; however, motorized grooming will be allowed. 

Motorized Community Access 

My decision will provide for motorized use on portions of National Forest System 

lands in the Tern Lake, Russian, and Summit units in order to allow for motorized 

access between the communities of Cooper Landing and Moose Pass. This will 

provide opportunities for motorized access between these two communities and 

will also allow for motorized access to the Sterling "Y" and Summit Lake from 

these communities. 

Helicopter Skiing – The exploratory area in the Snow River unit will not be 

available for commercial helicopter guided skiing permits. The exploratory area 

in Ptarmigan/Grant unit will be available for commercial helicopter guided skiing. 

Unit Descriptions 

Hope

This unit will be motorized. 

Resurrection

This would be part of the Season A/Season B scenario, with the West 

Resurrection unit, described above. 

West Resurrection

This would be part of the Season A/Season B scenario, with the Resurrection 

unit, described above. 

Summit 

The entire west side would be designated non-motorized, except for narrow 

strips of land along the highway corridor. 

On the east side, the non-motorized area includes all drainages from and 

including the Tenderfoot Creek drainage north to the Hope Y. This includes all of 

the Mills Creek drainage and the upper portion of the Silver Tip Creek drainage. 

Motorized use areas include all drainages south of the Tenderfoot Creek 

drainage to the southern unit boundary. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 5

Johnson Pass

The majority of this unit is designated open for winter motorized use. The 

Johnson Pass Trail is designated for motorized use and Trail Creek could 

provide an alternate winter motorized route to access the Nellie Juan area. The 

southeastern portion of the Center Creek drainage is designated non-motorized; 

however, helicopter skiing will be allowed. The Center Creek drainage is 10% of 

the Johnson Pass unit. 

Tern Lake 

The following areas will be designated motorized: 

• The slope north of Upper Trail Lake from the Seward Highway to where 

Trail Creek joins Upper Trail Lake. 

• A corridor along the Seward Highway from the northwest end of Upper Trail 

Lake to the Sterling “Y.” 

• Both sides of the Sterling Highway from Tern Lake to the Crescent Creek 

Campground, which includes the Old Sterling Highway. 

• The narrow strip between the power line and the Seward Highway from 

Devil’s Creek Trail to Slate Creek. 

• The entire east side of the Seward Highway from Tern Lake to Summit 

Lake. 

The following areas will be designated non-motorized: 

• The area west of the Seward Highway and the power line from Devils Creek 

Trail through and including the Summit Creek drainage. 

Russian

The designated non-motorized area will include the Russian River drainage from 

the Upper Russian cabin north to the Sterling Highway and all the land between 

the Russian River and Cooper Creek/Cooper Lake. Motorized use will be 

allowed between Cooper Creek/Cooper Lake and the State land along Kenai 

Lake and south of the Russian Lakes Trail from Upper Russian Lake to Cooper 

Lake. The Russian Lakes trail will be designated winter motorized. The Russian 

Lakes trail will be the boundary of the non-motorized portion. 

Carter/Crescent

This entire unit will be designated open for winter motorized use. It includes the 

lands north of Kenai Lake to the southern boundary of the Tern Lake unit. The 

eastern boundary is the Seward Highway. 

Ptarmigan/Grant 

This entire unit will be designated open for winter motorized use. The unit 

boundaries are the railroad on the north, the north boundary of the Snow River 

unit to the south, the Seward Ranger District boundary on the east, and the 

Seward Highway and State lands to the west. Helicopter guided skiing can be 

permitted in the deferred exploratory area of the Ptarmigan/Grant unit. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

6 July 2007 

Lost Lake

The majority of this unit will remain designated motorized. There are two 

designated non-motorized areas: the Black Mountain Research Natural Area and 

all National Forest System lands within the Grayling, Meridian, and Long Lake 

drainages west of the Seward Highway. The non-motorized southern boundary 

starts at the northern quarter corner of Section 24, T 2N, R 1W and traverses 

westerly to the steep side slopes at approximately the 1,500 foot elevation. The 

western boundary then traverses along the steep side slopes, northerly at the 

1,500 foot location to Primrose Creek. Primrose Creek is the northern boundary. 

The Primrose Trail, Primrose Road, Primrose Campground, and the Seward 

powerline adjacent to the Seward Highway will be designated motorized. 

Snow River

The entire North Fork will be designated non-motorized except immediately 

around Upper Paradise Lake. Helicopter guided skiing will not be permitted in 

this unit. For the South Fork, the existing non-motorized area will be expanded to 

include the southwest and west slopes of Paradise Peak, as well as the entire 

lower half of the South Fork of the Snow River drainage. A motorized access 

corridor will be designated along the south side of the South Fork of Snow River 

to provide winter motorized access to Godwin Glacier and the Nellie Juan area. 

Tiehack/Mt Alice

The existing non-motorized area (the western slopes of Tiehack Mountain) will be 

expanded south to include the northwest part of Mt Alice. The Godwin Glacier 

and icefields to the north of the South Fork of Snow River will be designated 

motorized. 

 

Cabins

Motorized users will have access to 15 cabins in Season A and 5 cabins in 

Season B. Non-motorized users may access all of the cabins at any time. 

However, there will be non-motorized access to 3 cabins in Season A and 12 

cabins in Season B. The table below displays the cabins that will be available for 

motorized and non-motorized access in each geographic unit as a result of this 

decision. 

 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 7

Season A Season B 

Area 

Name 

Cabin 

Motorized NonMotorized Motorized NonMotorized 

Caribou Creek 9 9

Fox Creek 9 9

East Creek 9 9

Devils Pass 9 9

Swan Lake 9 9

West Swan 

Lake 9 9

Juneau Lake 9 9

Romig 9 9

Resurrection 

Trout Lake 9 9

Barber 9 9

Aspen Flats 9 9

Russian 

Upper Russian 9 9

Crescent 9 9

C-C 

Crescent 

Saddle 9 9

Lost Lk. 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower 

Paradise 9 9

Snow 

Upper 

Paradise 9 9

Rationale for the Decision 

In making this decision, I considered many factors, including extensive public 

input, the effects analysis in the FEIS, and the goals, objectives, and desired 

conditions for the Kenai Peninsula described in the Forest Plan. I felt that 

community engagement and citizen involvement were particularly important in 

reaching this decision because winter recreation opportunities and experiences 

are largely dependant upon the desires and values of the user. Additionally, 

winter access plays an important role in the rural lifestyles of those whose homes 

are surrounded by National Forest System lands. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

8 July 2007 

I feel that a successful winter access management plan must respond to those 

values and make use of the knowledge of those who use the Seward Ranger 

District for winter activities and recreation. The public involvement in this 

planning process also improves our knowledge and understanding of current and 

traditional winter activities on the Seward Ranger District by helping identify 

where recreation use is occurring, what areas are valued for motorized and nonmotorized uses, and whether there are opportunities for better winter recreation 

access management. I feel that the public involvement for this project was 

critical and has allowed me to reach the best decision possible. 

Through collaborative learning workshops and formal public comment, the Forest 

Service and the public developed alternatives that reflect different winter 

recreation values and opportunities. This process helped refine our alternatives 

to arrive at the best possible mix of these values and opportunities. The DEIS 

Proposed Action incorporated public input to provide separate high quality areas 

for motorized and non-motorized recreation, restrict motorized uses in the 

majority of the Summit unit, provide a Season A/B scenario for the Resurrection 

and West Resurrection units, and expand the existing motorized closure in the 

Grayling and Meridian Lakes portion of the Lost Lake unit. 

Public comment and input from the May 2006 public meetings on the DEIS 

indicated that further improvements could be made, particularly with respect to 

management of the Snow River unit. The SDEIS Preferred Alternative closed 

the majority of the Snow River unit to motorized use, in favor of a motorized 

access corridor to Nellie Juan area. In addition, the SDEIS Preferred Alternative 

closed the Snow River unit to helicopter skiing. The FEIS Modified Preferred 

Alternative built on public comment on the SDEIS, particularly in the Summit unit. 

In this unit, the Modified Preferred Alternative expands the non-motorized area 

and eliminates the motorized corridor to improve the backcountry skiing 

experience in this unit. 

I have selected the Modified Preferred Alternative. Although this decision will not 

completely satisfy all users, I feel it provides for a diversity of values and 

preferences, expressed through the collaboration of many, and will meet the 

need for winter access and recreation on the Seward Ranger District. Through 

this decision, I feel I have provided the best mix of recreation opportunities and 

experiences on the Seward Ranger District. The following sections describe how 

this decision meets Forest Plan direction and responds to issues. 

How the Decision meets the Kenai Winter Access Project Purpose and Need

This decision best meets the purpose and need of the Kenai Winter Access 

project and responds to the following Forest Plan goals, objectives, desired 

conditions, and issues identified through interdisciplinary team analysis and 

public collaboration and comment: 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 9

1. Emphasize motorized opportunities on the Kenai Peninsula, while 

establishing areas for non-motorized winter opportunities.

The Forest Plan provides the overall direction for winter recreation management 

on the Chugach National Forest. On the Kenai Peninsula, including the Seward 

Ranger District, the Forest Plan emphasizes non-motorized opportunities in the 

summer and motorized opportunities in the winter. Although motorized uses are 

emphasized in the winter, the Forest Plan ROD recognizes that separate winter 

non-motorized areas are also important and necessary on the Kenai Peninsula. 

My decision designates 61% of the Seward Ranger District for motorized 

recreation, 21% for non-motorized recreation, and 18%, the Resurrection and 

West Resurrection units, for motorized recreation in alternating seasons. Several 

high value and historically motorized units will remain motorized, including the 

Lost Lake unit, the Snow River access corridor, and the Carter/Crescent unit. In 

addition, this decision devotes the majority of the Summit and Russian units to 

non-motorized use. The Summit and Russian units provide high value nonmotorized recreation opportunities, including large basins, frozen lakes, and 

opportunities for natural quiet recreation. 

This decision will provide 120 miles of trail for unrestricted motorized recreation 

and 41 miles of trail for non-motorized recreation, including two new nonmotorized access corridors. Fifty-five miles of trail in the Resurrection unit will 

alternate seasonally between motorized and non-motorized recreation. In 

addition, this decision allows for five cabins to always be available for motorized 

access, three cabins to be available for non-motorized access, and nine cabins, 

in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units, to be available on an alternating 

season basis. 

This decision best meets the Forest Plan desired conditions on the Kenai 

Peninsula to emphasize motorized recreation, while still providing areas for nonmotorized recreation where motorized sounds are not present. The Lost Lake, 

Snow River, and Carter/Crescent units have been historically open to motorized 

use and many motorized users have commented on the importance of keeping 

these areas open to motorized use. The Summit and Russian units provide large 

contiguous areas where non-motorized use can occur largely without motorized 

sounds, especially in the portions of these units that are further away from the 

highway. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units will be part of an annual 

swap between motorized and non-motorized users and will allow for nonmotorized use every other season, including nine cabins and 55 miles of trail. 

Given the desired conditions for the Kenai Peninsula, I feel that this decision 

keeps large key units open to motorized use while also providing many quality 

areas and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. 

2. Maintain quality settings for motorized recreation opportunities

The Seward Ranger District is recognized as possessing some of the most 

outstanding motorized recreation opportunities on the Kenai Peninsula. This 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

10 July 2007 

decision ensures that quality motorized recreation opportunities will continue to 

be available on the Seward Ranger District. 

This decision will allow for unrestricted motorized use on important trails that 

allow for motorized access into high value motorized recreation areas, including 

scenic alpine areas, valleys, and basins. Under this decision, the Lost Lake trail, 

Carter Lake trail, Snow River winter access route to the Nellie Juan area, and the 

Johnson Pass Trail will be open for motorized use. The Resurrection Pass trail 

would be open to motorized use for the entire winter season every other year, 

instead of being closed to motorized use after February 15 each year, allowing 

motorized users to take advantage of increased daylight and spring snow 

conditions. 

This decision will allocate 61% of the Seward Ranger District to unrestricted 

motorized use, including the Carter/Crescent unit, Lost Lake unit, Johnson Pass 

unit, and the Snow River winter access route. I felt that it was particularly 

important to allow unrestricted motorized access in the Carter/Crescent unit, Lost 

Lake unit, Johnson Pass unit, and the Snow River winter access corridor 

because these units have been historically motorized and public input indicates 

that communities have grown to rely and particularly value motorized access in 

these areas. Further, the motorized access corridor along the South Fork of the 

Snow River unit will remain motorized in order to provide traditional access into 

the Nellie Juan area. 

In addition, this decision will allow unrestricted motorized access in the Hope and 

Ptarmigan/Grant units and will increase the amount of terrain available for winter 

motorized use in the Tern Lake unit from existing conditions. Although public 

comment did not indicate that these units were particularly valuable or were 

destination points for motorized recreation, allowing motorized access to these 

units is consistent with desired conditions to emphasize winter motorized 

opportunities on the Seward Ranger District. 

3. Maintain quality settings for non-motorized recreation opportunities 

It is also important that my decision ensure that high quality areas are also 

available for non-motorized use. Public comment indicates that there is a strong 

desire for separate high quality non-motorized winter recreation areas where 

motorized sounds and snowmachines are not present. In addition, analysis and 

public comment indicated that there were opportunities to improve non-motorized 

opportunities on the Seward Ranger District. 

My decision will prohibit motorized use in the majority of the Russian unit and on 

all National Forest System lands north of Tenderfoot Creek in the Summit unit. 

Public comment indicated that the Summit unit is highly valued as a backcountry 

skiing unit and the Russian unit provides excellent opportunities for cross-country 

skiing and quiet recreation. Setting aside these units for non-motorized use is 

important because they provide large contiguous areas for cross-country and 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 11

backcountry skiing and also provide areas where motorized sounds and 

snowmachines are not present. 

In addition, this decision will largely prohibit motorized use in the Snow River and 

Tiehack/Mt. Alice units. Setting aside these units for non-motorized uses will 

provide a non-motorized area near the community of Seward. I recognize that 

these areas will not consistently provide the solitude or quiet recreation to the 

extent that the Russian and Summit units can provide. However, the Snow River 

motorized access corridor will not always be usable by motorized users because 

ice bridges are only stable for a portion of the season. During the times when ice 

bridges do not allow access, the Snow River unit receives little motorized use 

and largely provides a quiet high quality non-motorized experience. 

Opportunity for Quiet Recreation

Through public comment and collaboration, I recognize the importance of natural 

quiet to achieving a quality non-motorized recreation experience. I recognize 

that the opportunity for natural quiet is affected by the presence of motorized 

uses, including snowmachines, helicopters, and vehicle traffic on the Seward and 

Sterling Highways. I feel this decision will provide several opportunities for 

natural quiet. 

The Russian and Summit units are large contiguous non-motorized areas that 

extend far enough away from the highway to provide quiet recreation 

experiences. In addition, portions of the Tiehack/Mt. Alice unit can also provide 

for a quiet recreation experience. Further, during the years when the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units are closed to motorize use, the 

Resurrection Pass Trail can provide for a quiet recreation experience. 

In order to enhance quiet opportunities, I have also decided not to allow 

helicopter skiing in the Snow River unit. I recognize that when snow conditions 

allow for snowmachine use of the Snow River motorized corridor, that a quiet 

recreation experience may not always be attainable in the Snow River unit. 

However, conditions do not always allow for motorized use of the Snow River 

motorized corridor, particularly later in the season when ice bridges are not 

present and daylight is more prevalent. During these times, this unit can also 

provide a large area for quiet recreation. 

Cabins

I recognize that Forest Service public use cabins are an important component of 

winter recreation for both motorized and non-motorized users because they 

provide opportunities for an overnight experience. Although non-motorized users 

can access any cabin they wish at any time, public comment indicates that many 

non-motorized users do not use Forest Service cabins in motorized areas due to 

concerns with noise and/or safety. In addition, some non-motorized users 

indicate that trail conditions in motorized areas, particularly on Resurrection Pass 

Trail, do not lend themselves to non-motorized use because of moguls and ice. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

12 July 2007 

My decision will allow for a more equitable use of Forest Service public use 

cabins by devoting three cabins, Barber, Aspen Flats, and Lower Paradise, to 

non-motorized access. My decision will also allow for unrestricted motorized 

access to five cabins: Dale Clemens, Crescent, Crescent Saddle, Upper 

Russian, and Upper Paradise. 

In addition, this decision will use a Season A/Season B management scenario for 

the Resurrection and West Resurrection units, which contain the majority of the 

Forest Service public use cabins and overnight recreation opportunities. During 

Season A, nine cabins will be available for both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units. During Season B, 

nine cabins will be available for non-motorized uses. The Season A/Season B 

management scenario will also eliminate undesired trail conditions that occur 

under split season management. 

Shared Use

This decision recognizes that separating motorized and non-motorized use within 

units and on trails will reduce safety concerns and potential recreation conflicts. 

This decision will provide two non-motorized corridors, one in the Lost Lake unit 

and one in the Carter/Crescent unit, to separate trail use in these areas. This will 

allow both motorized and non-motorized users an access corridor into each unit. 

Separating motorized and non-motorized uses in these units will reduce the 

number of encounters between motorized and non-motorized users and reduce 

safety concerns. 

In addition, the Summit unit is closed on National Forest System lands on the 

west side of the Seward Highway to all motorized uses north of the southern 

ridge above Tenderfoot Creek. This will reduce the potential for encounters 

between motorized and non-motorized users because motorized uses would only 

be permitted on State lands adjacent to the Seward Highway and along the road 

right-of-way. In the Snow River unit, there is potential for encounters between 

motorized and non-motorized users when snow conditions allow for 

snowmachine use of the South Fork of the Snow River. However, conditions do 

not always allow for motorized use of the Snow River motorized corridor, 

particularly in the later season when ice bridges are not present. During these 

times, snow conditions will largely separate users. 

Wildlife

My decision recognizes that winter recreation has the potential to affect wildlife. I 

also recognize that motorized recreation can have greater effects on individual 

animals than non-motorized uses. However, population effects on wildlife are 

similar across all alternatives, despite differences in the percent of the project 

area allocated to motorized uses. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 13

In addition, in the Forest Plan ROD the Regional Forester prescribed forestwide 

standards and guidelines and management area prescription standards and 

guidelines specific to Brown Bear, Mountain Goat, Dall sheep, and Raptors. The 

Forest Plan ROD states that adhering to these standards and guidelines will 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species in the project area. My decision is consistent with these Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and reduces winter motorized access in the project 

area by 11% compared to existing conditions. In addition, the analysis in the 

FEIS does not indicate that any alternative will have population effects. 

Therefore, I am comfortable that this decision will not impair wildlife population 

viability. 

Other Issues and Resources

In addition to the above, the FEIS for the Kenai Winter Access project analyzes 

the effects of the alternatives on economics, cultural resources, soils, water, 

riparian and wetland resources, air quality, ecology, and fisheries resources. 

Although considered in the FEIS analysis, the FEIS indicates that the alternatives 

will have a minimal or negligible effect on these resources. For example, effects 

to vegetation across all alternatives are negligible because of snow cover and 

effects to air quality and fisheries resources are negligible across all alternatives 

because winter recreation is generally dispersed. In addition, the effects across 

all alternatives on economic activity are relatively small as the majority of 

economic activity occurs during the spring and summer. Although considered, 

my decision is not expected to have any meaningful effects on these resources. 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement was critical to this decision. Winter access for rural 

communities and winter recreation opportunities and experiences are largely 

dependant upon the desires and values of the user. A successful winter access 

and recreation management plan should respond to the values of those who use 

the Seward Ranger District for traditional winter activities and winter recreation. 

In this project we adopted a collaborative learning approach to: 

• help identify where recreation use is occurring; 

• understand community winter access issues; 

• improve our knowledge and understanding of winter recreation activities; 

• determine what areas are valued for motorized and non-motorized uses; 

• identify winter recreation issues; 

• develop alternatives; and, 

• determine whether there are opportunities for better winter recreation 

and access management. 

The Kenai Winter Access project was first published on the Chugach National 

Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the third and fourth quarters of 

2004 and the first quarter of 2005 as the Carter/Crescent EA (Environmental 

Assessment) and in all subsequent issues as the Kenai Winter Access EIS. The 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

14 July 2007 

SOPA is updated quarterly and distributed to approximately 300 interested 

parties. 

In February 2004, several hundred scoping letters were mailed to individuals, 

government agencies, and groups, and five listening sessions, specific to the 

Carter/Crescent Lakes unit, were held in Anchorage, Seward, Cooper Landing, 

Moose Pass, and Soldotna. Over 130 letters were received in response to these 

efforts. Many of the letters received during this scoping period, as well as 

comments offered at the open house meetings, suggested that winter recreation 

could be more effectively managed if the Forest Service increased the size of the 

project area to include the entire Seward Ranger District. I agreed, and felt that 

increasing the size of the project area would allow for more creative management 

options such as timing, shared-use, or alternating seasons and would provide 

opportunities to improve winter recreation management beyond the 

Carter/Crescent unit. 

On February 23, 24, and 26, 2005, a series of 3-hour collaborative learning 

workshops were held in Moose Pass, Seward, Soldotna, and Anchorage. On 

March 30 and 31, and April 2, 2005, a second round of 6-hour collaborative 

workshops was held in Soldotna, Anchorage, and Seward. To announce these 

workshops, the Forest used public service announcements, news releases, news 

advertisements, and flyers. In addition, about 82 letters were mailed to attendees 

of the first workshops. More than 150 citizens participated in one or more of the 

three workshops, developing 18 citizen-based scenarios with maps for 

addressing winter recreation access across the Seward Ranger District. 

After these workshops, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal 

Register on April 23, 2005. The NOI asked for public comment through May 25, 

2005, although comments were accepted well beyond that date. In addition, six 

open houses were held May 23 through 25, 2005 in Anchorage, Seward, 

Girdwood, Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, and Soldotna to provide an update on 

the progress of the project. 

On April 21, 2006, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Kenai Winter Access project was made available for comment. Over 170 

comments and 1,000 form letters were received from individuals and 

organizations during the comment period. In May, four additional collaborative 

learning workshops were held in Anchorage, Moose Pass, Soldotna, and Cooper 

Landing to discuss the DEIS. After hearing public comment from these 

workshops, the comment period on the DEIS was ultimately extended until June 

12, 2006. 

After considering the discussion during the collaborative workshops and public 

comment on the DEIS an additional alternative was developed. A SDEIS 

disclosing the effects of that alternative was made available for comment on 

October 21, 2006. Over 100 comments were received on the SDEIS. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 15

In addition to public scoping, comment periods, and collaborative meetings, the 

Forest Service also conducted three ANILCA 1110 hearings in Soldotna, Cooper 

Landing, and Hope in April 2007. The purpose of these hearings was to elicit 

testimony on the effects of an alternating season (Season A/Season B) 

management scenario of the Resurrection Pass Trail. In addition to these 

hearings, written comments were also accepted until April 30, 2007. 

The FEIS has been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and is 

available for public review. 

Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation 

Five alternatives are analyzed in the FEIS, including a No-Action Alternative and 

the Modified Preferred Alternative. The five alternatives differ in the number and 

size of units and miles of trail available for winter motorized recreation use, the 

number of Forest Service public use cabins available to each group, and whether 

helicopter skiing would be allowed in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units. 

Listed below is a description of the alternatives that were not selected and the 

reasons they were not selected. 

• No Action. The No Action Alternative is the existing direction in the Revised 

Forest Plan, except for the Carter/Crescent unit. Due to withdrawal of the 

portion of the decision related to the Carter/Crescent unit in the Revised 

Forest Plan, current management direction for that unit reverted to the 1984 

Forest Plan, which left that unit open for motorized use. 

The majority of the Resurrection and West Resurrection units are a part of the 

seasonal changeover from motorized use to non-motorized use on February 

16 of each year. The Seward Ranger District land base would be designated 

71% motorized, 11% non-motorized, and 17% in the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection seasonal changeover. 

I did not choose the No Action alternative because it does not best meet the 

need for winter access and recreation on the Seward Ranger District. In 

addition, public comment indicated that there were opportunities for better 

management of winter recreation. The No Action alternative did not 

adequately provide for quality non-motorized opportunities. Important areas to 

non-motorized users in the Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt. 

Alice units were open to motorized use. The majority of these units were not 

particularly valued or used by motorized users. The No Action Alternative also 

did not provide for annual sharing of the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units which was considered to benefit both motorized and non-motorized users 

and did not provide for designated trail access corridors to reduce conflicts 

and safety concerns in the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

16 July 2007 

• Alternative 1. Alternative 1 creates a Season A/Season B management 

scenario between the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units, alternating 

closing the Carter/Crescent and Resurrection units to motorized use every 

other year. All other units would be either permanently motorized or nonmotorized during the winter season. The entire Russian and West 

Resurrection units would be non-motorized along with considerable increases 

in non-motorized areas in several other units. Lost Lake would be mostly 

motorized, similar to the No-Action Alternative. 

I did not choose Alternative 1 because it does not fully respond to the purpose 

and need of the project and desired conditions, which in large part is to 

emphasize motorized opportunities and maintain key winter motorized access 

where it is currently occurring on the Kenai Peninsula. Alternative 1, which 

alternates the Resurrection and West Resurrection units with the 

Carter/Crescent unit, restricts motorized uses in the Carter/Crescent unit 

which is historically important and commonly used for winter motorized 

recreation. In addition, Alternative 1 does not provide a motorized access 

corridor in the Snow River unit which has been historically used for motorized 

access into the Nellie Juan area. 

Further, Alternative 1 does not provide a non-motorized access corridor within 

the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. Alternative 1 would also allow for 

helicopter skiing in the Snow River unit, which is contrary to public comment 

indicating a strong preference to preserve the natural character of the Snow 

River unit. 

• Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units would alternate (Season A/Season B) with the Russian, Carter/Crescent, 

and the northern portion of the Snow River units. The majority of the Summit 

unit would be non-motorized, while the Tern Lake unit would have more 

motorized area than in other alternatives. 

I did not choose Alternative 2 because it does not fully respond to the purpose 

and need, desired conditions, or the majority of public comment. Alternative 2 

would alternate winter motorized access between the Resurrection units and 

the Russian, Carter/Crescent, and northern portion of the Snow River units 

and restrict motorized use in the majority of the Summit unit. This alternative 

would restrict motorized access in the Carter/Crescent unit, which is a key 

winter motorized recreation area. In addition, Alternative 2 alternates 

Resurrection with the northern portion of the Snow River unit, which is not 

particularly valuable to motorized or non-motorized users because of difficult 

terrain and topography. Further, Alternative 2 does not provide a designated 

access corridor in the Carter/Crescent or Lost Lake units, which I feel is 

important to reduce conflicts and safety concerns. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 17

• Proposed Action. Under the DEIS Proposed Action, the Resurrection and 

West Resurrection units would alternate between motorized and nonmotorized use on an annual basis. The Carter/Crescent unit would remain 

motorized while non-motorized areas in Summit, Russian and Tiehack/Mt. 

Alice units would all increase. The Snow River unit would be motorized, 

except for the southern slopes along the South Fork of the Snow River.

I did not choose the DEIS Proposed Action because it is not fully responsive to 

public comment, particularly in the Snow River unit. Public comment indicates 

that the majority of the motorized use occurs along the South Fork of the Snow 

River, instead of on the northern and southern slopes. In addition, public 

comment also indicates that the Snow River unit is highly valued for nonmotorized recreation opportunities and its natural character. 

Under the DEIS Proposed Action, motorized use would be allowed in the 

majority of the Snow River unit. While I feel it is important to allow historical 

motorized access in the Snow River unit, I do not feel that allowing motorized 

uses in the majority of the Snow River unit is appropriate when only a small 

portion of this unit is valued for motorized use. In addition, the DEIS Proposed 

Action proposes a motorized access corridor through the Summit unit between 

the powerline and the Seward Highway. Public comment indicates that this 

motorized access corridor is too large and would have a serious adverse affect 

on non-motorized recreation occurring on the west side of the Seward 

Highway. 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA 

require that the ROD identify “the alternative or alternatives which were 

considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR §1505.2(b)). This is 

generally considered to be the alternative that causes the least potential damage 

to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative that best 

protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources 

(CEQ’s “Forty Most-Asked Questions,” 46 Federal Register, 18036, March 23, 

1981). All alternatives under consideration have similar effects on the physical 

and biological environment; including wildlife, economics, heritage, soils, water 

quality, air, ecology, and fish. Given the similarity in effects on the physical and 

biological environment, the Modified Preferred Alternative is the environmentally 

preferable alternative because it best accommodates recreation demand and 

provides quality winter motorized and non-motorized opportunities on the Seward 

Ranger District. 

Planning Record 

The Planning Record for this project includes the DEIS, SDEIS, FEIS, Revised 

Forest Plan, materials incorporated by reference, and material produced during 

the environmental analysis. The project record is available for review at the 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

18 July 2007 

Chugach National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Anchorage, Alaska during regular 

business hours. 

Finding of Non-Significance for Amendment of Forest Plans 

Under NFMA, Land and Resource Management Plans (also known as Forest 

Plans) may be amended after final adoption and public notice. NFMA 

implementing regulations state: “Based on an analysis of the objectives, 

guidelines, and other contents of the Forest Plan, the Forest Supervisor shall 

determine whether a proposed amendment would result in a significant change in 

the plan.” Neither NFMA nor its implementing regulations define the term 

“significant.” Instead, the regulations place full discretion to determine whether a 

proposed amendment will be significant in the hands of the Forest Service. 

Under NFMA and its regulations, an amendment that does not result in a 

significant change in a Forest Plan must be undertaken with public notice and 

appropriate NEPA compliance. If a change to a Forest Plan is determined to be 

significant, the Regional Forester must follow the same procedure required for 

the development of the Forest Plan, including preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

The Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook (Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 provides more detailed guidance for exercising this 

discretion. This guidance offers a framework for consideration but does not 

demand mechanical application. No one factor is determinative and the 

guidelines make it clear that other factors may be considered. Section 5.32 of 

FSH 1909.12 lists four factors to be used when determining whether a proposed 

change to a Forest Plan is significant or not: 1) timing; 2) location and size; 3) 

goals, objectives and outputs; and 4) management prescriptions. It also states 

that “[o]ther factors may also be considered, depending on the circumstances.” 

The determination of whether a proposed change to a Forest plan is significant 

depends on analysis of all of these factors. The decision-maker must consider 

the extent of the change in the context of the entire Plan affected, and make use 

of the factors in the exercise of his or her professional judgment. The Forest 

Service has carefully evaluated the proposed management direction and 

concluded that it does not constitute a significant amendment of the 2002 

Revised Forest Plan. Additional information on significance determination can be 

found in the project record. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Authorities 

The Forest Service manages the Chugach National Forest in conformance with 

many federal laws. In this section I consider each of the major laws involved in 

this decision. 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 19

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

The NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare detailed statements on 

proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

NEPA’s requirement is designed to serve two major functions: 

1. To provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of the likely 

environmental effects of a proposed action prior to its adoptions; and 

2. To inform the public of, and allow comment on, such efforts. 

The Forest has compiled and generated an enormous amount of information 

relevant to the effects of each of the alternatives considered in the FEIS. Such 

information builds on the data, analysis, science assessments, and public 

involvement set forth in the documents prior to this FEIS, including the Forest 

Plan EIS. 

I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process complies 

with each of the major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council on 

Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. §§1500-1508). 

First, the FEIS considered a broad range of reasonable alternatives. The five 

alternatives considered in detail in the FEIS represent only part of the total 

number of alternatives considered over the course of analysis. Additionally, 

many options within alternatives were considered. Alternatives presented in the 

FEIS encompass a broad range of responses to issues and existing Forest Plan 

direction. Over the course of this analysis, public involvement was a 

collaborative effort where people had the opportunity to fully participate and 

develop alternatives, as well as give formal comments on the DEIS and SDEIS. 

Second, the FEIS discloses cumulative effects of the alternatives by evaluating 

relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the planning 

area. Moreover, although non-federal lands are outside the scope of this 

decision, effects from their use have been considered in the FEIS to a degree 

appropriate for a NEPA document at this scale. 

Third, the FEIS makes use of the best available scientific information. 

Information on recreation use patterns, preferences of motorized and nonmotorized users, and where winter access and recreation use is occurring is the 

result of public collaboration and Forest Service professional opinion. In addition, 

the effects of the alternatives on other resources makes use of natural history, 

habitat requirements, GIS, habitat models and consultation with State and 

Federal experts. All of these tools, taken together, constitute use of the best 

available information. 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

20 July 2007 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This Forest Plan amendment is consistent with the 1982 NFMA implementing 

regulations. The authority for using the 1982 regulations is included in the 

transition provisions of the 2000 regulations, as amended. The 1982 regulations 

specify a number of requirements that guide Forest Service planning. The Forest 

Plan Amendment resulting from this decision complies with each of these 

management requirements, as explained in this ROD. 

The implementing regulation calls for fish and wildlife habitat to be managed to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area (36 CFR §219.19). Based on the analysis in the 

FEIS, this decision is not expected to adversely impact the population viability of 

any wildlife species. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

ANILCA, Section 810, Subsistence Uses 

Section 810(a) of the ANILCA requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses 

and needs be completed for any federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, 

lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands.” On 

Chugach National Forest System lands, the Forest Plan ROD requires that the 

use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for subsistence purposes by local residents continue 

pursuant to ANILCA; and this decision will not limit, in any way, the access of 

subsistence users to their resources. In accordance with ANILCA 810, I find that 

this decision will not affect access for subsistence activities on Chugach National 

Forest System lands or result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction 

on subsistence use of National Forest System lands. 

ANILCA, Section 1110, Special Access and Access to In-holdings

Section 1110(a) states that: 

“the Secretary shall permit, on conservation system units, national 

recreation areas, and national conservation areas, and those public lands 

designated as wilderness study, the use of snowmachines (during periods 

of adequate snow cover, or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and 

scenic rivers), motorboats, airplanes, and non-motorized surface 

transportation methods for traditional activities (where such activities are 

permitted by this Act or other law) and for travel to and from villages and 

homesites. Such use shall be subject to reasonable regulations by the 

Secretary to protect the natural and other values of the conservation 

system units, national recreation areas, and national conservation areas, 

and shall not be prohibited unless, after notice and hearing in the vicinity 

of the affected unit or area, the Secretary finds that such use would be 

detrimental to the resource values of the unit or area.” 

Relevant to this decision, the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail, the 

Iditarod National Historic Trail, and the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 21

Study Area are managed under the Forest Plan as conservation system units 

(CSUs) as defined by ANILCA. 

My decision recognizes the direction in the Forest Plan and ANILCA Section 

1110 by maintaining shared use of the Resurrection Pass Trail. Since the late 

1970s, the Resurrection Pass Trail has been shared between motorized and 

non-motorized users to reduce conflicts between users in this popular area; with 

snowmachine use being prohibited after February 15th of each season. My 

decision will change this prohibition to allow for snowmachine use on the 

Resurrection Pass Trail for the entire winter season every other year, instead of 

prohibiting snowmachine use every year after February 15th. 

In making this decision, I considered public input from scoping and comment on 

the DEIS and SDEIS and testimony from the hearings held in Soldotna, Hope, 

and Cooper Landing. I feel that this decision will allow for more effective shared 

use of the Resurrection Pass Trail than the previous prohibition because it will 

allow for snowmachine use of the trail when more daylight is present and will 

allow non-motorized users more favorable trail conditions than the previous 

prohibition. 

My decision also recognizes Forest Plan direction related to ANILCA Section 

1110 by providing a motorized access corridor along the South Fork of the Snow 

River. This corridor has been traditionally used for unrestricted motorized access 

into the accessible portions of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study 

Area and resource conditions do not indicate that motorized use is detrimental to 

the resource values of this area. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The FEIS indicates that none of the alternatives, including this decision, will have 

any affect to threatened, endangered, or proposed species. 

Clean Water Act

Implementation of this decision is expected to maintain water quality and satisfy 

all State water quality requirements. This finding is based on information 

presented in the FEIS. 

Clean Air Act

The level of activities proposed under this decision is not anticipated to degrade 

air quality or violate state implementation plans. This finding is based on 

information presented in the FEIS. 

Flood Plains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990)

These Executive Orders require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, 

short-term and long-term effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of 

flood plains and the modification or destruction of wetlands. Forestwide 

standards and guidelines for soil and water, wetlands, and riparian areas are 
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

designed to minimize effects to flood plains and wetlands. They incorporate the 

Best Management Practices of the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

This decision will determine winter recreation access on the Seward Ranger 

District and is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or 

environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. 

Civil Rights Laws The Forest Service is committed to equal treatment of all 

individuals and social groups in its management programs in providing services, 

opportunities and jobs. Because no actual or projected violation of legal rights to 

equal protection under the law is foreseen under this decision for any individual 

or category of people, no civil rights impacts are reported in the FEIS. 

Accessibility The Forest Service and its cooperators are required to incorporate 

access standards into all of the agency’s “Federally Conducted” or “Federally 

Assisted” facilities, programs, services, or activities. This direction is mandated 

in the following laws and regulations: Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 1978; Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title V, section 507) and 7 CFR §15(e). The Chugach 

National Forest is following the Alaska Region’s Regional Accessibility Strategy 

for recreational programs and administrative sites/facilities. 

Implementation

Implementation may occur on, but not before, 7 calendar days from the 

publication of the legal notice of this decision in the newspaper of record for the 

Chugach National Forest. 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This amendment decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 

§217. A written notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days, with the appeal 

period beginning the day after the day of publication of the Legal Notice in the 

Anchorage Daily News. The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, handdelivery, or express delivery) with the Reviewing Officer. Written appeals must be 

submitted to: 

Reviewing Officer, Regional Forester 

Alaska Region 

US Department of Agriculture 

709 W. 9th

 Street 

PO Box 21628 

Juneau, AK 99802-1628 

22 July 2007

Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

24 July 2007 

This page intentionally left blank 
 Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

July 2007 25

Appendix A – Map
Kenai Winter Access Record of Decision 

26 July 2007 

This page left intentionally blank 
8

8

8 8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9 9

9

9

9 9

9

9

9

D

D

D

D

D (

D

T U R N A G A I N A R M

Summit Creek

Russian River

Snow

River

Trail Creek

Snow River

Pass Creek

Quartz Creek

Mills Creek

Kenai River

Fresno Creek

Colorado Creek

Center Creek

Silvertip

Creek

Johns Creek

Trail Creek

Slate Creek

Primrose Creek

Frenchy Creek

Resurrection Creek

Canyon Creek

Pass Creek

Cooper Lake

Crescent Lake

Lost Lake

Summit Lake

Lower Summit Lake

Upper Trail Lake

Upper Russian Lake

Lower Trail Lake

Upper Paradise Lake

Lower Paradise Lake

Lower Russian Lake

Kenai Lake

Tern Lake

Grayling Lake

Meridian Lake

Rus sian Lakes Tr

2

3

Lost Lake

Resurrection

Ptarmigan/Grant

Summit

Russian

Snow River

Johnson Pass

Carter/Crescent

Tern Lake

Tiehack/Mt Alice

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

Hope

West Resurrection

Upper Russian FS Cabin

Crescent Creek CG

Hope

Seward

Girdwood

Moose Pass

Cooper Landing

Paradise Peak

Sheep Mountain

Godwin Glacier

Mount Adair

Marathon Mountain

Mount Alice

Tiehacker Mountain

South Fork Snow River

Snow River

Winter Access Category

Open to all Motorized Use

Open to Helicopters; Closed to Snowmachines

Season On/Season Off Alternating Year Use

Closed to Motorized Use Except for Subsistence

Other Ownership

Water

Research Natural Area - Black Mountain Closed to Motorized Use

District and Project Area Boundary

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

8 Forest Service Cabins

Area Permitted for Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing

Exploratory Area Under Limited One-Year Permit for Guided Helicopter Skiing

Exploratory Area Cleared for Guided Helicopter Skiing, but Permitting Deferred

Exploratory Area Cleared but Permit not to be Issued for Guided Helicopter Skiing

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Proposed Access Corridor; Open to Motorized Use

Proposed Access Corridor; Closed to Motorized Use

Proposed Access Corridor; Easement Required

Railroad

! ! Powerlines

Trails

Proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail

4

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

June 2007

Kenai Winter Access EIS

Chugach National Forest

Seward Ranger District

MODIFIED PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

Long Lake

Anchorage

56 miles