Kenai Winter Access 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Chugach 

National Forest 

R10-MB-595 

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.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Kenai Winter Access 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Joe Meade, Forest Supervisor, Chugach National Forest 

 3301 C Street, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503 

 (907) 743-9500 

Information Contact: Sharon Randall, Forest Planner 

 Chugach National Forest, 3301 C Street, Suite 300 

 Anchorage, AK 99503 

 (907) 743-9497 

Abstract 

The Chugach National Forest has developed a revised winter access management plan 

for the Seward Ranger District on the Kenai Peninsula. This revised plan is needed to 

respond to the withdrawal of the 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan decision regarding winter motorized access for the CarterCrescent Lakes area. Once it is adopted, the Kenai Winter Access Plan will amend the 

Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. The proposed 

plan is specific to winter recreation use only and does not consider other uses or other 

seasons of use. This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) examines five 

alternatives including the No Action Alternative and the Modified Preferred Alternative. 

The Modified Preferred Alternative designates a scenario (Season A/Season B) that 

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

units each winter season. All other units are either permanently motorized or nonmotorized during the winter season. The Carter/Crescent unit would remain motorized 

during every winter season while the designated non-motorized area in Summit, 

Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice would increase in size. In one winter season, 

175 miles of multiple-use trails or routes would be available and 120 miles would be 

available the alternating winter season. Three cabins would be available in nonmotorized units every year. In every other year, there would be a total of 12 cabins 

available in non-motorized units. The existing designated non-motorized area near 

Grayling Lake would be expanded slightly to the west to provide additional nonmotorized opportunities. The Modified Preferred Alternative includes two non-motorized 

access corridors in the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units. Motorized travel would be 

allowed up the South Fork of the Snow River to the Nellie Juan area (every year). The 

No Action Alternative represents the current condition. The Proposed Action, Alternative 

1, and Alternative 2 include a range of non-motorized and motorized designations, 

corridors, cabin availability, and guided helicopter skiing permitting. 

The publication of this FEIS will be followed by a Record of Decision (ROD). The Record 

of Decision will document the selected alternative and provide the rationale for the 

decision. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ..............................................................................1

1.1. Project Area Location ...........................................................................................................1

1.1.1. Unit Descriptions ...........................................................................................................1

1.2. Purpose and Need................................................................................................................4

1.2.1. Conditions that Determined the Need for the Action.....................................................4

1.2.2. Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Direction ................5

1.3. Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................6

1.4. Scope of Our Analysis ..........................................................................................................7

1.4.1. Past Activities and Connected Actions..........................................................................7

1.4.2. Past, Present, and Ongoing Activities...........................................................................8

1.4.3. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...............................................................................11

1.4.4. Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................12

1.5. Decision to be Made...........................................................................................................14

1.5.1. Responsible Official.....................................................................................................14

1.5.2. Project Implementation................................................................................................15

1.6. Policy Direction and Legal Guidance..................................................................................15

1.6.1. Laws ............................................................................................................................15

1.6.2. Guidance .....................................................................................................................16

1.7. What to Expect Next...........................................................................................................17

1.8. Project Record....................................................................................................................17

1.9. Organization of this Final Environmental Impact Statement ..............................................17

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative.................................19

2.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................19

2.2. Public Involvement..............................................................................................................19

2.3. Issues..................................................................................................................................20

2.3.1. Key Issues...................................................................................................................21

2.3.2. Analysis Issues............................................................................................................21

2.4. Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................24

2.4.1. General Overview........................................................................................................24

2.4.2. Highlights.....................................................................................................................24

2.4.3. Unit Descriptions .........................................................................................................25

2.4.4. Cabin Availability .........................................................................................................25

2.4.5. Guidelines and Basic Assumptions:............................................................................25

2.5. No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................26

2.5.1. General Overview (Map A-2-1) ...................................................................................26

2.5.2. Highlights - No Action Alternative................................................................................27

2.5.3. Unit Descriptions - No Action Alternative ....................................................................28

2.5.4. Cabin Availability - No Action Alternative....................................................................30

2.6. Proposed Action .................................................................................................................31

2.6.1. General Overview (Map A-2-2) ...................................................................................31

2.6.2. Highlights – Proposed Action ......................................................................................31

2.6.3. Unit Descriptions – Proposed Action...........................................................................33

2.6.4. Cabin Availability – Proposed Action ..........................................................................34

2.7. Modified Preferred Alternative............................................................................................35

2.7.1. General Overview (Map A-2-3) ...................................................................................35

2.7.2. Highlights – Modified Preferred Alternative.................................................................36

2.7.3. Unit Descriptions – Modified Preferred Alternative .....................................................37

2.7.4. Cabin Availability – Modified Preferred Alternative .....................................................39

2.8. Alternative 1........................................................................................................................40

2.8.1. General Overview (Map A-2-4) ...................................................................................40

2.8.2. Highlights – Alternative 1.............................................................................................41

2.8.3. Unit Descriptions – Alternative 1 .................................................................................42

2.8.4. Cabin Availability – Alternative 1.................................................................................44

2.9. Alternative 2........................................................................................................................44
Kenai Winter Access 

 Table of Contents ii 

2.9.1. General Overview (Map A-2-5) ...................................................................................44

2.9.2. Highlights – Alternative 2.............................................................................................45

2.9.3. Unit Descriptions – Alternative 2 .................................................................................46

2.9.4. Cabin Availability – Alternative 2.................................................................................48

2.10. Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives...................................................................49

2.10.1. Design Criteria for Access Corridor Management.....................................................49

2.11. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...........................................50

2.12. Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................................54

2.13. Comparison of Effects ......................................................................................................60

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences ........................................67

Purpose and Organization of this Chapter ............................................................................67

3.1. Recreation...........................................................................................................................67

3.1.1. Land and Resource Management Plan Direction .......................................................67

3.1.2. Analysis Area and Recreation Assumptions ...............................................................69

3.1.3. Affected Environment for the Range of Winter Recreation Opportunities ..................72

3.1.4. Environmental Consequences for the Range of Winter Recreation Opportunities.....77

3.1.5. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for the Winter Recreation 

Experience.............................................................................................................................91

3.2. Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................107

Management Indicator Species, Species of Special Interest and Species of Concern ......124

3.2.1. Brown Bear................................................................................................................124

3.2.2. Moose........................................................................................................................126

3.2.3. Mountain Goat...........................................................................................................128

Species of Special Interest..................................................................................................129

3.2.4. Gray Wolf...................................................................................................................129

3.2.5. Lynx...........................................................................................................................130

3.2.6. Marbled Murrelet .......................................................................................................131

3.2.7. River Otter .................................................................................................................133

3.2.8. Wolverine...................................................................................................................134

3.2.9. Bald Eagle .................................................................................................................136

3.2.10. Northern Goshawk ..................................................................................................137

Other Species of Concern...................................................................................................139

3.2.11. Dall Sheep...............................................................................................................139

3.2.12. Barren Ground Caribou...........................................................................................140

3.8.13. Black Bears .............................................................................................................141

3.2.14. Small Mammals.......................................................................................................143

3.8.15. Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................144

3.3. Economics ........................................................................................................................146

3.3.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................146

3.3.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................153

3.4. Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................155

3.4.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................155

3.4.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................157

3. 5. Ecology ............................................................................................................................159

3.5.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................159

3.5.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................162

3.6. Soil....................................................................................................................................164

3.6.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................164

3.6.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................165

3.7. Water, Riparian, and Wetlands.........................................................................................166

3.7.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................166

3.7.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................167

3.8. Air Quality .........................................................................................................................170

3.8.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................170

3.8.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................170

3.9. Fisheries ...........................................................................................................................172
Kenai Winter Access 

Table of Contents iii 

3.9.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................172

3.9.2. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................174

3.10. Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................176

Appendix A – Maps....................................................................................................................177

Appendix B – Literature Cited ..................................................................................................195

Appendix C – List of Preparers and Contributors..................................................................203

Appendix D – Glossary and Acronyms....................................................................................205

Appendix E – Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, Proposed, or Sensitive Species and other Wildlife Information........................215

Appendix F – Response to Public Comments and Agency Letters Received.....................219

List of Maps and Charts 

Map 1-1 Vicinity................................................................................................................................2

Map 1-2 Planning Area Geographic Units .......................................................................................3

Chart 3-1 Economic Analysis Area 2002 Employment by Month ................................................149

Chart 3-2 Economic Analysis Area 2003 Employment by Month ................................................150

Chart 3-3 Economic Analysis Area 2004 Employment by Month ................................................151

Chart 3-4 Economic Analysis Area Bed and Breakfast Inn Gross Sales by Quarter ..................152

Map A-2-1 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................179

Map A-2-2 Proposed Action.........................................................................................................181

Map A-2-3 Modified Preferred Alternative....................................................................................183

Map A-2-4 Alternative 1 ...............................................................................................................185

Map A-2-5 Alternative 2 ...............................................................................................................187

Map A-3-1 Land and Resource Management Plan, Management Prescriptions ........................189

Map A-3-2 Existing Winter Recreation Use .................................................................................191

Map A-3-3 Recreation Infrastructure............................................................................................193

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 No Action Alternative: Percent of Units Designated Motorized and Non-motorized 

until/after the February 15 Mid-season Swap.........................................................................28

Table 2-2 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), No Action Alternative..........................30

Table 2-3 Proposed Action: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, Compared to 

the No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................32

Table 2-4 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Proposed Action .................................35

Table 2-5 Modified Preferred Alternative: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, 

Compared to the No Action Alternative ..................................................................................37

Table 2-6 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Modified Preferred Alternative............40

Table 2-7 Alternative 1: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, Compared to the 

No Action Alternative ..............................................................................................................42

Table 2-8 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 1........................................44

Table 2-9 Motorized and Non-motorized Designations, Alternative 2 ...........................................45

Table 2-10 Alternative 2: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, Compared to the 

No Action Alternative ..............................................................................................................46

Table 2-11 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized) by Year, Alternative 2 ........................48

Table 2-12 Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................................56

Table 2-13 Percentage Acreage Designated Motorized and Non-motorized by Alternative.........58

Table 2-14 Summary of Effects by Alternative and Issue Indicator...............................................60

Table 3-1 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), No Action Alternative..........................79

Table 3-2 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Proposed Action .................................81

Table 3-3 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Modified Preferred Alternative............84

Table 3-4 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 1........................................87

Table 3-5 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 2........................................89
Kenai Winter Access 

 Table of Contents iv 

Table 3-6 Wildlife Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects and Level of Effect/Risk of Affecting the 

Population .............................................................................................................................112

Table 3-7 Comparison of Alternatives: Differences in Percent of Allowed Use Compared to the No 

Action Alternative..................................................................................................................119

Table 3-8 Heritage Sites, Acres Surveyed and Number of Sites Previously Monitored in the 

Winter....................................................................................................................................156

Table 3-9 Amount of Available Habitat and Status of Fish Species Considered within the Kenai 

Winter Access Project Area ..................................................................................................173

Table E-1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive Species of the Chugach National 

Forest....................................................................................................................................215

Table E-2. Biological Evaluation ..................................................................................................216
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 1 

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action 

1.1. PROJECT AREA LOCATION 

The Kenai Winter Access project area encompasses the Seward Ranger District, 

Chugach National Forest, located on the Kenai Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska (see 

Map 1-1, Vicinity Map). The spectacular mountains and forested lands of the Kenai 

Peninsula attract recreationists who enjoy a range of winter recreation activities. 

1.1.1. Unit Descriptions 

The project area is divided into 12 geographic units, listed below (see Map 1-2, Planning 

Area Geographic Units Map). These units will be used to guide the reader through a 

description of the alternatives. 

Since many readers are familiar with the area known as Resurrection Pass, it should be 

noted that for all action alternatives in this document the Resurrection geographic unit 

boundary extends south to the Sterling Highway. This unit boundary change does not 

affect the existing boundary as it relates to the February 15 mid-season swap 

changeover date from motorized to non-motorized in the No Action Alternative. 

The following are the 12 geographic units: 

1. Hope 7. Russian 

2. Resurrection 8. Carter/Crescent 

3. West Resurrection 9. Ptarmigan/Grant 

4. Summit 10. Lost Lake 

5. Johnson Pass 11. Snow River 

6. Tern Lake 12. Tiehack/Mt Alice 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 2 

Map 1-1 Vicinity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 3 

Map 1-2 Planning Area Geographic Units 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 4 

1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED 

Due to the withdrawal of the Carter-Crescent Lakes area from the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), the Chugach National Forest now needs to address how and where on the 

Seward Ranger District to manage for motorized and non-motorized winter access. The 

purpose is to have a clear and concise plan for winter access on the Seward Ranger 

District that addresses the need for forest management, public access, and recreation 

use (Federal Register, 2005, p. 21733). The winter motorized use season is from 

December 1 through April 30. The season may be extended or shortened by a Forest 

Order as snow conditions allow. 

The following discussion provides the background information that the project team used 

to derive the purpose and need. 

1.2.1. Conditions that Determined the Need for the 

Action 

On May 31, 2002, the Regional Forester for the Alaska Region of the Forest Service 

signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Chugach National Forest Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan (USDA-FS, 2002d). A number of individuals and 

organizations appealed various parts of this decision, including the closure of the CarterCrescent Lakes area to winter motorized use. 

In January 2003, after reviewing the appeals and the administrative record, the Regional 

Forester withdrew the part of the 2002 decision closing the Carter-Crescent Lakes area 

to winter motorized use. By withdrawing the decision on the Carter-Crescent Lakes area, 

the management direction for that area reverted to the direction provided in the 1984 

Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1984 LRMP). Under 

the 1984 LRMP, this area was designated motorized from December 1 to April 30, once 

there is adequate snow to protect resources. 

As directed by the Regional Forester, the Chugach National Forest began a site-specific 

analysis for the Carter-Crescent Lakes area in late February 2004. Several hundred 

scoping letters were mailed to individuals, government agencies, and groups. In 

addition, five listening sessions (Open Houses) specific to the Carter-Crescent Lakes 

area were held in Anchorage, Seward, Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, and Soldotna. 

Over 130 letters were received in response to these scoping efforts. 

Many of the public comments received during the Carter-Crescent Lakes area scoping 

period suggested that in order to find a workable long-term solution to winter recreation 

access, the Forest Service would need to expand the planning area. As stated in many 

of the comments, an expansion of the planning area would allow greater creative 

management options such as consideration of timing, shared-use, or alternating access 

across National Forest System lands on the Seward Ranger District. 

After further consideration of these comments and suggestions, the Chugach National 

Forest Supervisor asked for and received approval from the Regional Forester to expand 

the planning area to include the entire Seward Ranger District. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 5 

1.2.2. Chugach National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan Direction 

The Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 

(USDA-FS, 2002a) provides direction for all resource management programs on the 

Chugach National Forest. The LRMP consists of forest-wide goals and objectives as well 

as specific standards and guidelines that direct land uses and resource outputs. The 

LRMP embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 

and its implementation regulations, as well as those of other guiding documents (see 

1.6.1. Laws). 

There are many Land LRMP standards and guidelines that are applicable to the general 

design of the proposed action. Specific LRMP standards (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-35 to 3-

42 and 3-47 to 3-48) that guided the development of the purpose and need are: 

• Management activities will be designed to meet the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) class as mapped. 

• The winter motorized season is from December 1 through April 30. The 

season may be extended or shortened by a Forest Order as snow conditions 

allow. 

• Management activities should ensure that levels of use and development are 

consistent with the ROS class characteristics and recreation activity intensity 

levels by prescription. 

• Where motorized access is permitted on one side of a ridge, but closed on 

the opposite side of the ridge, motorized uses may occur on the ridge top. 

• The maximum noise level for snowmachines is the level expected for factory 

standard equipment. 

• On Federal public lands within the Chugach National Forest, use of 

snowmachines, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for subsistence purposes by local residents shall 

continue as per ANILCA, Sec. 811. 

• In Conservation System Units (CSU), access for traditional activities as 

defined by ANILCA, Section 1100 shall continue. 

• For purposes of maintaining access to traditional activities consistent with 

ANILCA, the following areas on the Chugach National Forest shall be 

managed as if they were CSUs: ...rivers recommended for Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational River designation, and National Recreation Trails (including 

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail). 

• Follow the Seward Highway Corridor Partnership Plan, which provides the 

conceptual framework for managing the Seward Highway All-American Road 

corridor. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 6 

• The Seward Highway corridor is generally defined as the view shed of the 

Seward Highway. 

• Management activities, consistent with management area direction, may 

occur within the Seward Highway corridor. 

Land and Resource Management Plan Consistency 

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest 

(LRMP) (USDA-FS, 2002a), LRMP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

(USDA-FS, 2002b and 2002c), and LRMP Record of Decision (USDA-FS, 2002d) were 

approved on May 31, 2002. This FEIS is tiered to those documents. Once a decision is 

signed, the Kenai Winter Access Plan will amend the LRMP. The proposed actions are 

specific to winter recreation use only. The proposed plan does not consider other uses 

or other seasons of use. 

1.3. PROPOSED ACTION 

The Chugach National Forest has developed a revised winter access management plan 

for the Seward Ranger District. During the winter season, the Seward Ranger District 

land base would be designated 67 percent motorized, 15 percent non-motorized, and 18 

percent would alternate use by winter season (Season A/Season B). The 

Carter/Crescent unit would remain designated motorized during the winter every year 

while the current designated non-motorized area in the Summit, Russian, Snow River, 

and Tiehack/Mt Alice units would be expanded. 

After publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and two sets of public collaborative workshops, a Proposed Action was developed. 

A Draft EIS (DEIS) with the Proposed Action was published in April, 2006. 

The current management of the Resurrection and West Resurrection units allocates the 

first part of every winter to motorized use and after February 15, allocates the area to 

non-motorized use. Throughout this document, this is referred to as the February 15 

mid-season swap. The Proposed Action uses a scenario that alternates motorized and 

non-motorized use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units each winter season. 

That is, one year the Resurrection and West Resurrection units would be designated 

motorized and the following year, they would both be designated non-motorized. 

Throughout this document, this is referred to as a Season A/Season B scenario. All 

other units are either motorized or non-motorized every winter season. 

In one winter season, 2 cabins would be accessible in designated non-motorized areas 

and 15 cabins in designated motorized areas. In the alternating winter season, there 

would be 6 cabins in designated motorized areas and 11 in non-motorized areas. The 

existing designated non-motorized area near Grayling Lake would be expanded slightly 

to the west to provide additional non-motorized opportunities. See Map 1-2, Planning 

Area Geographic Units Map, which displays the 12 named units used throughout this 

analysis. 

The Proposed Action addresses the safety issues on multiple-use trails by designating 

two non-motorized access corridors, one in the Lost Lake unit and one in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 7 

Carter/Crescent unit. Motorized travel would be allowed up the South Fork of the Snow 

River to the Nellie Juan area (every year). 

Access corridors defined in the action alternatives will be designated as either motorized 

or non-motorized corridors across non-motorized or motorized areas. No trail 

construction or other site specific improvements will be implemented for the proposed 

corridors by the decision made on the Kenai Winter Access FEIS. Any site-specific 

improvements in the designated access corridors would require additional analysis 

before constructing improvements in these access corridors. Clearing of access 

corridors and signing of corridors will be permitted as part of the Record of Decision for 

this FEIS. 

The Proposed Action would leave the exploratory areas in the East Ptarmigan the Snow 

River units available for commercially guided helicopter skiing (USDA-FS, 2004e). 

This alternative includes motorized access from Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, to 

north of Summit Lake with the potential to tie in to Hope and Girdwood principally along 

established corridors. 

1.4. SCOPE OF OUR ANALYSIS 

The project area is the entire Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest. 

The analysis considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the No Action, 

Proposed Action, Modified Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. The 

alternatives propose a range of changes specific to winter recreation access. The winter 

motorized use season is from December 1 through April 30. The season may be 

extended or shortened by a Forest Order as snow conditions allow. 

1.4.1. Past Activities and Connected Actions 

Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing (CGHS) on the 

Kenai Peninsula Record of Decision, September 2004, 

Chugach National Forest 

Deferred Exploratory Units 

A decision was made in the CGHS to allow commercially guided helicopter skiing in the 

exploratory areas in the Snow River and East Ptarmigan units (44,700 acres). To ensure 

the CGHS implementation would be compatible with any new direction from the Kenai 

Winter Access FEIS, implementation in the Snow River and Ptarmigan units was 

deferred. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 8 

1.4.2. Past, Present, and Ongoing Activities 

Past Activities 

Cabin Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Juneau Lake Cabin (Resurrection unit) – This cabin was replaced in 1997. Since its 

replacement, use has increased. 

Lauritsen Cabin (Mills Creek) (Summit unit) – This historic cabin was rehabilitated in 

2002. If the cabin becomes available for public use, increased use would be expected. 

Devil’s Pass Cabin and Romig Cabin (Resurrection unit) – These cabins were replaced 

and trail reconstruction was completed in 2006. More privacy to cabin users is expected. 

Experience with similar projects indicates that use increases once the cabin is replaced. 

Trailhead Construction and Trail Reconstruction 

Summit Creek Trailhead Construction and Trail Reconstruction – In 1998, a trailhead 

was constructed affecting approximately two acres. This area could provide additional 

parking for winter use if plowed by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). This would provide a total of three additional parking areas 

in the general Summit Trailhead area. 

Campground Reconstruction 

Trail River Campground Reconstruction – The campground was partially reconstructed 

in 2004 by changing some of the loop traffic patterns, shifting camping away from the 

lake shore to make room for day use sites, and updating the sites to accommodate 

modern recreational vehicles. The reconstruction did not address winter use or the lack 

of winter parking. The remaining part of the campground reconstruction was completed 

in 2006. In 2004, when the campground was closed during the winter season, it was 

utilized for cross-country skiing, skate skiing, dog mushing, and access to Kenai Lake. 

When the campground is closed, there is no managed parking and parking becomes 

concentrated along the access road. This has caused conflicts with local residents. In 

the past, when the area was open to snowmachine use, it was utilized as a family 

destination for winter day use activities and Boy Scout overnight outings. There are 

plans to add an additional loop of campsites for summer use but there are no plans for 

additional winter parking. 

Highway Reconstruction and Realignment 

Seward Highway Reconstruction and Realignment – The State of Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) has been working on the Seward 

Highway for many years. Most of the work includes reconstruction and realignment of 

the highway. Milepost 8-18, milepost 53-60, and milepost 60-65 have been completed. 

Past highway reconstruction and realignment has provided an additional route for winter 

recreation use if the old alignment is abandoned, such as the old Sterling Highway. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 9 

Vegetation Treatments 

Vegetation treatments have occurred throughout the Seward Ranger District for 

hazardous fuel reduction, forest restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement (see 

project record for complete list). 

Present Activities or Projects 

Existing and On-Going Recreation Use 

The current areas utilized by recreationists and subsistence users have contributed to, 

and are part of, the discussion on the winter recreation existing condition. The majority of 

winter recreation occurs along travel corridors in the valley bottoms and utilizes a variety 

of terrain. 

Winter Trails and Trailhead Maintenance 

The following trails and routes are available for winter use: 

• Johnson Pass Trail from the northeast end of Trail Lake 

• Resurrection Pass Trail 

• Lost Lake Winter Route 

• Primrose Trail 

• Russian Lakes Trail from the end of plowed section of the Snug Harbor Road 

to Aspen Flats cabin and from Russian River Campground Road 

• Rainbow Lakes Trail from the Snug Harbor Road 

Winter Recreation Areas in Proximity to the Analysis Area 

Turnagain Pass Winter Use Area, managed by the Glacier Ranger District, is directly 

adjacent to the analysis area. When Turnagain snow pack is low or the area is crowded, 

users are known to disperse to the Summit unit due to its close proximity. 

Chugach State Park primarily serves winter recreationists from Anchorage or in the 

proximity of Anchorage. It is unlikely that Kenai Peninsula residents would travel to the 

State park for winter activities. However, it is possible that use would increase in the 

analysis area when snow conditions are poor or marginal in the Chugach State Park or 

when use is considered excessive. 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is located adjacent to the west side of the analysis area. 

Motorized use is permitted in the entire Caribou Hills area and in designated areas 

below 2,000 feet in other areas of the Refuge. The Refuge restricts recreational 

motorized use within the areas adjacent to the Chugach National Forest boundary at the 

Refuge/Forest boundary. The terrain in the Refuge is different from that in the analysis 

area because it is relatively gentle. Although community members of Soldotna can use 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 10 

the Refuge for motorized use, Seward Ranger District observation indicates they tend to 

seek the more rugged and extreme terrain found in the analysis area. 

Kenai Fjords National Park is located adjacent to the southwest of the analysis area. The 

Exit Glacier Road near Seward is a popular skiing spot with locals and the Willow Cabin 

is available for overnight reservation. The Willow cabin is available in the winter, after the 

Exit Glacier Road is closed (the fall through the first week in April). 

Outfitter and Guides 

Six outfitters and guides provide winter services: 

Chugach Powder Guides

Guided helicopter skiing on the Kenai Peninsula was first permitted in 1996. Core 

use occurs in the Johnson Pass unit and exploratory use occurs in the Hope, 

Ptarmigan/Grant, and Lost Lake units (Map A-2-1, No Action Alternative). 

Glacier City Snowmobile Tours

Snowmobile Tours – Johnson Pass, Russian Lakes, and Carter-Crescent Trails 

Skiing – Ptarmigan Creek Trail and Summit Lake 

Alaska Outdoor Adventures

Snowmobile Tours – Carter Lake Trail, Resurrection Pass Trail, and between 

Cooper Lake, Lost Lake, and Snug Harbor Road 

Alaska Snowmachine Safaris

Snowmobile Tours – Johnson Pass Trail 

Alaska Pacific University

Winter Camping, Avalanche Education, and Skiing 

Wilkinson Expeditions

Skiing – Russian Lakes Trail, Ptarmigan Creek Trail, and Johnson Pass Trail 

Vegetation Treatments 

Vegetation treatments are occurring throughout the Seward Ranger District for 

hazardous fuels reduction, forest restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement (see 

project record for complete list). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 11 

1.4.3. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) 

The Forest Service signed a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 

Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail on January 23, 2004 (USDA, FS, 

2003a). The decision included approximately 186 miles to be managed as part of the 

INHT. The decision included approximately 82 miles of trail reconstruction, 77 miles of 

new trail construction, 32 major trail bridges, and at least 50 minor bridges and 

walkways. Winter motorized use is allowed on approximately 105 miles of the trail while 

81 miles of trail are closed to winter motorized use. All routes follow the LRMP direction 

relative to winter motorized and non-motorized use. The project also includes 

construction of five new trailheads, reconstruction of three existing trailheads, and the 

construction of five new cabins located in: Mills Creek, the eastside of Ptarmigan Pass, 

Lost Lake Trail, and the Johnson Pass unit (two cabins) 

Sterling Highway Realignment Project 

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) has 

proposed to realign part of the Sterling Highway from milepost 45 to 60, away from the 

river canyon (ADOT&PF, 2003). Three action alternatives have been proposed for 

analysis in the Sterling Highway Milepost 45-60 Supplemental DEIS: Juneau Creek, GSouth, and Cooper Creek. These alternatives all involve National Forest System lands, 

with the Juneau Creek Alternative impacting the most area. The Juneau Creek 

Alternative proposes to realign the highway around Cooper Landing and cross the 

Resurrection Pass Trail, while the G-South and Cooper Creek Alternatives propose to 

partially realign around Cooper Landing. If selected, the Juneau Creek Alternative has 

the greatest potential of the alternatives, to change the backcountry setting found on the 

southern portion of the Resurrection unit to a highly used day-use setting for both 

summer and winter. 

FERC Re-licensing of Cooper Lake Dam 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently in the process of relicensing the Cooper Lake Dam. As part of this process, the permit holder of the dam 

may do the following activities: 

• Construct a new parking area at the Cooper Lake Parking area on Snug Harbor Road 

in 2009 or 2010. 

• Implement a water diversion project to improve fish habitat in Cooper Creek. This 

project would include adding approximately 11,000 feet of pipeline and an access 

road approximately 2 miles long. Implementation is scheduled for 2013. 

• Reconstruct approximately 12 miles of Snug Harbor Road in 2013. 

These activities would address the safety issue of parking on Snug Harbor Road in the 

winter months. This area is popular with snowmachiners from Soldotna and Kenai areas, 

as it is much closer than driving to the Lost Lake or Primrose trailheads. A new parking 

lot would accommodate winter users and provide a needed parking facility to access the 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 12 

Russian and Lost Lake units. Reconstructing the 12 miles of Snug Harbor Road would 

improve access to winter opportunities in the Russian and Lost Lake units. 

Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System (Hut to Hut) 

The Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System project is a proposal for a 34-mile system 

utilizing new and existing trails. Approximately 16 miles of new, non-motorized trail 

would be constructed through the Mills Creek-Stormy Pass area and the Center Creek 

area. The existing trail (Johnson Pass) would continue to be motorized during the winter 

months. In addition, approximately 4 huts and associated facilities would be constructed 

to accommodate 20 overnight guests each. Helicopters would be used to re-supply the 

huts and remove waste. There would also be on-site staff at various times throughout 

the year. This proposal could potentially increase winter backcountry use in the Summit 

and Johnson Pass units by providing trail systems and high quality facilities to the public. 

This project is still at the draft stage and no decisions have been issued about this 

proposal. 

Cabin Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Upper Russian (Russian unit) – The cabin is scheduled to be either rehabilitated or 

replaced in 2007. Experience with similar projects indicates that use increases once a 

cabin is replaced or rehabilitated. 

Manitoba (Summit unit) – The cabin is scheduled to be replaced in 2008. Experience 

with similar projects indicates that use increases once a cabin is replaced or 

rehabilitated. 

Seward Highway Reconstruction and Realignment Projects 

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) has 

been working on the Seward Highway for many years. Most of the work includes 

reconstruction and realignment of the highway. Milepost 18-25 is scheduled next for 

reconstruction but no timeframe has been announced. 

Vegetation Treatments 

Vegetation treatments will occur throughout the Seward Ranger District for hazardous 

fuel reduction, forest restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement (see project record for 

complete list). 

1.4.4. Cumulative Effects 

The no action and action alternatives all would provide areas where motorized use 

would be permitted and areas where motorized use would be prohibited. Large 

contiguous units that are managed as non-motorized for a winter season would 

cumulatively offer greater opportunities for quiet and solitude when considered at a 

district-wide scale. The effects of helicopter use on backcountry recreation have been 

analyzed (in the Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing FEIS) and specific mitigation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 13 

was applied to reduce or eliminate the impacts in the Johnson Pass unit (USDA-FS, 

2004d). 

The Johnson Pass and Summit units are foreseeable areas for backcountry hut 

development. Currently, the Johnson Pass unit is managed for a mix of motorized and 

non-motorized uses with core guided helicopter skiing areas. It is still possible to attain 

solitude by moving farther into and away from the main corridors. With the foreseeable 

future development of the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System (with winter use 

potentially concentrated in the Johnson Pass and Center Creek areas), an additive effect 

may occur to the current level of motorized use, making this unit less desirable for 

experiencing natural quiet. In the Snow River unit, the alternatives that restrict guided 

helicopter skiing and snowmachine use, would cumulatively allow for the opportunity for 

quiet. 

Along transportation corridors, foreseeable projects such as the Sterling Highway 

Realignment and the Cooper Lake parking area on Snug Harbor Road may increase the 

noise associated with snowmachines and automobiles. 

Implementation of the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail decisions, 

such as establishing continuous parallel routes for non-motorized and motorized users, 

and an increase in cabins (potentially five new cabins) may add more snowmachineassociated noise in the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail project area, 

as new routes and amenities become developed and utilized. New non-motorized, but 

no new motorized routes are proposed in the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Trail 

project area. 

Cabin replacement has occurred or is reasonably foreseeable. Past cabin replacement 

in the Resurrection and Russian units resulted in increased visitation and use. 

Regardless of whether the unit is managed as motorized, non-motorized, or a Season 

A/Season B scenario, use is likely to increase with the recent replacements of the Devil’s 

Pass and Romig cabins in the Resurrection unit, the replacement of the Upper Russian 

cabin in the Russian unit, and the replacement of the Manitoba cabin in the Summit unit. 

Cumulatively, winter use is likely to increase from the existing level (particularly when the 

unit is motorized) as use begins to shift around and within the analysis area as favorite 

cabins become booked and other options have to be sought. Recreationists who 

typically use the Turnagain Pass Winter Use area would find a quality cabin opportunity 

and the quality terrain associated with the Summit unit. It is foreseeable that 

recreationists who typically use Chugach State Park would travel longer distances to 

have this experience. Without monitoring and some form of visitor survey, it is unknown 

how the development of the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System would affect the 

public cabin system. 

While access would still be provided, displacement from historical use areas and 

activities may increase in all alternatives (regardless of the user type) when future 

actions such as the proposed Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System, and the Seward to 

Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail are implemented. If use increases, hunters and 

trappers may be further confined to remote areas to avoid conflict with other uses. They 

may be unable to participate safely in hunting with increased use on favorite trails and 

areas. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 14 

The Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System trailhead, which would connect to the 

Iditarod National Historic Trial, Johnson Pass Trail, and the Whistle Stop trail system, 

would be adjacent to three heritage sites. Combined with the designated motorized 

corridor near Summit Lake, the increase in public access and users would raise the 

potential for adverse effects to these three sites and possibly lead to additional trail 

maintenance if the proposed corridor crosses or connects to the historic Mills Creek 

Trail. If the proposed motorized corridor were constructed, it would require additional 

Section 106 review. If adverse effects were unavoidable, mitigation measures would be 

required. 

There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, or 

proposed wildlife species because they do not occur within the project area during the 

winter recreation season. 

Cumulative effects may occur to individual management indicator species (brown bears, 

moose, and mountain goats) due to recreation activity. Risks of affecting the populations 

of these species range from negligible to moderate. 

Cumulative effects may occur to individual species of special interest (wolverine, wolves, 

lynx, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, river otter, and bald eagle) due to recreation 

activity. Risks of affecting the populations is low-moderate for all species except 

wolverine, marbled murrelet, and river otter, which is moderate. 

The relatively small potential impacts to local economic activity from the proposed winter 

motorized closures in conjunction with past actions and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not cause any cumulative impacts. 

The negligible impacts to soils, water, riparian, wetlands, air quality, vegetation, and 

fisheries from winter recreation activities in conjunction with past actions and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not cause any cumulative impacts. 

1.5. DECISION TO BE MADE 

Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the Modified Preferred 

Alternative, the other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and comments from 

the public and other agencies in order to make a decision. The Responsible Official may 

decide to: (1) select the Modified Preferred Alternative, (2) select one of the other action 

alternatives, (3) select one of the action alternatives after modifying the alternative with 

additional mitigation measures or combination of activities from other alternatives, or (4) 

select the No Action Alternative, choosing to take no action at this time. If the No Action 

Alternative were selected, winter use of the Carter/Crescent unit would remain 

motorized, as outlined in the 1984 LRMP. 

1.5.1. Responsible Official 

The Forest Supervisor for the Chugach National Forest is the Responsible Official who 

will decide what actions are to be implemented. The Forest Supervisor will document 

decisions and rationale in a Record of Decision. The following goals and objectives will 

be considered when making the final decision: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 15 

1. Provide for a range of motorized and non-motorized opportunities and 

experiences. 

2. Create closures or restrictions that are feasible to enforce. 

3. Minimize disturbance or displacement of wildlife in winter habitats and risk of 

affecting populations. 

4. Maintain or improve historically established winter travel connections between 

communities. 

5. Accommodate historical winter use activities, such as collection of fire wood, 

hunting, community access, and family outings. 

6. Provide settings that allow for a balance between natural quiet and motorized 

recreation use. 

7. Provide management strategies to reduce conflicts between user groups. 

1.5.2. Project Implementation 

Once a decision has been made and published, project implementation would begin in 

the next winter season. 

1.6. POLICY DIRECTION AND LEGAL 

GUIDANCE 

1.6.1. Laws 

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and Executive Orders pertaining to projectspecific planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands. While most pertain to all 

Federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska. References to these laws and 

orders, as well as disclosures and findings required by them, can be found throughout 

this document and in the project file. 

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1970) 

• The National Forests Management Act (1976), as amended 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

• Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297, October 11, 1996) 

• The National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended 

• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, December 18, 

1971) 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 16 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended 

• Russian River Land Act: (Public Law: 107-362, Dec 19, 2002) 

• Preserve America Executive Order, 2003 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

Sections 1110(a) and 811 

Section 1110(a) of ANILCA requires that the Forest Service permit, on Conservation 

System Units (CSUs), the use of snowmachines, during periods of adequate snow 

cover, for traditional activities and for travel to and from villages and homesites. 

Consistent with the Alaska Regional Supplement to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

Section 2326.1, traditional activities include, but are not limited to, recreation activities 

such as fishing, hunting, boating, sightseeing, and hiking. Such snowmachine use is, 

however, subject to reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the 

CSUs and cannot be prohibited unless, after notice and hearing in the vicinity of the 

affected unit or area, the Forest Service finds that such use would be detrimental to the 

resource values of the unit or area. 

Section 811 of ANILCA requires that the Forest Service permit the use of snowmachines 

by a rural Alaska resident for subsistence provided: 

• The individual is lawfully engaged in an authorized subsistence activity during 

permitted dates. 

• The individual can identify himself as a qualified subsistence user. 

• The individual is in compliance with all public safety regulations (USDA-FS, 

2004c, p. 1-2). 

1.6.2. Guidance 

• Forest Service Region 10 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDAFS, 2002i) 

• Chugach National Forest, Invasive Species Management Plan (USDA-FS, 

2005c) 

• USDA Forest Service Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook of 

Best Management Practices (USDA-FS, 2006) 

• The Second Amended Programmatic Agreement #02MU-111001-076 

“Among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, 

Regarding Heritage Resource Management on National Forests in the State 

of Alaska” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Purpose of and Need for Action 17 

• Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail Environmental 

Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Decision Notice (USDAFS, 2003a) 

• Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing on the Kenai Peninsula Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA-FS, 2004d 

and 2004e) 

1.7. WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT 

The publication of this FEIS will be followed by a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD 

will document the selected alternative and provide the rationale for the decision. 

1.8. PROJECT RECORD 

This FEIS takes advantage of existing information included in the Chugach National 

Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA-FS, 2002a), 

applicable resource specific research, project-specific reports and other sources as 

indicated. Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to 

avoid duplication. The project record for this analysis documents all project-specific 

information, including resource reports. The project record also contains information 

resulting from public involvement. The project record is located at the Seward Ranger 

District in Seward, Alaska, and is available for review during regular business hours. 

Information from the project record is available on request. 

1.9. ORGANIZATION OF THIS FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant 

Federal and State laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and other 

action alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters: 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the 

history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the Modified Preferred Alternative: This chapter 

provides a more detailed description of the Agency’s proposed action, as well as 

alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose and need. These alternatives were 

developed based on relevant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how 

the public responded. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this 

section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with 

each alternative. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 1 18 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

action alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource. 

Appendices – The appendices provide detailed information to support the analysis 

presented in the FEIS. Maps provide a visual comparison between the alternatives. A 

glossary is included to explain some of the terms and acronyms used in the document. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 19 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Modified 

Preferred Alternative 

2.1. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the management of 

winter recreation use across the Seward Ranger District. It includes the public input and 

the issues that drove the range of alternatives and a description of each alternative 

considered. The alternatives are also presented in comparative form, showing the 

differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among 

options by the decision maker and the public. 

2.2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The Chugach National Forest began a site-specific analysis for the Carter-Crescent 

Lakes area in late February 2004. Several hundred scoping letters were mailed to 

individuals, government agencies, and groups. In addition, five listening sessions (Open 

Houses) specific to the Carter-Crescent Lakes area were held in Anchorage, Seward, 

Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, and Soldotna. Over 130 letters were received in response 

to these scoping efforts. 

Many of the public comments received during the Carter-Crescent Lakes area scoping 

period suggested that in order to find a workable long-term solution to winter recreation 

access, the Forest Service would need to expand the planning area. As stated in many 

of the comments, an expansion of the planning area would allow greater creative 

management options such as consideration of timing, shared-use, or alternating access 

across National Forest System lands on the Seward Ranger District. The Regional 

Forester approved the expansion the planning area to include winter recreation access 

on the entire Seward Ranger District. This began a second round of scoping. 

In an effort to have the public assist in the development of alternatives, including the 

Proposed Action, the Chugach National Forest hired independent consultants to host a 

series of collaborative learning workshops. 

To announce the first round of collaborative workshops, approximately 565 letters were 

mailed to individuals, groups, and Federal, State, and local agencies. In addition to the 

letters, public service announcements, news releases, and flyers were used to advertise 

these workshops. A series of 3-hour workshops were held in Moose Pass, Seward, 

Soldotna, and Anchorage February 23, 24, and 26, 2005. 

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

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

workshops, the Chugach National 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 1 or several of 

the 3 workshops, developing 18 citizen-based scenarios for addressing winter recreation 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 20 

access across the Seward Ranger District. Maps of each scenario were also developed 

during these workshops. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was 

published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2005. The NOI asked for public comment 

through May 25, 2005. In addition, six open houses were held May 23-25, 2005 in six 

communities to provide an update on the progress of the project. These communities 

were Anchorage, Seward, Girdwood, Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, and Soldotna. 

This project was published in 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 and in all the subsequent issues as the Kenai Winter Access 

EIS. 

Over 70 responses were received via email, telephone, and regular mail. Using the 

comments from the public and other agencies, as well as the comments from the CarterCrescent EA scoping, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues that are 

addressed in the following section. 

The issues were used to develop the alternatives that were analyzed in a Draft EIS 

(DEIS) published in April 2006. A series of public meetings were held in May 2006 in 

Anchorage, Moose Pass, Soldotna, and Cooper Landing. About 60 people attended 

these meetings and they provided comments and suggestions on the DEIS and 

alternatives. Public comments were accepted on the DEIS for 52 days. Many letters 

were received from individuals and groups from the project area, adjacent communities, 

and across the country. 

In October 2006, a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was published. The SEIS Preferred 

Alternative was developed to address the issues and concerns expressed in public 

comments received on the DEIS. The SEIS Preferred Alternative proposed designating 

most of the Snow River unit as non-motorized with a motorized corridor along the South 

Fork of the Snow River. The SEIS Preferred Alternative would not include permitting 

commercially guided helicopter skiing in the Snow River exploratory unit. The East 

Ptarmigan unit would be available for commercially guided helicopter skiing in that 

alternative. 

Comments were accepted on the SEIS for 45 days. Many letters were received from 

individuals and groups from the project area, adjacent communities, and across the 

country. The comments received on the SEIS were used to develop the Modified 

Preferred Alternative in this Final EIS (FEIS). This FEIS incorporates all of the comments 

received on the DEIS and the SEIS. The FEIS presents the analysis of the 

environmental effects of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Modified Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. All of this information will be used by the 

Chugach National Forest Supervisor to make a decision on the winter access 

management plan for the National Forest System lands on the Kenai Peninsula. 

2.3. ISSUES 

Two levels of issues are used in this analysis. Key issues are those within the scope of 

the project of sufficient concern to drive the development of alternative actions. The key 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 21 

issues are specific to this geographic area and proposal, and provide a good comparison 

between alternatives during analysis. Analysis issues are those that are not critical in 

developing alternatives but are important for their value in designing specific protective 

measures and to measure the effects of the alternatives on different resources. 

The interdisciplinary team identified “issue indicators” to measure how each analysis 

issue would be affected by the alternatives. Each issue may have more than one 

indicator, depending on its complexity. Issue indicators were selected for their ability to 

show the differences between alternatives. 

Issues were not considered if they were: 

1. Outside the scope of the Proposed Action, 

2. Already decided by law, regulation, or other higher-level decision, 

3. Irrelevant to the decision to be made, 

4. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence, or 

5. A general comment. 

2.3.1. Key Issues 

Key issues that drove the development of the action alternatives including the Proposed 

Action are: 

• The need to minimize potential confusion over shared use on the Resurrection Pass 

with a scenario that alternates motorized and non-motorized use each winter season. 

• The need to reduce safety issues on trails with shared motorized and non-motorized 

use. 

• The need to provide separate areas for both motorized and non-motorized users, 

while still providing a distribution of cabin access to both user groups. 

2.3.2. Analysis Issues 

Five analysis issues were identified and are described below. Each issue has one or 

more issue indicators that will be used to evaluate the environmental consequences of 

each alternative. 

Issue 1. Range of Winter Recreation Opportunities 

Changing land allocations within the project area between motorized and non-motorized 

use could affect the range of opportunities available. 

All groups want the ability to enjoy and have access to a variety of terrain and 

experiences. Users want areas that are large enough and allocated for a long enough 

period during the winter to encompass a full range of activities. With winter snowpack 

being uncertain, each user group needs a mix of both low and high elevation areas in 

order to recreate throughout the winter season. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 22 

No group wants to lose the ability to access the forest as they have in the past. While 

some motorized users desire short duration day trips to the Carter/Crescent unit for 

snowplay, others may seek overnight family-oriented cabin experiences. Some prefer a 

more extreme backcountry experience or prefer long distance rides. Non-motorized 

users may want short duration cross-country ski experiences that are easily accessed 

from highways or roads, or they may be looking for a multi-day backcountry tour to the 

cabins. Others may be seeking terrain that has steep slopes and ridges for an extreme 

backcountry telemarking experience. 

All users want the ability to access cabins in the winter. Families and users interested in 

recreating at cabins and in the Carter/Crescent unit are concerned they may be 

displaced from an area they have historically used. Citizens who reside in the area have 

historically used both motorized and non-motorized means to access the Chugach 

National Forest for a variety of activities (including using snow for access to gather 

firewood as well as for recreational use on the National Forest System lands that 

surround their communities). 

Indicators 

• Available terrain in acres and miles of trail or winter route for motorized and 

non-motorized uses 

• Number of cabins available for reservation 

• Change in the range of winter recreation opportunities 

Issue 2. Recreation Experience 

Both motorized and non-motorized users want a quality experience when they recreate. 

Neither group wants their recreational experience impacted by conflict with others. 

Both motorized and non-motorized users indicated that shared winter use on particular 

trails and in certain areas can be hazardous. This can diminish their experience. Steep 

terrain and winter trails located in constricted valley bottoms result in users sharing 

common corridors. Most trails providing access into the backcountry were originally 

designed for summer use and typically have a 20-foot corridor. In most cases, steepsided slopes, gorges, and ravines limit options for separating use. Examples noted by 

the public include the Lost Lake Trail, the Primrose Trail to Lost Lake, and the Carter 

Lake Trail. To reduce conflict, some non-motorized users are avoiding areas where 

interactions are highest and seek out areas where concentrated motorized use is less 

likely. Likewise, motorized users are concerned with the safety of shared use and may 

avoid those trails where use is concentrated. 

Some non-motorized users indicated their recreation experience is diminished when 

they hear motorized noise. This occurs most frequently at shared staging areas and 

shared use areas. Some feel they have had to make a trade-off between an acceptable 

amount of noise and utilizing their favored areas. Some recreationists are looking for 

areas where natural quiet can be expected. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 23 

Two issue elements have been identified to describe recreation experience 

environmental consequences. The elements are Shared Use and the Opportunity for 

Quiet. 

Indicators 

• Shared Use: Change (increase, decrease, no change) in the potential for 

encounters between and within motorized and non-motorized users in key 

units including Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, Resurrection, and Russian 

• Opportunity for Quiet: Narrative on the ability to experience quiet (natural 

quiet)

Issue 3. Disturbance to Wildlife 

Winter recreation use increases human access into wildlife habitat, which may 

potentially affect an animal’s use of the habitat for denning, nesting, cover, or foraging. 

Indicators 

• Percent of affected habitat that is motorized and non-motorized within a 

species habitat 

• Level of effect/risk to species and its population 

Issue 4. Economics 

Concerns were raised regarding the effects on local businesses of closing areas in the 

project area to motorized winter recreation use. 

Indicator 

• Potential effects of changes in winter motorized areas on local economic 

activity 

Issue 5. Disturbance to Heritage Resources 

Cultural resources are non-renewable and disturbances can be irreparable, affecting the 

eligibility status for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Disturbance includes vandalism, theft, and unintentional disturbances caused by an 

increase in access and concentrated use. 

Indicator 

• Number of historic properties documented 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 24 

2.4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

The Forest Service has developed five alternatives, the No Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action, the Modified Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, in 

response to issues raised by the public. In describing the alternatives, four major 

headings are used. The headings are 1) General Overview, 2) Highlights, 3) Unit 

Descriptions, and 4) Cabin Availability. An explanation of each of these topics is 

provided below. 

2.4.1. General Overview 

This section provides a brief overview of the alternative. The amount of area designated 

motorized, non-motorized, or Season A/Season B is the relative amount of National 

Forest System lands allocated to each type of use. There is a small area in the Johnson 

Pass unit that is closed to snowmachine use but open to guided helicopter skiing. This 

area is about 1 percent of the total project area. The Black Mountain Research Natural 

Area is in the Lost Lake unit. It is about 1 percent of the total project area and it is 

included in the non-motorized category in every alternative. 

2.4.2. Highlights 

This section includes a description of the following: 

1. Non-motorized Areas – Percent increase or decrease of non-motorized areas 

compared to the No Action Alternative. This includes only those areas that would 

be permanently non-motorized. The miles of trail designated non-motorized will 

be included. Only trails on National Forest System lands will be included in these 

totals. 

2. Motorized Areas – Percent increase or decrease of motorized areas compared 

to the No Action Alternative. This includes only those areas that would be 

permanently motorized. The miles of trail designated for motorized use will be 

included. Only trails on National Forest System lands will be included in these 

totals. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenarios – This section describes which units would be 

part of a scenario that alternates winter motorized and non-motorized designation 

each winter season. Miles of National Forest System trail designated for 

motorized use will be included for each winter season. 

4. Access Corridors – This section will describe any access corridors being 

designated. No trail construction or other improvements will be implemented for 

the proposed corridors by any decision made on the Kenai Winter Access FEIS. 

Any site-specific improvements in the designated access corridors would require 

additional analysis before constructing improvements in these access corridors. 

5. Trail River Campground – Various proposals for winter recreation use in this 

area are described in this section. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 25 

6. Motorized Community Access – The extent of motorized access between 

Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, the Sterling Y, and the Hope Y can be found in 

this section. 

7. Helicopter Skiing – The decision was made to authorize commercially guided 

helicopter skiing in some areas of the Kenai Peninsula in 2004 (USDA-FS, 

2004e). Both the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units contain exploratory 

areas where issuing a Special Use Permit under the commercially guided 

helicopter skiing special use authorization has been deferred until the decision on 

the Kenai Winter Access plan is made. This section will show whether guided 

helicopter skiing activities could be permitted in these exploratory areas. This 

project does not include any proposed changes to core guided helicopter skiing 

areas. The General Operating Requirements from the CGHS ROD regarding 

helicopter travel over non-motorized areas would apply in all units. 

2.4.3. Unit Descriptions 

This section includes a description of the management direction for each planning unit. 

2.4.4. Cabin Availability 

For each alternative, a table is provided to display the number of cabins located in the 

motorized and non-motorized units. Non-motorized users may access all of the cabins 

during the motorized seasons. The Forest Service manages 17 cabins on the Seward 

Ranger District that are available for reservation by recreation users. 

2.4.5. Guidelines and Basic Assumptions: 

1. The Sterling Hwy/Seward Hwy intersection is referred to as the Sterling Y. 

2. The Hope Hwy/Seward Hwy intersection is referred to as the Hope Y. 

3. The Kenai Lake – Black Mountain Research Natural Area (RNA), located in the 

Lost Lake unit, remains unchanged in all of the alternatives and throughout this 

analysis. Although it is non-motorized, this closure is related to its designation as 

a RNA. The acres associated with it are included in the non-motorized 

percentages presented for the Lost Lake unit. 

4. All of the alternatives, except the No Action Alternative, propose scenarios that 

alternate motorized and non-motorized designation each winter season. These 

will be referred to as Season A/Season B scenarios. 

5. The existing motorized closure dates, as described in the LRMP on page 3-35 

(#4) for non-motorized and motorized use will remain in effect for all alternatives. 

The February 15 mid-season swap between motorized and non-motorized use in 

the Resurrection and West Resurrection units will remain in effect for the No 

Action Alternative only. The four action alternatives eliminate this mid-season 

swap. 

6. There will be no change to any current regulations permitting access for 

subsistence, emergencies, administrative purposes, private lands, or legal mining 

claims, with this decision. When units are described as non-motorized, motorized 

access for subsistence use is not affected. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 26 

7. Tables are used throughout this document to display Season A/Season B 

scenarios across two years. If an alternative is selected with a Season A/Season 

B scenario, the decision maker will determine the corresponding designations 

and years in the Record of Decision. 

8. The Resurrection River cabin is not included in this analysis, as it is not a part of 

the reservation system and is not used during the winter season. 

9. Unless otherwise stated, all narratives are describing National Forest System 

lands only. 

10. The total acreage within the project area (Seward Ranger District) is 885,730 

acres. Non-National Forest System lands total 50,030 acres in the project area. 

Therefore, the total acreage of National Forest System lands used in all 

calculations is 835,700 acres. 

11. Desirable and Usable Terrain: The ability to quickly access desirable terrain is 

important. Recreationists want a variety of terrain that includes slopes that are 

gentle to moderate for day use purposes, as well as steeper terrain where 

challenges are found and more skills are necessary. The ability to access the 

terrain is important. For example, thousands of acres of potentially desirable 

terrain exist for both motorized and non-motorized users within the Seward 

Ranger District. However, a lack of bridges, trailheads, and plowed areas to park 

often prevents access into an area. 

12. When a unit is designated for motorized use, non-motorized uses are also 

permitted. Non-motorized travel is allowed in any unit or area during any winter 

season or alternative. 

13. Even though a unit may be designated as non-motorized, the potential for 

encountering subsistence users with snowmachines is possible. 

2.5. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

2.5.1. General Overview (Map A-2-1) 

This alternative is the existing direction in the LRMP, except for the Carter/Crescent unit. 

Due to withdrawal of the portion of the decision for the Carter-Crescent Lakes area from 

the LRMP decision, current management direction for that area reverts to the 1984 

LRMP that leaves the unit available for motorized access. 

The majority of the area within the Resurrection and West Resurrection units is part of 

the mid-season changeover from motorized use to non-motorized use after February 15 

of each year. 

The Seward Ranger District land base would be designated 72 percent motorized, 11 

percent non-motorized, and 17 percent February 15 mid-season swap (most of the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 27 

2.5.2. Highlights - No Action Alternative 

1. Non-motorized Areas – The non-motorized areas in the Summit, Johnson Pass, 

Tern Lake, Russian, Lost Lake, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units would 

not change from the current condition. There are 26 miles of trail in designated 

non-motorized areas. 

2. Motorized Areas – The motorized areas in all 12 geographic units would not 

change from the current condition. There are 143 miles of trail in designated 

motorized areas. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenario – There is no Season A/Season B scenario in 

this alternative. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units continue to be 

motorized until February 15. After February 15, they are non-motorized. The 47 

miles of trail in the Resurrection unit is designated motorized every winter until 

February 15 mid-season swap. 

4. Access Corridors – No additional access corridors are designated. 

5. Trail River Campground – The campground area is designated for nonmotorized use. 

6. Motorized Community Access – Motorized access would be allowed from the 

communities of Cooper Landing to Moose Pass and from the Sterling Y to Lower 

Summit Lake via the highway right of way (100 feet on either side of the 

centerline). 

7. Helicopter Skiing – There are currently two areas, one in the Ptarmigan/Grant 

unit and one in the Snow River unit, where the issuance of a special use permit 

for guided helicopter skiing has been deferred pending the completion of this 

analysis. These two areas would be available for special use permits. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 28 

Table 2-1 No Action Alternative: Percent of Units Designated Motorized and Nonmotorized until/after the February 15 Mid-season Swap 

Unit Percent 

Motorized 

Percent 

Non-motorized 

Hope 100 0 

Resurrection 100/5 0/95 

West Resurrection 100/12 0/88 

Summit 44 56 

Johnson Pass1 81 9 

Tern Lake 46 54 

Russian 79 21 

Carter/Crescent 100 0 

Ptarmigan/Grant 100 0 

Lost Lake 92 8 

Snow River 86 14 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 94 6 

2.5.3. Unit Descriptions - No Action Alternative 

1. Hope – This unit is motorized. 

2. Resurrection – This unit is motorized through February 15, after which it 

becomes a non-motorized use unit. A narrow strip of permanent winter motorized 

use is present across the southern boundary. This strip is located from the 

National Forest/State land boundary north of the Sterling Highway to the first 

ridge to the north (about 11⁄2 miles north of Sterling Highway). 

3. West Resurrection – This unit is motorized through February 15, after which it 

becomes a non-motorized use unit. A narrow strip of permanent winter motorized 

use is present across the southern boundary. This strip is located from the 

Sterling Highway to a ridge approximately 2 miles to the north of the highway. 

4. Summit (west side and east side of the Seward Highway) – The majority of 

this unit is designated for non-motorized use (56 percent). 

• The west side is designated non-motorized at the Fresno Creek drainage and 

the slopes between the Seward Highway and the adjacent ridge to the Pass 

Creek drainage. The area north of this non-motorized area is designated 

motorized. It includes all of the Pass Creek drainage and a narrow portion 

between the power line and the highway. To the south of the non-motorized 

area is a motorized area that includes all of the Colorado Creek drainage and 

the upper portion of Summit Creek drainage. 

 

1

 (The total area for the Johnson Pass unit does not equal 100 percent because 10 percent of the unit is available for 

guided helicopter skiing but closed to snowmachine use.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 29 

• On the east side, the non-motorized area includes all of the Mills Creek 

drainage and all of the Canyon Creek drainage to the State lands near the 

Hope Y. It also includes the upper portion of the Silvertip Creek drainage. 

Motorized use includes the Quartz Creek drainage and all the slopes draining 

towards Seward Highway to Lower Summit Lake. 

5. Johnson Pass – This unit is motorized with the exception of the southeastern 

portion of the Center Creek drainage, which is designated for non-motorized use 

and guided helicopter skiing. The Center Creek drainage is 10 percent of the 

Johnson Pass unit area. In the summary tables for each alternative, we have left 

this 10 percent out of the tally for Johnson Pass unit. This feature for the Johnson 

Pass unit remains the same as the No Action Alternative across all alternatives. 

6. Tern Lake – This unit contains both motorized and non-motorized use areas. 

The non-motorized area encompasses all of the John’s Creek drainage on the 

east side of the Seward Highway. On the west side of the Seward Highway, it 

includes the Slate Creek drainage and the Quartz Creek drainage. It also 

includes the area north of the Sterling Highway to the first ridge top from Tern 

Lake to non-National Forest System lands near the Sunrise Inn. The motorized 

portion of this unit includes: 

• A corridor two miles wide along the Seward Highway from the northwest end 

of Upper Trail Lake to the Sterling Y 

• A 1⁄2-mile wide corridor on the south side of the Sterling Highway from Tern 

Lake to the Crescent Creek Campground. This encompasses the Old Sterling 

Highway 

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

Creek joins Upper Trail Lake 

• The upper portion of the Summit Creek drainage 

• A 3⁄4 mile wide corridor on the east side of the Seward Highway from Quartz 

Creek to the next drainage north towards Summit Lake 

7. Russian – The western portion of this unit is non-motorized. This includes the 

Russian River drainage from the Aspen Flats cabin north to the Sterling Highway. 

The rest of the Russian unit is motorized. 

8. Carter/Crescent – This entire unit is motorized. It includes the lands north of 

Kenai Lake to the southern boundary of the Tern Lake unit. The eastern 

boundary is the Seward Highway. 

9. Ptarmigan/Grant – This entire unit is motorized. It is bounded by 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. 

10. Lost Lake – The majority of this unit is motorized. There are two non-motorized 

areas: the Black Mountain Research Natural Area and a small section 

approximately 4 miles long in the Meridian, Grayling, and Long Lakes area 

adjacent to the Seward Highway.
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 30 

11. Snow River – This unit contains a non-motorized area on the south and west 

slopes of Sheep Mountain, across the lower 11⁄2 miles of the North Fork of the 

Snow River, including the northwest slopes of Paradise Peak. The remainder is 

motorized. 

12. Tiehack/Mt Alice – The western slopes of Tiehack Mountain are non-motorized. 

The rest of this unit, south of the non-motorized area, is motorized. 

2.5.4. Cabin Availability - No Action Alternative 

Motorized and non-motorized users would have access to nine cabins in the 

Resurrection unit based on the February 15 mid-season swap. Seven cabins in the 

Russian, Carter/Crescent, Lost Lake, and Snow River units would be accessible by 

motorized users every season. Non-motorized users could exclusively access one cabin 

in the Russian unit all winter season. 

Table 2-2 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), No Action Alternative Unit 

Cabin Motorized Non-motorized 

after February 15 

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 91

Aspen Flats 9

Russian 

Upper Russian 9

Crescent Lake 9

C/C 

Crescent Saddle 9

Lost 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9

Lower Paradise 9

Snow River 

Upper Paradise 9

 

1

 The Barber Cabin is available for exclusive non-motorized use at all times. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 31 

2.6. PROPOSED ACTION 

2.6.1. General Overview (Map A-2-2) 

This alternative minimizes confusion with a Season A/Season B scenario that alternates 

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

winter season (rather than mid-season, as currently exists). All other units are 

designated either motorized or non-motorized during the winter season. 

The Carter/Crescent unit would remain designated for motorized use at all times while 

the designated non-motorized areas in the Summit, Russian, Snow River, and 

Tiehack/Mt Alice units would all increase in size. In winter seasons when the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units would be designated motorized, 15 cabins 

would be available to motorized users. In the next winter season, 11 cabins would be 

available to non-motorized users exclusively. The existing designated non-motorized 

area in Lost Lake would be expanded slightly to the west to provide additional nonmotorized opportunities near Long Lake and Grayling Lake. 

This alternative attempts to address the safety issues brought up by motorized and nonmotorized users on multiple-use trails by proposing two non-motorized access corridors 

in the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units. 

This alternative includes a motorized corridor from Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, to 

north of Summit Lake with the potential to tie in to Hope and Girdwood. This alternative 

provides a continuous motorized corridor connecting these communities. 

The Seward Ranger District land base would be designated 67 percent motorized, 15 

percent non-motorized, and 18 percent Season A/Season B scenario. 

2.6.2. Highlights – Proposed Action 

1. Non-motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the non-motorized 

areas in the Summit, Russian, Lost Lake, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units and 

decrease non-motorized areas in the Tern Lake and Snow River units (Table 2-

3). There would be 40 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

2. Motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the motorized areas in the 

Tern Lake and Snow River units and decrease motorized areas in the Summit, 

Russian, Lost Lake, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units (Table 2-3). There would be 122 

miles of trails in areas designated motorized. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenario – The Resurrection and West Resurrection units 

together would alternate (Season A/Season B) the type of access each winter 

season. That is, one winter season the Resurrection and West Resurrection units 

would be designated for motorized use and the following winter season they 

would both be designated for non-motorized use. In the season that the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units are designated for motorized use, 

there would be 177 miles of trail motorized and 40 miles of trail designated for 

non-motorized use. In the next season, there would be 122 miles of trail 

motorized use and 95 miles of trail designated non-motorized. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 32 

4. Access Corridors – Two non-motorized access corridors are designated, 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 travel west along Kenai Lake and then north through Crescent Saddle. The 

Forest Service has an existing easement through State land adjacent to the Trail 

River Campground. The access corridor in the Lost Lake unit would run 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. 

Motorized travel would be allowed up the South Fork of the Snow River to the 

Nellie Juan area (every year). This would only be a corridor along the river 

bottom. Where the river braids the boundary would be the outside edge of the 

river. 

5. Trail River Campground – Trail River Campground would continue to be 

designated non-motorized, although grooming with motorized equipment would 

be permitted. 

6. Motorized Community Access – Motorized access would be allowed from the 

communities of Cooper Landing to Moose Pass and from the Sterling Y to Lower 

Summit Lake. 

7. Helicopter Skiing – The exploratory areas in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow 

River units would remain available for guided helicopter skiing permits. 

Table 2-3 Proposed Action: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, 

Compared to the No Action Alternative 

Unit Percent 

Motorized 

Percent Increase 

or Decrease 

Motorized 

Percent 

Nonmotorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Non-motorized 

Hope 100 0 0 0 

Resurrection 100A/1B NA 0A/99B NA 

West Resurrection 100A/0B NA 0A/100B NA 

Summit 18 -26 82 26 

Johnson Pass1 81 0 9 0 

Tern Lake 84 38 16 -38 

Russian 41 -38 59 38 

Carter/Crescent 100 0 0 0 

Ptarmigan/Grant 100 0 0 0 

Lost Lake 91 -1 9 1 

Snow River 94 8 6 -8 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 36 -58 64 58 

 

1

 (The total area for the Johnson Pass unit does not equal 100 percent because 10 percent of the unit is available for 

guided helicopter skiing but closed to snowmachine use.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 33 

2.6.3. Unit Descriptions – Proposed Action 

1. Hope – This unit is designated for motorized use. 

2. Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario that 

alternates motorized and non-motorized use together with the West Resurrection 

unit each winter season. 

3. West Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario 

that alternates motorized and non-motorized use together with the Resurrection 

unit each winter season. 

4. Summit (west side and east side of the Seward Highway)

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

strips of land along the highway corridor between the power line and the 

Seward Highway 

• The east side would be designated non-motorized except for the following 

areas: an area between Lower Summit Lake and Summit Lake bounded by 

State land near the highway and the 2000 foot elevation up the slope; all 

drainages south of Tenderfoot Creek drainage 

5. Johnson Pass – The majority of this unit is designated for motorized use. The 

southeastern portion of the Center Creek drainage would be designated nonmotorized, with the exception of guided helicopter skiing. The Center Creek 

drainage is 10 percent of the Johnson Pass unit. In the summary tables for each 

alternative, this 10 percent out of the tally for Johnson Pass unit. This feature of 

the Johnson Pass unit remains the same as the No Action Alternative across all 

alternatives. 

6. Tern Lake 

The following areas would be designated for motorized use: 

• 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 encompasses 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 would be designated non-motorized: 

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

Creek Trail through and including the Slate Creek drainage 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 34 

7. Russian – The non-motorized area would 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 

would be allowed between Cooper Creek/Cooper Lake and the State land along 

Kenai Lake and south of Russian Lakes Trail from Upper Russian Lake to 

Cooper Lake. 

8. Carter/Crescent – This entire unit would be designated motorized. It includes 

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

The eastern boundary is the Seward Highway. 

9. Ptarmigan/Grant – This entire unit is designated for 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. Guided helicopter skiing would be 

permitted in the deferred exploratory area of the Ptarmigan/Grant unit. 

10. Lost Lake – The majority of this unit would remain designated for motorized use. 

There are two non-motorized areas: the Black Mountain Research Natural Area 

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

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

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

westerly to the steep side slopes at approximately the 1500 foot elevation. The 

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

1500 foot location to Primrose Creek. Primrose Creek is the northern boundary. 

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

Power Line adjacent to the Seward Highway would be designated motorized. 

11. Snow River – The southern slopes of the South Fork of Snow River drainage 

would be designated non-motorized. The rest of the Snow River unit would be 

designated motorized. This would allow motorized travel up the South Fork of the 

Snow River to the Nellie Juan area. 

12. Tiehack/Mt Alice – The existing non-motorized area (the western slopes of 

Tiehack Mountain) would 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 would be designated motorized. 

2.6.4. Cabin Availability – Proposed Action 

Motorized users would have access to 15 cabins in Season A and 6 cabins in Season B. 

Non-motorized users may access all of the cabins during the motorized season. There 

would be exclusive non-motorized access to 2 cabins in Season A and 11 cabins in 

Season B. Table 2-4 displays the cabins that would be available for motorized and nonmotorized access in each geographic unit under the Proposed Action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 35 

Table 2-4 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Proposed Action 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

Cabin 

Motorized Non-motorized Motorized Non-motorized

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 Lake 9 9

C/C 

Crescent Saddle 9 9

Lost 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9

2.7. MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

2.7.1. General Overview (Map A-2-3) 

This alternative was modified from the SEIS Preferred Alternative. The modifications 

made for this alternative make an effort to address the concerns expressed by the public 

about the alternatives in the DEIS and SEIS. Many comments requested a greater 

consideration of the need and desire for opportunities for quiet recreation. The concern 

was expressed that large areas for non-motorized use are needed to provide quiet. The 

Modified Preferred Alternative expands the existing designated non-motorized area in 

the Snow River unit and does not permit guided helicopter skiing in the Snow River area. 

This alternative uses a Season A/Season B scenario that alternates motorized and nonmotorized use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units each winter season 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 36 

(rather than mid-season, as currently exists). All other units are either motorized or nonmotorized during the entire winter season. 

The Carter/Crescent unit would remain designated for motorized use at all times. Most of 

the Tern Lake unit would be designated motorized for winter recreation. The areas 

designated for non-motorized use in the Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt 

Alice units would all increase in size. In years when the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units would be designated for motorized use, 14 cabins would be available 

for motorized use. In the next year, 12 cabins would be available exclusively for nonmotorized use. The existing designated non-motorized area in the Lost Lake unit would 

be expanded slightly to the west to provide additional non-motorized opportunities. 

This alternative attempts to address the safety issues brought up by motorized and nonmotorized users on multiple-use trails by proposing two non-motorized access corridors 

in the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units. 

This alternative includes a motorized corridor from Cooper Landing and Moose Pass to 

Lower Summit Lake. 

The Seward Ranger District land base would be 61 percent motorized, 21 percent nonmotorized, and 18 percent Season A/Season B scenario. 

2.7.2. Highlights – Modified Preferred Alternative 

1. Non-motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the non-motorized 

areas in the Summit, Russian, Lost Lake, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units 

(Table 2-5). There would be 41 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

2. Motorized Areas –This alternative would increase the motorized areas in the 

Tern Lake unit and decrease the motorized areas in the Summit, Russian, Snow 

River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units (Table 2-5). It would also designate the 

Carter/Crescent unit for motorized use in winter. There would be 120 miles of trail 

for motorized use. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenario – This scenario alternates motorized and nonmotorized use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units together each 

winter season. That is, one winter season the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units would be motorized, the following winter season; both units 

would be non-motorized. In the season that the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units are motorized, there would be 175 miles of trail for motorized 

use and 41 miles of trail for non-motorized use. In the next season, there would 

be 120 miles of trail for motorized use and 96 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

4. Access Corridors – Two non-motorized access corridors are designated, 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 travel west along Kenai Lake and then north through Crescent Saddle. The 

Forest Service has an existing easement through State land adjacent to the Trail 

River Campground. The access corridor in the Lost Lake unit would run 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 37 

Motorized travel would be allowed up the South Fork of the Snow River to the 

Nellie Juan area (every year). This would only be a corridor along the river 

bottom. Where the river braids the boundary would be the outside edge of the 

river. 

5. Trail River Campground – Trail River Campground would continue to be 

designated for non-motorized use, although grooming with motorized equipment 

would be permitted. 

6. Motorized Community Access – Motorized access would be allowed from the 

communities of Cooper Landing to Moose Pass and from the Sterling Y to Lower 

Summit Lake. 

7. Helicopter Skiing – The exploratory area in the Snow River unit would not be 

available for guided helicopter skiing. The exploratory area in the 

Ptarmigan/Grant unit would be available for guided helicopter skiing. 

Table 2-5 Modified Preferred Alternative: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized 

Land by Unit, Compared to the No Action Alternative 

Unit Percent 

Motorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Motorized 

Percent 

Nonmotorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Non-motorized 

Hope 100 0 0 0 

Resurrection 100A/1B NA 0A/99B NA 

West Resurrection 100A/0B NA 0A/100B NA 

Summit 15 -29 85 29 

Johnson Pass1 81 0 9 0 

Tern Lake 79 33 21 -33 

Russian 41 -38 59 38 

Carter/Crescent 100 1 0 -1 

Ptarmigan/Grant 100 0 0 0 

Lost Lake 91 -1 9 1 

Snow River 23 -63 77 63 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 36 -58 64 58 

2.7.3. Unit Descriptions – Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

1. Hope – This unit is designated for motorized use. 

2. Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario that 

alternates motorized and non-motorized use together with the West Resurrection 

unit each winter season. 

 

1

 (The total area for the Johnson Pass unit does not equal 100 percent because 10 percent of the unit is available for 

guided helicopter skiing but closed to snowmachine use.) 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 38 

3. West Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario 

that alternates motorized and non-motorized use together with the Resurrection 

unit each winter season. 

4. Summit 

• The entire west side would be designated for non-motorized use. 

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

including 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 Tenderfoot 

Creek drainage to the southern unit boundary. 

5. Johnson Pass – The majority of this unit is designated for motorized use. The 

Johnson Pass Trail and Trail Creek would provide a winter motorized route to 

access the Nellie Juan area. The southeastern portion of the Center Creek 

drainage is designated for non-motorized use, with the exception of guided 

helicopter skiing. The Center Creek drainage is 10 percent of the Johnson Pass 

unit total area. In the summary tables for each alternative, this 10 percent has 

been left out of the tally for the Johnson Pass unit. This feature of the Johnson 

Pass unit remains the same as the No Action Alternative across all alternatives. 

6. Tern Lake 

The following areas of this unit would be designated for motorized use: 

• 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 encompasses the Old Sterling Highway 

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

The following areas of this unit would be designated for non-motorized use: 

• The area west of the Seward Highway from Devils Creek Trail through and 

including the Summit Creek drainage 

7. Russian – The area designated for non-motorized use would include the 

Russian River drainage from the Upper Russian Cabin north to the Sterling 

Highway and all of the land between the Russian River and Cooper 

Creek/Cooper Lake. The Russian Lakes Trail would be the southern boundary of 

the non-motorized portion. Motorized use would be allowed east of Cooper 

Creek/Cooper Lake to the State land along Kenai Lake and south of the Russian 

Lakes Trail from Upper Russian Lake to Cooper Lake. The Russian Lakes Trail 

would be designated for winter motorized use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 39 

8. Carter/Crescent – This entire unit would be designated for 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. 

9. Ptarmigan/Grant – This entire unit is designated for 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. Guided helicopter skiing would be 

permitted in the deferred exploratory area of the Ptarmigan/Grant unit. 

10. Lost Lake – The majority of this unit would remain designated for motorized use. 

There are two designated non-motorized areas: the Black Mountain Research 

Natural Area and all of the National Forest System lands within the Grayling, 

Meridian and Long Lake drainages west of the Seward Highway. The nonmotorized southern boundary starts at the northern quarter corner of Section 24, 

T 2 N, R 1 W and traverses westerly to the steep side slopes at approximately 

the 1500 foot elevation. The western boundary then traverses along the steep 

side slopes, northerly at the 1500 foot location to Primrose Creek. Primrose 

Creek is the northern boundary. The Primrose Trail, Primrose Road, Primrose 

Campground, and the Seward Power Line adjacent to the Seward Highway 

would be designated motorized. 

11. Snow River – The entire North Fork of the Snow River would be designated for 

non-motorized use except the area immediately around the Upper Paradise 

Lake. Guided helicopter skiing would not be permitted in this unit. For the South 

Fork, the existing non-motorized area would 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. Motorized travel would be allowed up 

the South Fork of the Snow River to the Nellie Juan area (every year). This would 

only be a corridor along the river bottom. Where the river braids the boundary 

would be the outside edge of the river. 

12. Tiehack/Mt Alice – The existing non-motorized area (the western slopes of 

Tiehack Mountain) would 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 would be designated for motorized use. 

2.7.4. Cabin Availability – Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Motorized users would have access to 14 cabins in Season A and 5 cabins in Season B. 

Non-motorized users may access all of the cabins during the motorized season. There 

would be exclusive non-motorized access to 3 cabins in Season A and 12 cabins in 

Season B. Table 2-6 displays the cabins that would be available for motorized and nonmotorized access in each unit under the Modified Preferred Alternative. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 40 

Table 2-6 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

Cabin 

Motorized Non-motorized Motorized Non-motorized

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 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9

2.8. ALTERNATIVE 1 

2.8.1. General Overview (Map A-2-4) 

As with the Proposed Action, this alternative would create a straightforward alternating 

(Season A/Season B) scenario between the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units, 

closing the Carter/Crescent unit to motorized use every other winter season. All other 

units would be either permanently motorized or non-motorized during the winter season. 

The percentage of the Seward Ranger District that would be designated non-motorized 

would be more than double what exists now, from 11 percent to 23 percent. The entire 

West Resurrection unit and most of the Russian unit would be non-motorized along with 

considerable increases in non-motorized areas in several other units. Lost Lake would 

be mostly motorized, the same as the No Action Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 41 

The Seward Ranger District land base would be designated 56 percent motorized, 23 

percent non-motorized, and 21 percent Season A/Season B scenario. 

2.8.2. Highlights – Alternative 1 

1. Non-motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the non-motorized area 

in the West Resurrection, Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice 

units and decrease the non-motorized area in the Tern Lake unit. There would be 

53 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

2. Motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the motorized area in the 

Tern Lake unit and decrease the motorized area in the West Resurrection, 

Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. There would be 91 

miles of trail for motorized use. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenario – The Resurrection unit would alternate (Season 

A/Season B) motorized and non-motorized designation with the Carter/Crescent 

unit each winter season. This would be different from the Proposed Action and 

the Modified Preferred Alternative where the Carter/Crescent unit would be 

permanently motorized. In this alternative, when one unit is motorized, the other 

would be non-motorized. In the season that the Resurrection unit would be 

designated motorized, there would be 146 miles of trail for motorized use and 69 

miles of trail for non-motorized use. In the next season, there would be 107 miles 

of trail for motorized use and 108 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

4. Access Corridors – No additional access corridors would be designated. 

5. Trail River Campground – Trail River Campground would be designated nonmotorized. 

6. Motorized Community Access – Motorized access would be allowed from the 

communities of Cooper Landing to Moose Pass and from the Sterling Y to Lower 

Summit Lake. 

7. Helicopter Skiing – The exploratory areas in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow 

River units would be available for guided helicopter skiing. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 42 

Table 2-7 Alternative 1: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, 

Compared to the No Action Alternative 

Unit Percent 

Motorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Motorized 

Percent 

Nonmotorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Non-motorized 

Hope 100 0 0 0 

Resurrection 100A/1B NA 0A/99B NA 

West Resurrection 0 NA 100 NA 

Summit 2 -42 98 42 

Johnson Pass1 81 0 9 0 

Tern Lake 95 49 3 -51 

Russian 10 -69 90 69 

Carter/Crescent 0A/100B NA 100A/0B NA 

Ptarmigan/Grant 100 0 0 0 

Lost Lake 91 -1 9 1 

Snow River 68 -18 32 18 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 36 -58 64 58 

2.8.3. Unit Descriptions – Alternative 1 

1. Hope – This unit is designated for motorized use. 

2. Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario that 

alternates motorized and non-motorized use with the Carter/Crescent unit each 

winter season. For example, when the Resurrection unit is non-motorized, the 

Carter/Crescent unit would be motorized and when the Resurrection unit is 

motorized, the Carter/Crescent unit would be non-motorized. 

3. West Resurrection – This entire unit would be non-motorized. 

4. Summit (west side and east side of the Seward Highway) 

• The entire west side would be non-motorized, except for a piece of land north 

of Frenchy Creek between the powerline and the highway and a motorized 

corridor adjacent to the highway to Lower Summit Lake. 

• The entire east side would be non-motorized, except for a motorized corridor 

adjacent to the highway to Lower Summit Lake. 

5. Johnson Pass – The majority of this unit is designated for motorized use. The 

southeastern portion of the Center Creek drainage is designated for nonmotorized use, with the exception of guided helicopter skiing. The Center Creek 

drainage is 10 percent of the Johnson Pass unit total area. In the summary tables 

for each alternative, this 10 percent has been left out of the tally for the Johnson 

 

1

 (The total area for the Johnson Pass unit does not equal 100 percent because 10 percent of the unit is available for 

guided helicopter skiing but closed to snowmachine use.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 43 

Pass unit. This feature of the Johnson Pass unit remains the same as the No 

Action Alternative across all alternatives. 

6. Tern Lake – All of the Tern Lake unit would be motorized, except for two small 

areas. One area is located on the west side of the Seward Highway on the lower 

section of Summit Creek. It would not include the motorized corridor adjacent to 

the highway. The other area would include the slope immediately east of the 

motorized corridor adjacent to the highway on the east side of the Seward 

Highway south of Summit Lake. For this alternative, two percent of the Tern Lake 

unit land would be managed as part of the Carter/Crescent unit Season 

A/Season B scenario. Land features are easier to identify than the actual unit 

boundary. The Season A/Season B boundary is extended northward from the 

Carter/Crescent unit on the northwest and northeast corners. The Crescent 

Creek trail serves as the northwest boundary and the ridgeline west of the Carter 

Trailhead serves as the northeast boundary (see Map A-2-4, Alternative 1). 

7. Russian – The entire Russian unit would be non-motorized. 

8. Carter/Crescent – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario that 

alternates motorized and non-motorized use with the Resurrection unit each 

winter season. For example, when the Carter/Crescent unit is non-motorized, the 

Resurrection unit would be motorized and when the Carter/Crescent unit is 

motorized, the Resurrection unit would be non-motorized. 

9. Ptarmigan/Grant – This entire unit is designated for 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. Guided helicopter skiing would be 

permitted in the deferred exploratory area of this unit. 

10. Lost Lake – The majority of this unit would remain designated for motorized use. 

There are two non-motorized areas: the Black Mountain Research Natural Area 

and a small section approximately 4 miles long in the Meridian, Grayling, and 

Long lakes area adjacent to the Seward Highway. 

11. Snow River – The existing non-motorized area would 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. With the expanded non-motorized 

area, this alternative would not allow motorized travel up the South Fork of the 

Snow River to the Nellie Juan area. Guided helicopter skiing would be permitted 

in the deferred exploratory area of this unit. 

12. Tiehack/Mt Alice – The existing non-motorized area (the western slopes of 

Tiehack Mountain) would 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 would be motorized. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 44 

2.8.4. Cabin Availability – Alternative 1 

Motorized users would have access to 5 cabins in Season A and 12 cabins in Season B. 

Non-motorized users may access any of the cabins during the motorized season. There 

would be exclusive non-motorized access to 12 cabins in Season A and 5 cabins in 

Season B. Table 2-8 displays the cabins that would be available for motorized and nonmotorized access in each geographic unit under Alternative 1. 

Table 2-8 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 1 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

Cabin 

Motorized Non-motorized Motorized Non-motorized

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 Lake 9 9

C/C 

Crescent Saddle 9 9

Lost 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9

2.9. ALTERNATIVE 2 

2.9.1. General Overview (Map A-2-5) 

Alternative 2 proposes a more complex Season A/Season B scenario than the other 

alternatives. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units would alternate (Season 

A/Season B) with the Russian, Carter/Crescent, and a portion of Snow River units. All 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 45 

other units would be either permanently motorized or non-motorized during the winter 

season. 

This alternative was designed to provide as much separation of users as would be 

reasonable, while still providing a fair distribution of cabin access to both user groups. 

The Russian unit would be completely designated motorized on alternating years. 

The Seward Ranger District land base would be designated 53 percent motorized, 11 

percent non-motorized, and 36 percent Season A/Season B scenario. 

2.9.2. Highlights – Alternative 2 

1. Non-motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the non-motorized area 

in the Summit unit and decrease the non-motorized area in the Tern Lake unit 

(Table 2-10). There would be 15 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

2. Motorized Areas – This alternative would increase the motorized area in the 

Tern Lake unit and decrease the motorized area in the Summit, Russian, and 

Snow River units (Table 2-10). There would be 91 miles of trail for motorized use. 

3. Season A/Season B Scenarios – The Resurrection and West Resurrection 

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

and a portion of the Snow River unit each winter season. In the season that the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units would be designated motorized, there 

would be 146 miles of trail for motorized use. In the next season, there would be 

143 miles of trail for non-motorized use. 

Table 2-9 Motorized and Non-motorized Designations, Alternative 2 

Unit Season A Season B 

Resurrection Non-motorized Motorized 

West Resurrection Non-motorized Motorized 

Russian Motorized Non-motorized 

Carter/Crescent Motorized Non-motorized 

Snow River – North Fork of 

the Snow River east to 

the Paradise Lakes area 

Motorized Non-motorized 

4. Access Corridors – Two access corridors are designated in the Lost Lake unit. 

One motorized access corridor would be located south of the Mt. Adair area and 

one non-motorized access corridor on the southern end of the non-motorized 

area from the Graying Lake area into the alpine area of Lost Lake.

5. Trail River Campground – Trail River Campground would be designated for 

motorized use. 

6. Motorized Community Access – Motorized access would be allowed from the 

communities of Cooper Landing to Moose Pass and from the Sterling Y to Lower 

Summit Lake. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 46 

7. Helicopter Skiing – The exploratory area in the Ptarmigan/Grant unit would be 

available for guided helicopter skiing. The exploratory area in the Snow River unit 

would be closed to guided helicopter skiing. 

Table 2-10 Alternative 2: Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Land by Unit, 

Compared to the No Action Alternative 

Unit Percent 

Motorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Motorized 

Percent 

Nonmotorized 

Percent Increase

or Decrease 

Non-motorized 

Hope 100 0 0 0 

Resurrection 100A/1B NA 0A/99B NA 

West Resurrection 100A/0B NA 0A/100B NA 

Summit 6 -38 94 38 

Johnson Pass1 81 0 9 0 

Tern Lake 63 17 35 -19 

Russian 10A/100B NA 90A/0B NA 

Carter/Crescent 0A/100B NA 100A/0B NA 

Ptarmigan/Grant 100 0 0 0 

Lost Lake 91 -1 8 0 

Snow River 33A/100B NA 67A/0B NA 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 94 0 6 0 

2.9.3. Unit Descriptions – Alternative 2 

1. Hope – This unit is designated for motorized use. 

2. Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario as 

shown in Table 2-9. 

3. West Resurrection – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario 

as shown in Table 2-9. 

4. Summit (west side and east side of the Seward Highway) 

• The west side would be non-motorized from the southern boundary of this 

unit to Pass Creek. The area from Pass Creek to the northern unit boundary 

would be motorized. 

• The entire east side would be non-motorized, except for a motorized corridor 

adjacent to the highway to Lower Summit Lake. 

5. Johnson Pass – The majority of this unit is designated for motorized use. The 

Johnson Pass Trail and Trail Creek would provide a winter motorized route to 

access the Nellie Juan area. The southeastern portion of the Center Creek 

 

1

 (The total area for the Johnson Pass unit does not equal 100 percent because 10 percent of the unit is available for 

guided helicopter skiing but closed to snowmachine use.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 47 

drainage is designated for non-motorized use, with the exception of guided 

helicopter skiing. The Center Creek drainage is 10 percent of the Johnson Pass 

unit total area. In the summary tables for each alternative, this 10 percent has 

been left out of the tally for the Johnson Pass unit. This feature of the Johnson 

Pass unit remains the same as the No Action Alternative across all alternatives. 

6. Tern Lake – The non-motorized area would include the area west of the Seward 

Highway and north of the Devils Creek Trail, as well as all of the Johns Creek 

Drainage, except the motorized corridor along the east side of the highway. The 

motorized area would include the south facing slopes from Jerome Lake to where 

Trail Creek joins Upper Trail Lake and on the south side of the highway from the 

western end of Upper Trail Lake to the Crescent Creek Campground (this 

includes the Old Sterling Highway). There would also be designated motorized 

use on the north side of the Sterling Highway from Devils Creek Trail to the State 

land south of Langille Mountain. For this alternative, two percent of the Tern Lake 

unit land would be managed as part of the Carter/Crescent unit Season 

A/Season B scenario. Land features are easier to identify than the actual unit 

boundary. The Season A/Season B boundary is extended northward from the 

Carter/Crescent unit on the northwest and northeast corners. The Crescent 

Creek trail serves as the northwest boundary and the ridgeline west of the Carter 

Trailhead serves as the northeast boundary (see Map A-2-5, Alternative 2). 

7. Russian – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario. See Table 

2-9. 

8. Carter/Crescent – This unit would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario. 

See Table 2-9. 

9. Ptarmigan/Grant – This entire unit is motorized. It is bounded by the railroad on 

the north, the north boundary of the Snow River unit to the south, the District 

boundary on the east, and the Seward Highway and State lands to the west. 

10. Lost Lake – This unit would be designated motorized except for the Black 

Mountain Research Natural Area and a small section approximately 4 miles long 

in the Meridian, Grayling, and Long lakes area adjacent to the Seward Highway. 

For this alternative, one percent of the Lost Lake unit land area would be 

managed as part of the Russian unit Season A/Season B scenario. Land 

features of the area are easier to discern than the actual unit boundary. The 

Season A/Season B boundary is extended eastward from the Russian unit to the 

drainage that runs south from the Cooper Lake Trailhead (See Map A-2-5, 

Alternative 2). 

11. Snow River – Most of the Snow River unit would be designated motorized 

including the entire South Fork of the Snow River drainage. There is a portion of 

the Snow River unit that would be part of a Season A/Season B scenario 

between motorized and non-motorized uses. See Table 2-9. The area that 

alternates extends from the northern boundary of the Snow River unit, which 

includes the divide between the North Fork of the Snow River and Ptarmigan 

Creek drainage up through the ridgeline of the south facing slopes of Sheep 

Mountain to the highway south to the northwest slopes of Paradise Peak. The 

rest of the Snow River unit would be designated motorized including all of the 

South Fork of Snow River drainage. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 48 

12. Tiehack/Mt Alice – This unit would remain the same as the No Action 

Alternative. The western slopes of Tiehack Mountain would be designated nonmotorized. The rest of this unit would be designated motorized. 

2.9.4. Cabin Availability – Alternative 2 

Motorized users would have access to 10 cabins in Season A and 8 cabins in Season B. 

Non-motorized users may access all of the cabins during the motorized season. There 

would be exclusive non-motorized access to 7 cabins In Season A and 9 cabins in 

Season B. See Table 2-11. 

Table 2-11 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized) by Year, Alternative 2 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

Cabin 

Motorized Non-motorized Motorized Non-motorized 

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 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower 

Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper 

Paradise 9 9
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 49 

2.10. MITIGATION COMMON TO ALL ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

Education of both user groups and other mitigation would be needed if future monitoring 

indicates impacts are occurring to heritage resources because of winter use on the 

Seward Ranger District. The type of mitigation addressing the specific impacts would be 

determined once the cause is identified. 

2.10.1. Design Criteria for Access Corridor 

Management 

Motorized and non-motorized access corridors are defined in the Modified Preferred 

Alternative, Proposed Action, and Alternative 2. No capital improvements (parking lots, 

trail heads, bridges, etc) will be constructed as a result of this FEIS or Record of 

Decision (ROD). Clearing and signing of access corridors will be permitted. The 

following design criteria are adapted from the State of Alaska standards for 

Concentrated Use Areas (CUA): 

• Brush clearing for access corridors would average 5 feet in width. However, a corridor 

up to 12 feet in width may be needed depending on vegetation types or slopes. 

• In general, no trees larger than 6 inches diameter will be removed. 

• Hazard trees may be removed as needed. 

• Trees may be pruned up to about 15 feet above ground to clear the corridor for over 

snow travel. 

• Brush clearing will be done between September 1 and November 15. 

• No ground disturbing activity will occur as part of these designations. 

• Signing would be minimal but would include posting signs regarding the type of use 

on trees at the beginning and termini of the access corridor. 

• Signing for access corridors could include reassurance markers, maps and narrative 

descriptions posted at the established trailhead. 

The access corridors are described by narrative in the alternative descriptions and 

represented by lines on maps for the FEIS. The line will indicate that the travel route will 

be somewhere in or along the designated corridor but not at a specific place on the 

ground. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 50 

2.11. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT 

ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments provided 

suggestions for alternative methods of achieving the purpose and need. A number of 

alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed consideration. In some cases, 

only portions of alternatives or concepts were considered and dismissed. These are 

discussed below. 

2.11.1. Divide Resurrection 

Two variations of this alternative were considered. First, the Resurrection unit was 

divided into north and south sections with the dividing line just south of the Summit 

Creek Trail. The north portion contained half of the Resurrection unit and the south half 

contained all of the West Resurrection and half of the Resurrection unit. This was done 

because of the popularity of the area for both motorized and non-motorized users and 

because many public comments stated the current February 15 mid-season swap was 

not satisfactory. This was an attempt to provide both user groups with access to the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units each season. 

Mid-season Swap – This variation was designed to allow both user groups access 

to both portions of the area in a single season. For example, the north half would be 

motorized and the south half non-motorized for the first half of the season. The second 

half of the season the north half would be non-motorized and the south half motorized. 

The second year, the north half would be non-motorized and the south motorized for the 

first half of the season and so forth. 

Annual Swap – This variation attempted to simplify the mid-season swap alternative 

by keeping each portion motorized for a full season to each user and then swapping the 

second year. For example, the north half would be motorized and the south half nonmotorized the first year, then the north half non-motorized and the south half motorized 

the second year. 

Both variations of the Divide Resurrection Alternative were eliminated from further 

analysis for several reasons. The primary reason was the difficulty in finding a 

reasonable location to split the area to create a well-defined boundary. Without this, 

these alternatives would be too difficult to implement and enforce. Second, although 

public comment expressed a strong desire to provide both user groups access to these 

areas, these alternatives, in the end, created a situation similar to the existing situation. 

Lastly, the mid-season swap variation was more complicated than either the Forest 

Service or the public wanted. 

2.11.2. Various Season A/Season B Scenarios 

Numerous variations of alternating season (Season A/Season B) scenarios were drafted 

and discussed. Three were carried forward within the Proposed Action, Modified 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 51 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Examples of other variations 

include: 

1. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units Season A/Season B with the 

Snow River unit 

2. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units Season A/Season B with the 

Carter/Crescent and Russian units 

3. The Resurrection and West Resurrection units Season A/Season B with the 

Russian and Snow River units 

One of the factors in determining whether to carry an alternative with a Season 

A/Season B scenario forward was cabin availability for both user groups, particularly the 

balance of cabins across two years. The Season A/Season B scenario between the 

Russian and Snow River units would have provided 14 motorized and 2 non-motorized 

cabins one year and 7 motorized and 10 non-motorized the next. This was not felt to be 

a good balance. For both #2 and #3 above, there would have been 12 motorized and 5 

non-motorized one year and 8 motorized and 9 non-motorized the following. Again, the 

balance was not very good, but by adding a portion of the Snow River unit to the mix 

with the Carter/Crescent and Russian units, the balance was improved and this became 

Alternative 2. 

The Resurrection and West Resurrection units were always considered one-half of these 

Season A/Season B scenarios, as the public made their dissatisfaction with the existing 

mid-season swap well known. As displayed in the Divide Resurrection Alternative, 

various alternatives were attempted that did not use the Season A/Season B scenario 

between these two units and other units. 

2.11.3. Expand Kenai Lake-Black Mountain RNA 

Expanding the non-motorized area around the RNA in the Lost Lake unit was considered 

as a concept for an alternative. In the end, this concept was dismissed because it did not 

meet the purpose and need for action or standards and guidelines in the LRMP for 

Research Natural Area management. Specifically, the desired condition states, 

“Management for recreation uses are not emphasized. Recreation uses that interfere 

with the purpose of the RNA may be restricted (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 4-30).” The 

standards and guidelines found on pages 4-32 and 4-33 emphasize that no activity 

should take place that interferes with the purpose and intent of the RNA. 

Because no comments were received from the public specifically requesting this 

expansion, as well as the lack of existing access and avalanche terrain, this concept was 

dropped from further consideration. 

2.11.4. All Motorized 

To reply to several respondents, the team considered an alternative that would leave the 

entire project area motorized. Although non-motorized users would have access, this 

alternative was dropped from further analysis because it did not provide the balance 

between uses the Agency desired or that many of the public requested. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 52 

The decision to drop this alternative was also based on the LRMP. The LRMP contains 

specific goals under Recreational Opportunities, Access, and Facilities to “Maintain 

quality settings for non-motorized recreation opportunities” with an “Objective to provide 

winter and summer trails and areas for non-motorized recreation where motorized 

recreation is prohibited (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-8).” Another Goal is to “Maintain areas 

where natural quiet predominates consistent with the management area direction and 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Settings (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-8).” 

See also Desired Condition Forestwide – Recreation and Tourism, which states, “A mix 

of motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities (primarily non-motorized in 

summer and motorized in winter) will exist across the Forest (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-

13).” For the Kenai Peninsula Geographic Area – Recreation and Tourism, the desired 

condition states, “However, a number of areas will be closed to winter motorized 

recreation. These areas will provide non-motorized opportunities near existing roads, 

and in a few situations, in basins or larger areas where motorized sounds are not 

present (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-15).” 

2.11.5. Maximize Non-motorized Areas 

One alternative was considered that closed the north half of the Resurrection unit, all of 

the Russian and Carter/Crescent units to motorized used, as well as keeping the existing 

areas in the Summit, Tern Lake, Snow River, and Lost Lake units non-motorized. This 

alternative was dropped from further analysis because it did not provide the balance 

between uses the Agency desired or that many of the public requested. 

The decision to drop this alternative was based on the LRMP. The LRMP contains a 

specific goal under Recreational Opportunities, Access, and Facilities to “Maintain 

quality settings for motorized recreation opportunities (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-8).” 

As displayed in the All Motorized Alternative, the LRMP describes a desired condition 

that provides a mix of motorized and non-motorized use. The forestwide desired 

condition for Recreation and Tourism states, “A mix of motorized and non-motorized 

recreational opportunities (primarily non-motorized in summer and motorized in winter) 

will exist across the Forest (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-13).” For the Kenai Peninsula 

Geographic Area – Recreation and Tourism, the desired condition includes, “During the 

winter season, snowmachine and other winter motorized recreation will occur over most 

of the Kenai Peninsula (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-15).” 

2.11.6. Split Seasons 

The concept of split seasons, including day-on/day-off, week-on/week-off, and monthon/month-off, was considered. Public comment made it clear that this was not a desired 

situation because of daylight length, snow conditions, ability to enforce, and being 

confusing. For example, the team discussed the possibility of having the Resurrection 

unit motorized and Carter/Crescent non-motorized the first half of the season and then 

switching in mid-season. This alternative was confusing and difficult to enforce. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 53 

2.11.7. Speed Limits, Decibel Levels, Exhaust Systems, 

Types of Paddle 

A number of respondents wanted the plan to provide limits and controls on various 

aspects of snowmachine use. These include posting and enforcing speed limits, limiting 

noise, and requiring snowmachines to meet certain specifications related to exhaust 

systems and types of paddles. The LRMP provides one guideline that states, “The 

maximum noise level for snowmachines is the level expected for factory standard 

equipment (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-35).” The Chugach National Forest does not want to 

impose additional controls, largely because they are particularly difficult to enforce. 

2.11.8. Parallel Trails 

Several respondents recommended developing parallel trails to separate users, while 

others were opposed to the concept. No parallel trails have been suggested in any of the 

alternatives because existing trails are already in the best location and enforcing this 

type of trail system is difficult. 

2.11.9. Hope, Johnson Pass, and Ptarmigan/Grant 

These three units did not change across any of the alternatives. The Johnson Pass unit 

did not change, as it is considered outside the scope of the analysis, primarily because 

the Iditarod National Historic Trial runs through it as a motorized corridor. The Hope unit 

did not change because this unit is not used by many people except locals and there 

were no public comments requesting a change or indicating a conflict. The 

Ptarmigan/Grant unit also receives very little use from any user group. Although there 

were a handful of requests to make this unit either motorized or non-motorized, there 

appeared to be little, if any, existing conflicts. 

2.11.10. Close Carter/Crescent Permanently 

Although closing the Carter/Crescent unit was considered, this concept was not carried 

forward in any alternative because of the historical and traditional use by motorized 

users. Closing the Carter/Crescent unit permanently would not provide a fair and 

balanced use of this unit. 

2.11.11. Season A/Season B or Designate Lost Lake Nonmotorized Permanently 

Although designating the Lost Lake unit non-motorized was considered, this concept 

was not carried forward in any alternative because of the historical and traditional use by 

motorized users. It is widely known that the Lost Lake unit is one of the most popular 

motorized areas in the project area. Closing this unit permanently or even through a 

Season A/Season B scenario was not considered a reasonable alternative. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 2 54 

2.11.12. Designate Russian Permanently as Motorized 

Some respondents wanted the Russian unit permanently motorized, primarily to access 

the Barber Cabin. Many respondents believe the Barber Cabin is the only ADA 

accessible cabin in the project area, although Juneau Lake cabin is also ADA 

accessible. There is also a belief among many respondents that the Forest Service is 

required to provide motorized access to the cabin even if it is in a non-motorized area. 

Forest Service correspondence stated in a letter dated February 21, 2002. “Areas, 

roads, and trails on National Forests and grasslands that restrict or prohibit OHV/ATV 

use under Forest Plan Management Area Prescriptions or under a Forest Travel 

Plan/Transportation Plan are therefore restricted or prohibited to all people, including 

people with disabilities. An exception is the use of a wheelchair . . ., which may be used 

wherever foot travel is permitted.” 

The Russian unit receives the least amount of snowfall of all units and does not have 

high demand for motorized use. There are not many areas for snowmachiners to 

recreate and no real opportunities to get up on the mountains for either user group. 

Cabin allocation was another major consideration in whether to open the Russian unit 

permanently to motorized use (see 2.10.2.). 

Although no alternative allocates this unit for winter motorized use permanently, 

Alternative 2 does designate the unit for motorized use every other year through a 

Season A/Season B scenario. 

2.11.13. Restricting Use at High Elevations for Wildlife 

Public comments and internal concerns regarding biological issues, several methods 

were considered to address wildlife concerns. One of these was to limit use, motorized 

and non-motorized, to a pre-determined elevation level (e.g. 2,000 feet). This was not 

carried forward in any alternative, as the implementation and enforcement of a boundary 

line with no topographic features would be nearly impossible. 

2.11.14. Shorten Season for Wildlife 

Several versions of a shortened winter recreation season were considered for the 

purposes of limiting impacts to wildlife, particularly post-den emergence of bears. 

Existing LRMP standards and guidelines were considered adequate (USDA-FS, 2002a, 

p. 3-35, #4). 

2.12. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Tables 2-12 and 2-13 provide summaries of the No Action Alternative and the four action 

alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 55 

This page left intentionally blank
Kenai Winter Access 

 56 

Table 2-12 Comparison of Alternatives 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 

February 15 Mid-season Swap 

Yes (Resurrection and West Resurrection units) 

None None None 

Season A/Season B Scenario (designation alternates each winter season) 

None 

The Resurrection and West Resurrection units, together, alternate between motorized and nonmotorized use. 

The Resurrection and West Resurrection units, together, alternate between motorized and nonmotorized use. 

The Resurrectiounit alternates uwith the Carter/Crescent unit. 

Designated Access Corridors None 

2 non-motorized (1 in the Lost Lake unit and 1 in the Carter/Crescent unit) Motorized travel allowed up the S. Fork of Snow River (every year) (Snow River unit) 

2 non-motorized (1 in the Lost Lake unit and 1 in the Carter/Crescent unit) Motorized travel allowed up the S. Fork of Snow River (every year) (Snow River unit) 

None 

Trail River Campground Non-motorized Non-motorized, but grooming allowed Non-motorized, but grooming allowed Non-motorized Guided Helicopter Skiing in the Ptarmigan/ Grant and Snow River units 

Yes – Pt/Grant Yes – Snow River 

Yes – Pt/Grant No – Snow River 

Yes – Pt/Grant Yes – Snow River 

Yes – Pt/Grant Yes – Snow Riv
Final En

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 

Motorized:

• 7 all season • 9 until 2/15 midseason swap in the Resurrection unit 

Motorized:

• 14 Season A • 5 Season B 

Motorized:

• 15 Season A • 6 Season B 

Motorized:

• 5 Season A • 12 Season B 

Cabins 

Non-motorized:

• 1 all season • 9 after 2/15 midseason swap in the Resurrection unit 

Non-motorized:

• 3 Season A • 12 Season B 

Non-motorized:

• 2 Season A • 11 Season B 

Non-motorize

• 12 Season A • 5 Season B 
Kenai Winter Access 

 58 

Table 2-13 Percentage Acreage Designated Motorized and Non-motorized by Alternati

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Unit % 

Nonmotorized 

or 

Motorized % 

Nonmotorized 

or 

Motorized 

% Change % Non- motorized or Motorized 

% Change % Non- motorized or Motorized 

% Change 

100 Motorized 100 Motorized 0 100 Motorized 0 100 Motorized 0 

Hope 0 Feb. 15 Swap 0 Non- motorized 0 0 Non- motorized 0 0 Non- Motorized 0 

95 Feb. 15 Swap 99 Season A/ Season B NA 99 Season A/ Season B NA 99 Season A/ Season B NA 

Resurrection 

5 Motorized 1 Motorized -4 1 Motorized -4 1 Motorized -4 

88 Feb. 15 Swap 100 Season A/ Season B NA 100 Season A/ Season B NA 100 Non- motorized NA 

West Resurrection 12 Motorized 0 Motorized -12 0 Motorized -12 0 Motorized -12 

44 Motorized 15 Motorized -29 18 Motorized 15 2 Motorized -42 

Summit 

56 Non- motorized 85 Non- motorized 29 82 Non- motorized 85 98 Non- motorized 42 

9 Non- motorized 9 Non- motorized 0 9 Non- motorized 0 9 Non- motorized 0 

Johnson 81 Motorized 81 Motorized 0 81 Motorized 0 81 Motorized 0 Pass 

10 

Nonmotorized 

w/ GHS1

10 

Nonmotorized 

w/ GHS 

0 10 

Nonmotorized 

w/ GHS 

0 10 

Nonmotorized 

w/ GHS 

0 

46 Motorized 79 Motorized 33 84 Motorized 38 95 Motorized 49 

2 Season A/ Season B NA 

Tern Lake 54 Non- motorized 21 Non- motorized -33 16 Non- motorized -38 

3 Non- motorized -51 

1 GHS = Guided Helicopter Skiing 
Final En

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Unit % 

Nonmotorized 

or 

Motorized % 

Nonmotorized 

or 

Motorized 

% Change % Non- motorized or Motorized 

% Change % Non- motorized or Motorized 

% Change 

79 Motorized 41 Motorized -38 41 Motorized -38 10 Motorized -69 

Russian 21 Non- motorized 59 Non- motorized 38 59 Non- motorized 38 90 Non- motorized 69 Carter/ Crescent 100 Motorized 100 Motorized 0 100 Motorized 0 100 Season A/ Season B NA Ptarmigan/ Grant 100 Motorized 100 Motorized 0 100 Motorized 0 100 Motorized 0 

92 Motorized 91 Motorized -1 91 Motorized -1 91 Motorized -1 

Lost Lake (includes the RNA, 1%) 8 Non- motorized 9 Non- motorized 1 9 Non- motorized 1 9 Non- motorized 1 

86 Motorized 23 Motorized -63 94 Motorized 8 68 Motorized -18 

Snow River 14 Non- motorized 77 Non- motorized 63 6 Non- motorized -8 32 Non- motorized 18 

94 Motorized 36 Motorized -58 36 Motorized -58 36 Motorized -58 

Tiehack/Mt Alice 6 Non- motorized 64 Non- motorized 58 64 Non- motorized 58 64 Non- motorized 58 Totals 17 Feb. 15 Swap 18 Season A/ Season B NA 18 Season A/ Season B NA 21 Season A/ Season B NA (RNA 72 Motorized 61 Motorized -11 67 Motorized -5 56 Motorized -16 included in nonmotorized totals) 

11 Non- motorized 21 Non- motorized 10 15 Non- motorized 4 23 Non- motorized 12 
Kenai Winter Access 

 60 2.13. COMPARISON OF EFFECTS 

Table 2-14 Summary of Effects by Alternative and Issue Indicator 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Recreation: Range of Opportunities (1) Available terrain 

72% Motorized 11% Non-motorized 17% February 15 Mid-season Swap 

61% Motorized 21% Non-motorized 18% Season A/ Season B 

67% Motorized 15% Non-motorized 18% Season A/ Season B 

56% Motorized 23% Non-motorized 21% Season A/ Season B 

(2) Miles of winter trails or routes 

Non-motorized – 26 miles all season Motorized – 143 miles all season February 15 Midseason Swap Before/After: Motorized/Nonmotorized – 47 miles 

Season A Non-motorized – 41 miles Motorized – 175 miles Season B Non-motorized – 96 miles Motorized – 120 miles 

Season A Non-motorized – 40 miles Motorized – 177 miles Season B Non-motorized – 95 miles Motorized- 122 miles 

Season A Non-motorized – 69 miles Motorized – 146 miles Season B Non-motorized – 108 miles Motorized – 107 miles 

(3) Change in the range of winter opportunities No Change Same as Proposed Action 

Most opportunities would be available. Some historical trapping and hunting opportunities (those who do not qualify for subsistence) would be affected. 

Same as Proposed Action 
Final En

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Cabins (4) Number of cabins and season of use 

Motorized:

• 7 all season • 9 until 2/15 midseason swap Non-motorized:

• 1 all season • 9 after 2/15 midseason swap 

Motorized:

• 14 Season A • 5 Season B 

Non-motorized:

• 3 Season A • 12 Season B 

Motorized:

• 15 Season A • 6 Season B 

Non-motorized:

• 2 Season A • 11 Season B 

Motorized:

• 5 Season A • 12 Season B 

Non-motorized:

• 12 Season A • 5 Season B 

Range of Opportunities (5) Effects to both motorized and nonmotorized users – Season A

No Change 

Season A Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased non-motorized acreage in the Summit, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. Motorized users would benefit most from the extended season, the increased cabin availability in the Resurrection unit and, the motorized acreage in the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. 

Season A Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased non-motorized acreage in the Summit, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. Motorized users would benefit most from the extended season, the increased cabin availability in the Resurrection unit, and the motorized acreage in the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. 

Season A Non-motorized users would benefit most from the non-motorized acreage in the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Summit, Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice and Snow River units. Motorized users would benefit most from the motorized acreage in the Carter/Crescent and Lost units. Motorized opportunity would be reduced as a result of the nonmotorized designation in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units and cabins in the Resurrection unit. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 62 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Range of Opportunities (5) Effects to both motorized and nonmotorized users – Season B

 No Change 

Season B Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased acreage in the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Summit, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. Motorized opportunity would be reduced as a result of the nonmotorized designation in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units for the entire season. There is likely to be displacement of some well-established community and local uses into other units such as Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake. 

Season B Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased acreage in the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Summit, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. Motorized opportunity would be reduced as a result of the nonmotorized designation in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units for the entire season. There is likely to be displacement of some well-established community and local uses into other units such as Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake. 

Season BNon-motorized users would benefit most from the additional acreage in the Summit, Snow River, Tiehack/Mt Alice, and Carter/Crescent units. Motorized users would benefit most from the motorized acreage and cabin access in the Resurrection unit for the entire season. 
Final En

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Shared Use (1) Number of key units where the potential for encounters between motorized and non-motorized users are decreased or eliminated (2) Number of units where the potential for encounters is moderate to high 

No Change 

Season A Decrease - 4 units (Summit, Russian, Snow River, Tiehack/Mt Alice) Moderate to High Potential – 2 units (Resurrection and Carter/Crescent) Season B Decrease - 4 units (Resurrection, West Resurrection, Summit, Snow River) Moderate to High Potential – 2 units (Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent) 

Season A Decrease - 3 units (Summit, Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice) Moderate to High Potential – 2 units (Resurrection and Carter/Crescent) Season B Decrease - 3 units (Resurrection, West Resurrection, Summit) Moderate to High Potential – 2 units (Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent) 

Season A Decrease - 6 units (Resurrection, West Resurrection, majority of Summit, Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Snow River) Moderate to High Potential – 2 units (Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent) Season B Decrease - 5 units (Russian, Carter/Crescent, Summit, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Snow River) Moderate to High Potential – 4 units (Resurrection, Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, Johnson Pass ) 

(3) Change in safety-related conflicts as a result of encounters in the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units 

No Change 

Reduced in both the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units 

Reduced in both the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units No Change 
Kenai Winter Access 

 64 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Opportunity for Quiet: Number of units where natural quiet would be most attainable by season (Season A and Season B) 

No Change – most attainable in portions of 2 units (Summit and Russian) and in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units after February 15th 

Season A – 1 unit (Russian) Season B – 3 units (Russian, Resurrection, and West Resurrection) 

Season A – 2 units (Russian and Snow River) Season B – 4 units (Russian, Resurrection, West Resurrection, and Snow River) 

Season A – 4 units (Resurrection, West Resurrection, Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice) Season B – 3 units (Russian, Tiehack, Carter/Crescent) 

Wildlife Brown Bear No Change moderate impacts moderate impacts moderate impacts Moose No Change low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts Mountain Goat No Change negligible impacts negligible impacts negligible impacts Gray Wolf No Change low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts Lynx No Change low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts Marbled Murrelet 

No Change moderate impacts moderate impacts moderate impacts 

River Otter No Change moderate impacts moderate impacts moderate impacts Wolverine No Change moderate impacts moderate impacts moderate impacts Bald Eagle No Change low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts Northern Goshawk 

No Change low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts low-moderate impacts 

Dall Sheep No Change negligible impacts negligible impacts negligible impacts Barren Ground Caribou 

No Change negligible impacts negligible impacts negligible impacts 

Black Bear No Change low impacts low impacts low impacts Small Mammals No Change low impacts low impacts low impacts Migratory Birds No Change low impacts low impacts low impacts 
Final En

Alternatives, Including the Modified Preferred Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Draft EIS 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 

Economics No Change Same as Proposed 

Action 

Minimal effects. The impact of the proposed changes to winter motorized access will be fairly small. 

Same as Proposed Action 

Heritage Resources 

No Change Same as the Proposed 

Action 

Less vandalism/looting of historic buildings in the Resurrection unit during Season B. Increased vandalism and looting of historic buildings in the Resurrection unit during Season A. Increased damage to the historic Resurrection Trail from spring motorized use; mitigation may require an early closure. 

Same as Proposed Action 
Kenai Winter Access 

 66 

This page intentionally left blank 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 67 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment/Environmental 

Consequences 

Purpose and Organization of this Chapter 

This chapter presents two levels of analysis for each resource issue described: the 

existing conditions within each resource’s affected environment, and the potential effects 

of the alternatives on each resource. The Affected Environment section provides general 

information about the resource described and establishes a baseline against which 

effects of the alternatives may be compared. The Environmental Consequences section 

discloses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on each 

resource. 

In this analysis, direct and indirect effects are described for those activities that are 

proposed to occur on National Forest System lands. Cumulative effects consider the 

effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on both Federal and nonFederal lands, in addition to the direct and indirect effects of proposed project activities. 

Each resource analyzed has a defined cumulative effects analysis area, which may be 

different for each resource. 

An existing winter recreation use map (Map A-3-2) was developed by the interdisciplinary team as a baseline for the affected environment and cumulative effects. This 

map displays how and where people are currently recreating on the Seward Ranger 

District. The map and its data were used to focus the analysis on areas that are 

accessible and preferred by users. The map was based on recreation use maps 

developed for the Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing on the Kenai Peninsula FEIS 

(USDA-FS, 2004d), knowledge of recreation use by Forest Service recreation 

specialists, maps of local ski areas from public input, and aerial locations of recreation 

use (Poe et al., 2005). 

3.1. RECREATION 

3.1.1. Land and Resource Management Plan Direction 

Goals and Objectives 

The goals and objectives most significant to the recreation analysis are found in the Use 

and Occupation section of the LRMP. One area of emphasis that applies is the 

Recreational Opportunities, Access and Facilities section. Detailed descriptions of these 

issues may be found in the LRMP, pages 3-7 to 3-9 (USDA-FS, 2002a). The LRMP 

Recreation and Tourism standards and guidelines are found on pages 3-35 to 3-40 and 

3-47 to 3-48. Map A-3-1 displays the LRMP management prescriptions that apply to the 

analysis area. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 68 

Desired Conditions 

The LRMP describes the Desired Condition Forestwide for Recreation and Tourism on 

pages 3-13 to 3-15. The Desired Conditions specific to the recreation portion of this 

analysis are: 

• During the winter season, snowmachine and other winter motorized recreation will 

occur over most of the Kenai Peninsula. However, a number of areas will be closed to 

winter motorized recreation (p. 3-15). 

• Non-motorized opportunities will exist near existing roads, and in a few situations, in 

basins or larger areas where motorized sounds are not present (p. 3-15). 

• Scenery along the Seward Highway All-American Road and other major travel 

corridors will be managed to maintain the natural appearance of the landscape (p. 3-

15). 

Recreation Setting 

All management areas have been assigned a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

classification. ROS is the framework that has been developed for describing the 

relationships between different recreation opportunities and their desired settings 

(USDA-FS, 2002j). The ROS classifications that apply to the project area include 

primitive (P), semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), 

roaded natural (RN), roaded modified (RM), and rural (R). Winter motorized use is 

allowed in SPNM and is specifically addressed in the LRMP Winter Motorized 

Recreation Access Map. There are no urban settings related to this project. In addition, a 

complete description of these classifications is included here and in the recreation 

specialist report in the project record. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a system for planning and managing 

recreation resources that categorizes recreation opportunities into eight classes. Each 

class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience 

needs based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the type 

of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the 

relative density of recreation use. The classes found in the project area are: 

Primitive (P) - An unmodified environment generally greater than 5,000 acres in size and 

generally located at least 3 miles from all roads and other motorized travel routes. A very 

low interaction between users (generally less than three group encounters per day) 

results in a very high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness to nature, 

tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. Evidence of other users is low. Restrictions 

and controls are not evident after entering the land unit. Motorized use is rare. Motorized 

activities are allowed for traditional and subsistence activities. 

Semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) - A natural or natural-appearing environment 

generally greater than 2,500 acres in size and generally located at least 1/2 mile (greater 

or less depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1/4 mile) but not further 

than 3 miles from all roads and other motorized travel routes. Concentration of users is 

low (generally less than 10 group encounters per day), but there is often evidence of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 69 

other users. There is a high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness of 

nature, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. There is a minimum of subtle on-site 

controls. No roads are present in the area. 

Semi-primitive motorized (SPM) - A natural or natural-appearing environment generally 

greater than 2,500 acres in size and generally located within 1/2 mile of primitive roads 

and other motorized travel routes used by motor vehicles; but not closer that 1/2 mile 

(greater or less depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1/4 mile) from 

better-than-primitive roads and other motored travel routes. Concentration of users is 

low (generally less than 10 group encounters per day), but there is often evidence of 

other users. There is a moderate probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to 

nature, and tranquility along with a high degree of self-reliance, challenge, and risk in 

using motorized equipment. Local roads may be present, or along saltwater shorelines 

there may be extensive boat traffic. 

Roaded natural (RN) - Modification and utilization are evident, in a predominantly 

naturally appearing environment generally occurring within 1⁄2 mile (greater or less 

depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1⁄4 mile) from better-than-primitive 

roads and other motorized travel routes. Interactions between users may be moderate to 

high (generally less than 20 group encounters per day), with evidence of other users 

prevalent. There is an opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with 

some chance for privacy. Self-reliance on outdoor skills is only of moderate importance 

with little opportunity for challenge and risk. Motorized use is allowed. 

Roaded modified (RM) - Vegetative and landform alterations typically dominate the 

landscape. There is little on-site control of users except for gated roads. There is 

moderate evidence of other users on roads (generally less than 20 group encounters per 

day), and little evidence of others or interactions at campsites. There is opportunity to 

get away from others but with easy access. Some self-reliance is required in building 

campsites and use of motorized equipment. A feeling of independence and freedom 

exists with little challenge and risk. Recreation users will likely encounter timber 

management activities. 

Rural (R) - The natural environment is substantially modified by land use activities. 

Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is important as is convenience of 

facilities. There is little opportunity for challenge and risk and self-reliance on outdoor 

skills is of little importance. Recreation facilities designed for group use are compatible. 

Users may have more that 20 group encounters per day. 

3.1.2. Analysis Area and Recreation Assumptions 

The Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest is the bounds of recreation 

analysis for the Kenai Winter Access project. 

The analysis area offers a wide variety of terrain for winter recreation activities. For the 

purposes of this analysis, recreationists are considered either motorized or nonmotorized. Several assumptions were utilized to display variations in recreation use and 

patterns of use. While there are likely to be exceptions and deviations based on 

individual experiences and skill level, assumptions provide a baseline for evaluation and 

analysis. Key assumptions are: 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 70 

• Most non-motorized users do not travel more then 3.5 miles from a plowed road for 

day use. Skate skiers and dog mushers may travel over 5 miles a day. Most 

snowmachiners travel at least 10 miles a day. 

• Areas around communities receive more use. 

• Severe weather conditions can limit and restrict all types of winter activities. 

• Winter use generally increases after mid-February when there are over 8 hours of 

daylight and the snowpack firms up. 

• Most recreation facilities are located along road corridors. The Seward Highway is the 

only road heading south from Anchorage. It provides some level of access (a mix of 

trailheads or pullouts) to most units with the exception of the Russian unit. The 

highway also provides key access to the communities of Moose Pass and Seward. 

• The Sterling Highway accesses the Resurrection, Russian, Carter/Crescent, and Tern 

Lake units. It provides access to the community of Cooper Landing. 

• The Hope Highway provides access to the Hope unit and to the northern portion of 

the Resurrection unit. 

• The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 

allows for motorized use along highways (100 feet on either side from the centerline) 

and snowmachine use is expected to occur in the highway corridors. 

• Abandoned highway corridors (such as the Old Sterling Highway) and power line 

corridors are routinely used by local residents to travel to adjacent communities such 

as Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, and Hope. The companies that maintain the power 

lines do not recommend their use for travel but motorized use of these corridors is 

authorized as long as the surrounding area is designated motorized. 

• Access to some winter use areas occurs through private lands. For example, access 

to the Lost Lake Trailhead, which is located on National Forest System lands, occurs 

through a private subdivision. 

• State lands provide key access to the Chugach National Forest. Snowmachine use is 

provided via State lands in areas such as Upper and Lower Summit, the Hope Y, 

Cooper Landing, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Tern Lake, and Moose Pass. State lands without 

special designations are open to motorized use. See Map A-2-1 for the location of 

lands that are not part of the National Forest System. 

• The available terrain in a unit may not all be desirable or usable terrain. Steep slopes 

or lack of access limits the amount of desirable or usable terrain in the project area. 

Recreation Analysis Issues 

Issue 1. Range of Winter Recreation Opportunities 

Changing land allocations within the project area between motorized and non-motorized 

use could affect the range of opportunities available. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 71 

All groups want the ability to enjoy and have access to a variety of terrain and 

experiences. Users want areas that are large enough and allocated for a long enough 

period during the winter to encompass a full range of activities. With winter snowpack 

being uncertain, each user group needs a mix of both low and high elevation areas in 

order to recreate throughout the winter season. 

No group wants to lose the ability to access the forest as they have in the past. While 

some motorized users desire short duration day trips to certain areas for snowplay, 

others may seek overnight family-oriented cabin experiences. Some prefer a more 

extreme backcountry experience or prefer long distance rides. Non-motorized users may 

want short duration cross-country ski experiences that are easily accessed from 

highways or roads, or they may be looking for a multi-day backcountry tour to the cabins. 

Others may be seeking terrain that has steep slopes and ridges for an extreme 

backcountry telemarking experience. 

All users want the ability to access cabins in the winter. Families and users interested in 

recreating at cabins and in the Carter/Crescent unit are concerned they may be 

displaced from an area they have historically used. Citizens who reside in the area have 

historically used both motorized and non-motorized means to access National Forest 

System lands for a variety of activities (including using snow for access to gather 

firewood as well as for recreational use). 

Indicators 

• Available terrain in acres and miles of trail or winter route for motorized and 

non-motorized uses 

• Number of cabins available for reservation (The Forest Service manages 17 

cabins on the Seward Ranger District that are available for reservation by 

recreation users) 

• Change in the range of winter recreation opportunities 

Issue 2. Recreation Experience 

Both motorized and non-motorized users want a quality experience when they recreate. 

Neither group wants their recreational experience impacted by conflict with others. 

Both motorized and non-motorized users indicated that shared winter use on particular 

trails and in certain areas can be hazardous. This can diminish their experience. Steep 

terrain and winter trails located in constricted valley bottoms result in users sharing 

common corridors. Most trails providing access into the backcountry were originally 

designed for summer use and typically have a 20-foot corridor. In most cases, steepsided slopes, gorges, and ravines limit options for separating use. Examples noted by 

the public include the Lost Lake Trail, the Primrose Trail to Lost Lake, and the Carter 

Lake Trail. To reduce conflict, some non-motorized users are avoiding areas where 

interactions are highest and seek out areas where concentrated motorized use is less 

likely. Likewise, motorized users are concerned with the safety of shared use and may 

avoid those trails where use is concentrated. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 72 

Some non-motorized users indicated their recreation experience is diminished when 

they hear motorized noise. This occurs most frequently at shared staging areas and 

shared use areas. Some feel they have had to make a trade-off between an acceptable 

amount of noise and utilizing their favored areas. Some recreationists are looking for 

areas where natural quiet can be expected. 

Two issue elements have been identified to describe recreation experience 

environmental consequences. The elements are Shared Use and the Opportunity for 

Quiet. 

Indicators 

• Shared Use: Change (increase, decrease, no change) in the potential for 

encounters between and within motorized and non-motorized users in key 

units including Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, Resurrection, and Russian 

• Opportunity for Quiet: Narrative on the ability to experience quiet (natural 

quiet)

3.1.3. Affected Environment for the Range of Winter 

Recreation Opportunities 

Non-motorized Winter Recreation 

For this analysis, the term non-motorized recreationist includes: 

• Backcountry touring, skate skiers, skijorers, and snowboarders – Some skiers and 

snowboarders travel away from the highway system seeking steeper terrain. Also 

individuals skiing to public use cabins and those utilizing skate skis and traditional 

Nordic skis travel away from the highway system but seek flatter terrain (i.e. valley 

bottoms, trails, etc). 

• Snowshoers – People utilizing snowshoes to access backcountry areas. 

• Dog mushers – People utilizing sled dogs to access backcountry areas. 

• Hunting, trapping and fishing recreationists – People who use non-motorized means 

for access. 

Motorized Winter Recreation 

For this analysis, motorized recreationist includes: 

Snowmachine users: This group includes recreationists using over-the-snow machines 

for access. There are three types of snowmachine user groups: 

1. Day users who are using the snowmachine as an access tool 

2. Cabin users who travel in, stay overnight, and participate in various activities 

3. Extreme riders, including snow play and long distance riders 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 73 

Currently, the LRMP allows for snowmachine use in all geographic units with the 

exception of 1) the Resurrection and West Resurrection units after February 15 and 2) a 

portion of the Russian, Lost Lake, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Snow River, Tern Lake, and Summit 

units. Table 2-13 displays the percentage of land designated for motorized and nonmotorized use in each alternative, compared to the existing condition. See also Map A-2-

1, No Action Alternative. 

Guided Helicopter Skiers – Helicopter skiers are delivered to drop-off points on ridges or 

peaks by helicopters, gathered at pickup points after skiing down, and ferried back to 

drop-off points. Most use alpine equipment, but telemark, touring, and snowboard gear is 

also used. 

Since 1996, a commercially guided helicopter skiing special use permit for 800 to 1,200 

client days has been authorized. In September 2004, the decision was made to 

authorize 2,200 client days in core and exploratory areas in the Record of Decision for 

the Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing (CGHS) on the Kenai Peninsula FEIS 

(USDA-FS, 2004e, p. 1-19). Although these exploratory areas are cleared by the CGHS 

decision, the Chugach National Forest did not issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) in the 

East Ptarmigan and Snow River exploratory units. The decision to permit these two 

areas will be analyzed in this Kenai Winter Access (KWA) FEIS for the Kenai Forest 

Plan Amendment. This will ensure the CGHS SUP will be compatible with any new 

direction from the KWA FEIS. The exploratory units subject to this analysis decision are 

located in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units (Map A-2-1, No Action Alternative). 

Winter Recreation Use Patterns 

Seward Ranger District observations indicate winter recreationists are primarily from the 

south-central areas of Alaska. This includes the communities of Moose Pass, Seward, 

Soldotna, Cooper Landing, Sterling, Hope, and Anchorage. 

By February each year, winter use increases throughout the analysis area due to 

increased daylight. Most use is day use and occurs on weekends. Due to the annual 

uncertainty of the snowpack, use will vary by year. However, some units provide more 

consistent snow conditions. For example, the Carter/Crescent unit is favored because it 

provides easier access into the higher elevations. The Lost Lake unit is valued because 

of its deep snowpack and large contiguous acreage. This analysis uses data from cabin 

registrations, guided helicopter skiing special use permit allocations, and Seward Ranger 

District trailhead use figures from 2000 to 2005 (USDA-FS, 2002-2005, p. 1-50). 

The following trails receive the most motorized use: Lost Lake (Lost Lake unit), Snug 

Harbor Road (serves the Lost and Russian units), Primrose (Lost Lake unit), and Carter 

Lake (Carter/Crescent unit). The Manitoba Cabin Winter Route (Summit unit), Bean 

Creek Trail (Resurrection unit), Summit Creek Trail (Summit unit), and Snow River 

Winter Route (Snow River unit) appear to receive the most non-motorized use. This 

information is consistent with the values expressed by the public during the scoping 

period and collaborative workshops, and is consistent with Seward Ranger District 

observations. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 74 

Trailheads, Campgrounds, and Trails 

Although several trailheads and campgrounds exist throughout the project area, some 

roads are not plowed during the winter, which reduces available parking for winter 

recreation (Map A-3-3, Recreation Infrastructure Map). Overall, there are approximately 

216 miles of trail, winter routes, and gated or abandoned roads on National Forest 

System lands that provide winter access and recreation opportunities. In some cases, 

winter travel may occur via summer trail corridors; however, the majority of trails on the 

Seward Ranger District were designed and built for summer use only. It is common for 

summer trails to close in with snow, rendering them impassible. Given the nature of the 

terrain, which is often a narrow corridor with steep side slopes, most users have to share 

the valley bottoms to access the backcountry. Six trails and routes that are specifically 

managed for winter use include: 1) Johnson Pass Trail (from the northeast end of Trail 

Lake), 2) Resurrection Pass Trail, 3) Lost Lake Winter Route, 4) Primrose Trail, 5) 

Russian Lakes Trail (from the plowed section of the Snug Harbor Road to the Aspen 

Flats cabin), and 6) Rainbow Lakes access to the Lost Lake area. On these trails and 

routes, reassurance markers (posts placed in the snow with orange rectangular 

diamonds) are placed along the route in key locations to delineate the route or corridor. 

Trails and routes with a history of avalanches or numerous slide paths are not 

recommended for winter use. 

Cabins 

There are 17 public use cabins available for rental. Comments received from the public 

indicate that the cabins are an important winter recreation opportunity that has become a 

traditional use for many local residents. 

The distance from the trailheads and parking areas typically correlates to the amount of 

use each cabin receives. In addition, cabin use correlates to travel conditions. Low 

winter use is generally attributed to difficult access. Use increases to a more moderate 

level when access improves. Occupancy and revenue figures from the winter of 2004-

2005 indicate that popular cabin rentals included Barber, Juneau, and Trout Lake (not an 

all inclusive list) (USDA-FS, 2005a). The Barber Cabin is easily accessed, because it is 

located 3 miles from the Russian River Campground. The Juneau Cabin, although it is 9 

miles from the access points, is considered to have relatively easy access due to travel 

on the Resurrection Trail. In addition, the cabin was recently rehabilitated. Once this 

occurred, the Seward Ranger District noticed a marked increase in use. The Trout Lake 

Cabin is the first cabin in the Resurrection unit that can be reached from three access 

points. The cabin location allows for a full range of activities including ice fishing and 

hunting. This cabin also provides more privacy than others do. Regardless of location, 

avalanche conditions exist. It is common for travel to certain cabins to be discouraged 

and particular routes avoided. A more detailed description of cabin attributes can be 

found in the recreation specialist report located in the project record. 

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Opportunities 

Fishing is an important recreation activity in the winter season. It is considered a 

historical activity for communities such as Cooper Landing and Moose Pass. Families 

typically leave their communities via snowmachine and travel to their favorite lakes. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 75 

following lakes, which are stocked by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), 

are used for winter fishing: 

• Rainbow Lake (Russian unit) 

• Carter and Crescent Lakes (Carter/Crescent unit) 

• Meridian Lake (Lost Lake unit) 

• Long Lake (Lost Lake unit) 

• Upper Summit (Summit unit) 

• Jerome Lake (Tern Lake unit) 

Other lakes, which are local favorites but are not stocked, include Trout Lake, Juneau 

Lake, Johnson Lake, and Upper Russian Lake. Two other lakes, which are stocked, but 

were not mentioned by the public as important for winter recreation are Troop 

(Tiehack/Mt Alice unit) and Vagt (Ptarmigan/Grant unit) lakes. 

Hunting and recreational trapping (those users who do not qualify for subsistence) are 

historical activities on the Seward Ranger District. The Seward Ranger District is within 

the ADF&G hunting and trapping unit 7. Trapping is common in the Russian, 

Resurrection, Snow River, and Johnson Pass units. Abandoned roadways and power 

line corridors adjacent to highways and roads provide access to trapping areas. In 

relation to statewide harvest numbers, the Kenai Peninsula provides a relatively small 

portion of the take (ADF&G, 2004, p. 1-7). However, the Resurrection unit is a prime 

ptarmigan hunting area. It is not unusual for hunters and trappers, who often use 

snowmachines to access areas, to have encounters with non-motorized users. This is 

particularly true for trapping activities. Comments received from trappers during the 

scoping period indicated areas that used to be primarily accessed with snowmachines 

are now used by non-motorized users accompanied by their pets. 

Desirable and Usable Terrain 

Regardless of user type, there is the desire for large contiguous areas with a variety of 

low and high elevation terrain. This allows the recreationist to select different routes or 

terrain when there is uncertain snowpack. Being able to quickly access desirable terrain 

off highways and roadways is important. Recreationists want a variety of terrain that 

includes slopes that are gentle to moderate for day use purposes, as well as steeper 

terrain where challenges are found and more skills are necessary. 

The ability to access the terrain is important. For example, thousands of acres of 

potentially desirable terrain exist for both motorized and non-motorized users within the 

Seward Ranger District. However, a lack of bridges, trailheads, and plowed areas to 

park often prevents access into the area. An example of this is the terrain north of 

Manitoba Mountain (in the Summit unit). Many ridges in that area would be desirable for 

winter recreation, but crossing Canyon Creek into this area is not possible. 

In 2004, the Seward and Glacier Ranger Districts reviewed and mapped terrain that is 

used by both motorized and non-motorized based on their common knowledge of the 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 76 

area and field observations. The 2004 Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing Analysis 

also considered areas known to be used for winter recreation. The best available 

information indicates that winter recreation use occurs primarily along travel corridors in 

the valley bottoms. Some of the more heavily traveled areas for both motorized and nonmotorized use included the Resurrection Pass Trail, Russian Lakes Trail, Johnson Pass 

Trail (North and South), the Summit corridor, Lost Lake, and Primrose Trail (USDA-FS, 

2004d, p. 3-18, Map 3-5A, 3-5B). 

Due to the coarse scale of the mapping, precise acreage figures are not available. 

However, some broad generalizations can be made using round numbers: 

• Of the 835,700 acres of National Forest System lands on the Seward Ranger District, 

about 300,000 acres occur on slopes greater than 51 percent. These areas are rarely 

used for general winter recreation. 

• Over 300,000 acres occur on slopes between 21 percent and 50 percent. On these 

slopes, many opportunities for moderate to extreme winter recreation experience 

exist, but only if sufficient access is available. 

• Over 250,000 acres occur on slopes up to 20 percent. It is in this category that the 

trailheads, parking lots, pullouts, and most of the trails are found. 

When the existing recreation use data (noted above) and the associated map is 

compared to the 835,700 acre Seward Ranger District, the limitations for usable terrain 

become more apparent. The Existing Winter Recreation Use Map (Map A-3-2) displays 

the areas currently known to be used for winter recreation. Of the total acreage, winter 

recreationists currently use approximately 132,000 acres of terrain – about 15 percent of 

the total Seward Ranger District. Motorized and non-motorized users share 

approximately 14,000 acres of terrain. The units with the most shared use are 

Resurrection, Tern Lake, and Summit. For more information, please refer to the 

recreation specialist report located in the project record. 

Motorized Preferences 

Popular areas for motorized use include the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Carter 

Crescent, Lost Lake, Ptarmigan-Grant, and Johnson Pass units. 

• The Resurrection unit offers a long distance (39 mile) route with cabins and snowplay 

areas. The Carter/Crescent unit (and Carter Lake Trail) is popular because it has 

easier access into the higher elevations. The Lost Lake unit is valued because of its 

deep snowpack and large contiguous acreage. The Tern Lake and Ptarmigan-Grant 

units offer easy access from the local Moose Pass community. The Johnson Pass 

unit offers a long-distance (23-mile) route. The Summit unit is also desirable to 

motorized users because of the easy access from the Seward Highway and the 

variety of slopes it provides. 

• Challenging terrain and steep slopes are found throughout the project area, and the 

Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units are favorites for snowmachine snowplay. The 

South Fork of the Snow River (Snow River unit) offers moderate to extreme 

opportunities when conditions are favorable. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 77 

Non-motorized Preferences 

• Popular areas for non-motorized use include the Summit, Tiehack/Mt Alice, 

Resurrection, West Resurrection, Russian, and Carter/Crescent units. Short duration 

and easy to moderate ski, snowshoe, and cross country touring opportunities exist in 

all units. The summit unit is popular because of its variety of terrain and ease of 

access from the Seward Highway. The Tiehack/Mt Alice unit is popular because it is 

close to Seward and has relatively easy access to moderate and extreme terrain. 

• All units provide the ability to have multi-day trips. However, multi-day trips are 

particularly favorable in the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Russian, and 

Carter/Crescent units due to the public use cabins. 

Preferences Common to both Motorized and Non-motorized 

Recreation 

• The Carter Crescent unit is popular because it has easier access into the higher 

elevations. The Lost Lake unit is valued because of its deep snowpack and large 

contiguous acreage. The Summit unit is desirable due to the ease of access from the 

Seward Highway and the variety of slopes. 

• Core community use areas for both motorized and non-motorized are the 

Carter/Crescent, Tern Lake, Lost Lake, Resurrection, and Ptarmigan/Grant units due 

to their proximity to the communities. The Russian unit is not included as it has more 

challenging terrain and access. The Tern Lake unit is important because it provides 

the connectivity from Cooper Landing to Moose Pass. 

• Access to the public use cabins is primarily provided in six units: Resurrection, West 

Resurrection, Carter/Crescent, Lost Lake, Hope, and Russian. 

• Hunting and trapping using both motorized and non-motorized means for access is 

most prevalent in the Resurrection, West Resurrection, Russian, and Snow River 

units. 

3.1.4. Environmental Consequences for the Range of 

Winter Recreation Opportunities 

Three indicators are used in the analysis of this issue. 

Indicators 

• Available terrain in acres and miles of trail or winter route for motorized and 

non-motorized uses 

• Number of cabins available for reservation 

• Change in the range of winter recreation opportunities 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 78 

Methods 

To display the environmental consequences, we will compare the percentage of terrain 

that is designated motorized and non-motorized to determine how land use allocations 

would vary for each group by season and alternative on a large, unit-wide scale. At a 

smaller scale, the miles of trail or winter route is used to display how access would vary 

for both groups by season and alternative. Because cabin availability is an important 

opportunity for both motorized and non-motorized users, this indicator is used to display 

how access to important public use cabins varies for each group by season and 

alternative. Finally, a summary is provided on how the range of winter opportunities 

changes for both motorized and non-motorized by season and alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In the No Action Alternative, approximately 71 percent of the project area would be 

designated motorized, 11 percent would be designated non-motorized, and about 17 

percent would be managed by splitting the winter season between motorized and nonmotorized use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units (February 15 mid-season 

swap) (see Table 2-13). 

Of the 216 miles of available winter trails and routes, approximately 26 miles would 

continue to be solely available as non-motorized access all season. After February 15, 

non-motorized trails and routes would increase to approximately 73 miles because of the 

swap of the trails in the Resurrection unit. Overall, the majority of routes would continue 

to provide multiple use access with 143 miles of trails and routes available to motorized 

uses for an entire winter season. 

Access to one cabin for exclusive non-motorized use would be available for the entire 

season. The number would increase to 10 when the Resurrection unit is designated nonmotorized after February 15. For motorized uses, access to 7 cabins would be available 

for the entire winter season and 10 additional cabins available until the February 15 midseason swap (Table 3-1). 

The existing range of opportunities (snowmachining, skiing, snowshoeing, mushing, 

fishing, hunting, and trapping) would not change and would continue to be a mix of 

motorized and non-motorized uses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 79 

Table 3-1 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), No Action Alternative. Unit 

Cabin 

Motorized 

(Until 

Feb. 15 swap)

Nonmotorized 

(After 

Feb. 15) 

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

Cabin Access, remaining units. Unit 

Cabin Motorized

Nonmotorized 

Barber 9

Aspen Flats 9

Russian 

Upper Russian 9

Crescent Lake 9

C/C 

Crescent 

Saddle 9

Lost 

Lake Dale Clemens 9

Lower Paradise 9

Snow River 

Upper Paradise 9
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 80 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

• Because non-motorized uses are not precluded in any unit, the range of opportunities 

would not change in any alternative. It is the quality of the recreational experience 

that may be affected. 

• The ROS classifications that include primitive (P), semi-primitive non-motorized 

(SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), roaded modified (RM), 

and rural (R) would not change in any alternative. 

Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Most opportunities (snowmachining, skiing, snowshoeing, dog mushing, and fishing) 

would be available and would be a mix of motorized and non-motorized use. This 

alternative does not include the February 15 mid-season swap between motorized and 

non-motorized use. The Proposed Action designates the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units as motorized for the entire winter season in the first season and then 

non-motorized the entire winter season the second season (Season A/Season B). 

In this alternative, approximately 67 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 15 percent would be non-motorized, and 18 percent would be managed as 

an alternating Season A/Season B scenario (see Tables 2-3 and 2-13). In comparison to 

the No Action Alternative, the acreage available to motorized access decreases. 

Season A 

Approximately 40 miles of winter trail and routes would be solely available to nonmotorized users for an entire season, an increase (mostly from the Russian and Summit 

units) when compared to the No Action Alternative. The majority of available winter 

routes would be multiple-use with 177 miles of trails or routes designated motorized. 

Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased non-motorized acreage in 

the Russian, Summit, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. 

Motorized users would have increased access to the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units in the late season when there is more daylight and better snowpack. 

Winter cabin use, which has been relatively low, is likely to increase in this unit. Shared 

use of this unit would occur, possibly increasing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized groups. Some non-motorized users may decide against utilizing the 

Resurrection unit if the trail condition deteriorates as a result of increased motorized use. 

If this occurs, there is likely to be some shifting of non-motorized use into the Russian 

unit, particularly to the already popular Barber Cabin. Overall, motorized opportunities 

benefit most from the extended season and the increased cabin availability in the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units and the motorized Carter/Crescent and Lost 

Lake units (Table 3-2). 

Season B 

The available trails and routes solely available for non-motorized users would increase 

to approximately 95 miles with the addition of the Resurrection and West Resurrection 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 81 

units. The remainder of the winter routes would be multiple-use with 122 miles of trails 

designated for motorized use. Non-motorized users would benefit most with the 

increased acreage in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units in Season B. 

Motorized users would be most affected by the inability to use the Resurrection unit for 

the entire season. There is likely to be displacement of some well-established 

community and local uses into other units such as Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake. The 

desire to utilize other cabins is likely not to equal or replace the Resurrection cabin 

opportunity that allows for a multi-day/multi-cabin trip. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for the Proposed Action 

Local communities accustomed to using the cabins in the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake 

units would continue to have motorized access to these cabins. While the Aspen Flats 

cabin would not be accessible to motorized users, the Upper Russian cabin would 

continue to be available. The ability to utilize this cabin is likely to compensate for the 

loss of the Aspen Flats cabin (Table 3-2). 

Table 3-2 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Proposed Action 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

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 Lake 9 9

C/C 

Crescent Saddle 9 9

Lost 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 82 

Winter motorized travel opportunities for local communities would increase because of 

the motorized corridor that connects Cooper Landing and Moose Pass to Lower Summit 

Lake. Motorized travel to the Hope Y from Lower Summit Lake is possible but only within 

state lands or within 100 feet of highway on National Forest System lands. 

The exploratory areas for guided helicopter skiing would be eligible for special use 

permits. Terrain available for guided helicopter skiing would increase if the exploratory 

areas in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units were authorized. 

In both seasons, trapping (for those who do not qualify for subsistence) may be affected. 

The motorized closure in the Russian unit would remove the section of the Russian 

Lakes Trail between Upper Russian, Aspen Flats, and Stetson Creek from use by 

snowmachines. Both hunting and trapping would be affected when the Resurrection unit 

is designated non-motorized. Other use areas would have to be utilized. 

Modified Preferred Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Most opportunities (snowmachining, skiing, snowshoeing, dog mushing, and fishing) 

would be available and would be a mix of motorized and non-motorized use. This 

alternative does not include a mid year swap between motorized and non-motorized use. 

The Modified Preferred Alternative designates the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units as motorized for the entire winter season in the first season and then nonmotorized the entire winter season the second season (Season A/Season B). 

In this alternative, approximately 61 percent of the project area would be motorized, 21 

percent would be non-motorized, and 18 percent would be managed as an alternating 

Season A/Season B scenario (see Tables 2-5, and 2-13). In comparison to the No 

Action Alternative, the acreage available to motorized access decreases. 

Season A 

Approximately 41 miles of winter trail and routes would be solely available to nonmotorized users for an entire season, an increase (mostly from the Russian, Tiehack/Mt 

Alice, and Summit units) when compared to the No Action Alternative. The majority of 

available winter routes would be multiple-use with 175 miles of trails designated 

motorized. Non-motorized users would benefit most from the increased non-motorized 

acreage in the Russian, Summit, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. 

Motorized users would have increased access to the Resurrection and West 

Resurrection units in the late season when there is more daylight and better snowpack. 

Winter cabin use, which has been relatively low, is likely to increase in this unit. Shared 

use of this unit would occur, possibly increasing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized groups. Some non-motorized users may decide against utilizing the 

Resurrection unit if the trail condition deteriorates as a result of increased motorized use. 

If this occurs, there is likely to be some shifting of non-motorized use into the Russian 

unit, particularly to the already popular Barber Cabin. Overall, motorized opportunities 

benefit most from the extended season and the increased cabin availability in the 

Resurrection and West Resurrection units and the motorized Carter/Crescent and Lost 

Lake units (Table 3-3). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 83 

Season B 

The available trails and routes solely available for non-motorized users would increase 

to approximately 96 miles with the addition of the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units. The remainder of available winter routes would be multiple-use with 120 miles of 

trails or routes motorized. Non-motorized opportunities would benefit most with the 

increased acreage in the Resurrection, Summit, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. 

Motorized users would be most affected by the inability to use the Resurrection unit for 

the entire season. There is likely to be displacement of some well-established 

community and local uses into other units such as Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake. The 

desire to utilize other cabins is likely not to equal or replace the Resurrection cabin 

opportunity that allows for a multi-day/multi-cabin trip. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for the Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Local communities accustomed to using the cabins in the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake 

units would continue to have motorized access to these cabins. While the Aspen Flats 

cabin would not be accessible to motorized users, the Upper Russian cabin would 

continue to be available. The ability to utilize this cabin is likely to compensate for the 

loss of the Aspen Flats cabin (Table 3-3). 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 84 

Table 3-3 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

Cabin Motorized

Nonmotorized MotorizedNonmotorized 

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 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9

Winter motorized travel opportunities for local communities would increase because of 

the motorized corridor that connects Cooper Landing and Moose Pass to Lower Summit 

Lake. Motorized travel to the Hope Y from Lower Summit Lake is possible but only within 

state lands or within 100 feet of highway on National Forest System lands. 

Some of the exploratory areas for guided helicopter skiing would be eligible for special 

use permits. Terrain available for guided helicopter skiing would increase if the 

exploratory area in the Ptarmigan/Grant unit was authorized. 

In both seasons, trapping (for those who do not qualify for subsistence) may be affected. 

Both hunting and trapping would be affected when the Resurrection unit is closed to 

motorized access. Other use areas would have to be utilized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 85 

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Most opportunities (snowmachining, skiing, snowshoeing, mushing, and fishing) would 

be available and would continue to be a mix of motorized and non-motorized use. Some 

recreational trapping and hunting opportunities would be affected. 

In this alternative, approximately 56 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 23 percent would be non-motorized, and 21 percent would be managed as 

an alternating Season A/Season B scenario (see Tables 2-7 and 2-13). In comparison to 

the No Action Alternative, the acreage available to motorized access decreases. 

Season A 

In this alternative, the Resurrection unit alternates motorized and non-motorized use in a 

Season A/Season B scenario with the Carter/Crescent unit. That is, in one year, the 

whole Resurrection unit would be designated non-motorized and the Carter/Crescent 

unit would be designated motorized. The next winter, the Resurrection unit would be 

motorized and the Carter/Crescent unit would be non-motorized. When the Resurrection 

unit is non-motorized, the amount of winter routes solely available to non-motorized 

users increases to 108 miles when compared to the No Action Alternative (26 miles). 

The remainder of the 108 miles of winter routes would be designated for multiple-use. 

Most non-motorized use is likely to be concentrated in the Resurrection, Summit, and 

Snow River units. Due to the availability of nine cabins in the Resurrection unit (which 

are non-motorized in Season A), non-motorized use of both trail/route and cabin use is 

likely to increase, particularly in the spring when there is more daylight and better 

snowpack. Non-motorized opportunities would benefit most from having all or most of 

the Resurrection, Summit, Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice, and Snow River units designated 

as non-motorized. 

Motorized users would be most affected by the inability to use the Resurrection unit and 

its associated cabins in this season. It is likely that the Carter/Crescent, Lost Lake, and 

Johnson Pass units would receive increased motorized use in this season. In addition, 

the Upper Russian cabin (Russian unit) would not be available to motorized users in this 

alternative. This would further displace cabin users into the Carter/Crescent and Lost 

Lake units. 

In the short term (at least two cycles of the alternating Season A/Season B 

management), local communities accustomed to accessing the Resurrection and the 

Russian units with snowmachines are likely to be dissatisfied with the restricted cabin 

availability. In the long term, this may dissipate once the benefits of having a full winter 

season of use (every other season) are realized. 

Both hunting and trapping (those who do not qualify for subsistence) would be affected 

by the motorized closure in the Resurrection, Russian, and Snow River units. While 

some hunting activity (particularly ptarmigan hunting) may displace into the Johnson 

Pass unit, it is unknown what other areas hunters and trappers may find suitable. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 86 

Season B 

The amount of winter routes solely available to non-motorized users would be 

approximately 69 miles. This is an increase when compared to the No Action Alternative 

(26 miles). However, the majority of winter trails and routes, approximately 147 miles, 

would continue to be multiple-use. 

The Resurrection unit is the key unit that would remain designated motorized in Season 

B. While it may not provide the experience some non-motorized users are seeking, 

some are likely to continue using the unit in order to access the Resurrection cabin 

system. For those non-motorized users wishing to avoid multiple use areas, they are 

likely to concentrate most (and increase) in the Summit, Carter/Crescent, and Snow 

River units. Cabin use is likely to remain the same or increase at the Barber Cabin 

(Russian unit) and increase for the two cabins in the Carter/Crescent unit (Table 3-4). 

Non-motorized users would benefit most from the additional acreage in the Summit, 

Snow River, Tiehack/Mt Alice, and Carter/Crescent units. 

The most benefit to motorized users would be from the ability to use the Resurrection 

unit (and its nine cabins) for the entire winter season. Motorized use of winter cabins, 

which has been relatively low, is likely to increase, particularly in the latter part of the 

season when there is more daylight and better snowpack. 

The key unit that would be removed from motorized use would be the Carter/Crescent 

unit. It is expected that some well-established community and local uses would shift into 

the Resurrection, Lost Lake, and Johnson Pass units and that motorized use would 

increase in these units. However, many locals who were accustomed to using the 

Carter/Crescent unit due to its close proximity and convenient access (no trailering of 

snowmachines), may not recreate in other units and may change their winter activity 

until the unit is once again designated for motorized use. 

Both hunting and trapping opportunities (those who do not qualify for subsistence) would 

be affected by the motorized closure in the Russian and Snow River units. However, the 

Resurrection unit would be available for both activities. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for Alternative 1 

• The exploratory areas for guided helicopter skiing would be eligible for special use 

permits. Terrain available for guided helicopter skiing would increase if the 

exploratory areas in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units were authorized. 

Opportunities for local communities would increase from the motorized corridor that 

connects Cooper Landing and Moose Pass to Summit Lake. 

• Alternative 1 removes a popular motorized loop opportunity that connects the 

Primrose Trail to the Lost Lake power line and State lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 87 

Table 3-4 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 1 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

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 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper Paradise 9 9

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, the Resurrection and West Resurrection units are involved in a 

Season A/Season B scenario with the Carter/Crescent, Russian, and the northern part of 

the Snow River units. That is, in the first year, the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units would be designated non-motorized and the Carter/Crescent, Russian, and parts of 

the Snow River units would be designated motorized. 

In this alternative, approximately 53 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 11 percent would be non- motorized, and 36 percent would be managed as 

an alternating Season A/Season B scenario (see Tables 2-10 and 2-13). In comparison 

to the No Action Alternative, the acreage available to motorized access decreases. 

Most opportunities (snowmachine, skiing, snowshoeing, mushing and fishing) would be 

available and would continue to be a mix of motorized and non-motorized use. Some 

trapping and hunting opportunities (those who do not qualify for subsistence) would be 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 88 

affected. In comparison to the No Action Alternative, the total acreage designated 

motorized on a permanent basis (not subject to the February 15 mid-season swap) 

decreases by 18 percent and remain unchanged for non-motorized use and access. 

Season A 

In Season A, the amount of winter routes solely available to non-motorized users 

increases to 67 miles when compared to the No Action Alternative (26 miles). The 

remainder of the 146 miles of winter routes would be designated multiple-use. This 

alternative includes the addition of two non-motorized access corridors (totaling about 7 

miles) in the Lost Lake unit. Please refer to Issue 2 (Section 2.3.2.) for information on 

how this addition affects the non-motorized experience. 

Because the Resurrection unit would provide additional motorized opportunities, it is 

likely more non-motorized users would disperse into the Carter/Crescent unit than 

presently do and that the expanded terrain in the Summit unit would increase 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation. The expanded terrain in the Snow River unit 

would also be utilized, but to a lesser degree due to the lack of trails and trailheads and 

the more challenging terrain. Non-motorized users benefit most from having the Summit, 

Carter/Crescent, North Fork of Snow River, and the Russian units designated as nonmotorized. 

The ability to utilize the Resurrection and West Resurrection units and the South Fork of 

Snow River (access to Nellie Juan) would have the most positive effect on motorized 

users. Both trail and cabin use in the Resurrection unit is expected to increase because 

of the opportunity to utilize the entire 151-day season and from motorized users who 

have been displaced out of the Carter/Crescent and Russian units and their associated 

cabins (Table 3-5). 

The motorized opportunity would be reduced most by the inability to use the 

Carter/Crescent unit in Season A. The Resurrection, Lost Lake, Snow River, and 

Johnson Pass units are likely to receive more use in this season. However, many locals 

who were accustomed to using Carter/Crescent unit due to its close proximity and 

convenient access (no trailering of snowmachines is required), may not recreate in other 

units and may change their winter activity until the unit is once again designated 

motorized. 

Trapping (for those who do not qualify for subsistence) is an opportunity which may be 

affected in Season A. The motorized closure in the Russian unit would remove the 

Stetson Creek and the Lower Russian Lakes Trail from use by this group if 

snowmachine use were the primary means of access. The motorized designation in the 

Resurrection unit may compensate for the loss of this unit. 

Season B 

The trails and winter routes available for non-motorized users increase to approximately 

70 miles with the addition of the Resurrection unit and the expanded terrain in the 

Summit unit. This is an increase when compared to the No Action Alternative. This 

number includes the addition of one motorized access corridor up Mt. Adair and nonmotorized access corridor up from Meridian Lake area into Lost Lake in the Lost Lake 

unit. Please refer to Issue 2 (Section 2.3.2.) for information on how this addition affects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 89 

the non-motorized experience. The remainder of the 146 miles of winter routes would be 

multiple-use. It is likely that most non-motorized users would concentrate in the 

Resurrection and Summit units. 

When the Resurrection and West Resurrection units are designated non-motorized, 

motorized users would benefit most from the ability to use the Carter/Crescent unit and 

would continue to utilize the Lost Lake, Ptarmigan/Grant, Johnson Pass, and Snow River 

units. A new cabin opportunity would be available in the Russian unit and it is likely that 

the Barber Cabin, which is a short distance from the trailhead, is likely to see a marked 

increase in use. 

Trapping activities via snowmachine (those who do not qualify for subsistence) could 

continue in the Russian unit and would be unaffected and opportunities may increase 

with unrestricted access into the Snow River unit. However, both hunting and trapping 

opportunities (those who do not qualify for subsistence) would be removed in the 

Resurrection unit when it is designated non-motorized. 

Table 3-5 Cabin Access (Motorized and Non-motorized), Alternative 2 

Season A Season B 

Unit 

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 

Lake 

Dale Clemens 9 9

Lower 

Paradise 9 9

Snow 

River 

Upper 

Paradise 9 9
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 90 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for Alternative 2 

• The communities of Cooper Landing and Moose Pass would benefit most from a 

motorized corridor that connects their communities to Summit Lake. 

• Terrain available for guided helicopter skiing would increase if the exploratory unit in 

Ptarmigan/Grant was permitted. This would provide additional terrain opportunities for 

recreationists utilizing this service. Although the Snow River exploratory area would 

be removed from future permitting, there would still be a range of quality terrain 

available for a quality guided helicopter skiing experience. Therefore, the overall 

affect to the range of opportunities is minimal. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The range of winter opportunities in all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, 

are likely to increase as foreseeable future actions such as the Mills Creek Iditarod Hutto-Hut System, the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail, and the 

increased commercially guided helicopter skiing throughout the analysis area. Some of 

these actions are likely to include more winter trails and facilities that could increase use 

in areas that currently receive a relatively small volume of use. These areas include the 

Johnson Pass, Summit, and Ptarmigan/Grant units. The Sterling Highway Realignment 

project in the Resurrection unit and additional Snug Harbor parking in the Russian unit 

would further increase the ability to utilize more of the Resurrection and Russian units by 

both motorized and non-motorized recreationists. 

In all alternatives, cabin replacement has occurred or is reasonably foreseeable. Past 

cabin replacement in the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units resulted in increased 

visitation and use. Regardless of whether the unit is managed as motorized, nonmotorized, or in a Season A/Season B scenario, cabin use is likely to increase with the 

replacement of the Devil’s Pass and Romig cabins in the Resurrection unit, the 

replacement of the Upper Russian cabin in the Russian unit, and the replacement of the 

Manitoba cabin in the Summit unit. Cumulatively, winter use is likely to increase from the 

existing level (particularly when the area is designated motorized) as use begins to shift 

around and within the analysis area as favorite cabins become booked and other options 

have to be sought. Recreationists who typically use the Turnagain Pass Winter Use area 

would find a quality cabin opportunity and the quality terrain associated with the Summit 

unit. It is foreseeable that recreationists who typically use Chugach State Park would 

travel longer distances to have this experience. Without monitoring and some form of 

visitor survey, it is unknown how the development of the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System would affect the public cabin system. 

While access would still be provided, displacement from historical use areas and 

activities may increase in all alternatives (regardless of the user type) when future 

actions such as the proposed Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System and the Seward to 

Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail are implemented. If use increases, hunting and 

trapping activities, in particular, may be further confined to remote areas to avoid conflict 

with other uses. They may be unable to safely participate in hunting with increased use 

on favorite trails and areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 91 

3.1.5. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences for the Winter Recreation Experience 

There are two elements considered for displaying the effects to the recreation 

experience, Shared Use and the Opportunity for Quiet. 

Indicator 

As first shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2. the indicator for this element is: 

• Shared Use: Change (increase, decrease, no change) in the potential for encounters 

between and within motorized and non-motorized uses in key units including Lost 

Lake, Carter/Crescent, Resurrection, and Russian 

Methods 

This analysis uses the change in the potential for encounters between motorized and 

non-motorized uses by season and alternative. The analysis considers whether some 

users are dispersed from using a unit and whether topographic features affect the 

potential for encounters. Several key units are highlighted because their management 

has the potential to affect the recreational experience in other units. Because each 

individual will have different values and expectations regarding the quality of their 

recreation experience, there are no recreation use numbers associated with descriptors 

such as “increase, decrease, or no change” or “low, moderate, and high.” The effects 

are based on Seward Ranger District professional and local knowledge. Finally, although 

displacement was addressed in the Range of Opportunities Issue, displacement as it 

affects the potential for encounters (and conflict) is also considered here. 

Affected Environment, Shared Use 

Currently, the Carter/Crescent, Hope, and Ptarmigan/Grant units are 100 percent open 

to all uses and the majority of the Lost Lake, Snow River, Russian and Tiehack/Mt Alice 

units are designated motorized as well. However, only the units with established 

trailheads or parking areas, winter trails and routes, and cabins are likely to have higher 

encounters between motorized and non-motorized groups. For example, this is true in 

the Carter/Crescent unit because the only recommended winter route is the Carter Lake 

Trail and both groups share a narrow trail corridor. Conversely, even though the 

Tiehack/Mt Alice unit is mostly designated for motorized use, difficult access and terrain 

makes encounters between the two groups rare. 

Most units have features such as roads, water bodies, or trails that can help distinguish 

between motorized and non-motorized unit boundaries. However, in units where the 

boundaries are uncertain, the potential for conflicts increases and recreation 

experiences can be affected. For example, in the Summit and Tern Lake units, there are 

areas of National Forest System lands designated as motorized located between nonmotorized areas. In addition, there are State lands located adjacent to the National 

Forest System lands where boundaries are not clear. Because these boundaries are 

unclear, there is the possibility of motorized uses crossing into designated nonmotorized National Forest System lands, without realizing a closure exists. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 92 

Most recreationists utilizing the Seward Ranger District recognize that winter access can 

be difficult due to snow and ice conditions. Severe avalanche danger is inherent on 

much of the Kenai Peninsula. The use of frozen lake surfaces (such as Kenai Lake) as 

part of the recreational experience is also common and this can be hazardous as well. 

Motorized and non-motorized users indicate that shared winter use on particular trails 

and in certain areas can be hazardous. Steep terrain and winter trails located in 

constricted valley bottoms result in users sharing narrow common corridors. Most trails 

providing access into the backcountry were originally designed for summer use and 

typically have a 20-foot wide corridor. In most cases, steep side slopes, gorges, and 

ravines limit options for separating use. Trails that separate motorized and nonmotorized users have been (or will be) established. For example, in the Seward to 

Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail analysis, a continuous route will be made 

available to snowmachines in addition to 81 miles of parallel, alternate routes for nonmotorized uses (USDA-FS, 2003b, p. 1-24). 

Within the analysis area, potential for conflicts are specifically noted for the Lost Lake 

Trail, the Primrose Trail, and the Carter Lake Trail. Having skiers or snowmachines 

descending the trail while skiers or snowmachines are ascending can be hazardous. 

However, each of these primary access routes are used to access cabins, lakes, or 

desirable terrain. 

To reduce the potential for conflict, some non-motorized users are avoiding areas where 

interactions are likely. They seek out areas where concentrated motorized use is less 

common. Likewise, motorized users are concerned with the safety of shared use and 

may avoid trails where non-motorized use is concentrated. 

Environmental Consequences, Shared Use 

No Action Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The units where the potential for encounters between motorized and non-motorized 

users would not change and would continue to be moderate to high include 

Carter/Crescent, Lost Lake, Ptarmigan/Grant, Hope, Tern Lake, and Johnson Pass. 

However, the potential for encounters in the Carter/Crescent unit would continue to be 

higher after the February 15 mid-season swap when the Resurrection unit is closed and 

motorized users seek out quality terrain and cabins. 

The potential for encounters (and conflict) would not change and would continue to be 

high until the February 15 mid-season swap in the Resurrection and West Resurrection 

units - particularly since both groups travel on one primary route and are seeking out the 

public use cabins. After February 15, no encounters (other than motorized subsistence) 

in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units would be expected. 

The existing recreation use data indicates approximately 4,800 acres of terrain are 

shared between motorized and non-motorized users. However, because the majority of 

the Summit unit is non-motorized, the potential for encounters (and conflict) would not 

change and should be low. Non-motorized users are able to access the upper slopes 

utilized more by snowmachines. However, unidentified boundaries in the Summit and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 93 

Tern Lake units would continue to result in encounters between user groups which can 

cause conflict. 

In the Lost Lake and Carter/Crescent units, both motorized and non-motorized users 

would continue sharing the Lost Lake Trail, Primrose Trail, and the Carter Lake Trail. 

The potential for encounters would continue to be high and the existing safety issues 

would continue to result in conflicts between both groups. 

There would be no encounters in the non-motorized portions of the Russian, Snow 

River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units (other than motorized subsistence). Although these 

units have some motorized terrain, lower recreation use, challenging access or terrain 

and physical boundaries (such as ridges, slopes and rivers) would continue to effectively 

separate most use. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

• The alternatives that decrease or eliminate potential encounters through an 

alternating Season A/Season B scenario would have the greatest effect on reducing 

encounter-related and safety-related conflicts between motorized and non-motorized 

users. 

• In all action alternatives, boundaries for areas designated for non-motorized use have 

been selected to use discernible topographic features such as rivers, creeks, ridges, 

roads or power lines. Closures, which may vary by year, should be identifiable to both 

use groups and reduce the potential for conflict (between use groups) that could arise 

from this type of management. 

• Even though a unit may be designated as non-motorized, the potential for 

encountering subsistence users with snowmachines is possible. 

• It is expected that some conflict may occur between groups until the winter 

management plan is understood. It may take up to two cycles of the alternating 

Season A/Season B scenario management for recreationists to become familiar with 

most aspects of the plan. 

Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, approximately 67 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 15 percent would be designated non-motorized, and 18 percent would be 

managed as an alternating Season A/Season B scenario. 

Season A 

The three units that would have the most decrease in the potential for encounters, 

compared to the No Action Alternative, would be the Summit, Russian, and Tiehack/Mt 

Alice units. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 94 

The Summit unit reduces the potential for encounters (and conflict) because motorized 

users would utilize a corridor adjacent to the Seward Highway (all the way to the Hope 

Y) and non-motorized users could utilize the upper slopes away from this corridor. 

Encounters in the Russian unit are eliminated in the non-motorized portion of the unit 

(which includes two cabins). The unit effectively separates users because Cooper Lake 

and the Russian Lakes Trail are discernible boundaries. The potential for encounters 

(and conflict) along the Upper Russian Lakes Trail and the Upper Russian cabin would 

not change. 

Overall, the potential for encounters in both the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units 

would be high due to the popularity of the units (the terrain, trails and cabins) for both 

groups. However, in the Carter/Crescent unit, the potential for safety-related conflict that 

results from encounters on the Carter Lake Trail would decrease with the alternative 

route that is available for non-motorized users. 

Even though the Snow River unit would be designated motorized, the potential for 

encounters would remain unchanged or be, at the most, moderate (because 

snowmachine use is highly dependent on favorable snow conditions). 

Season B 

The three units that would have the most decrease in the potential for encounters would 

be Resurrection, West Resurrection, and the majority of Summit. The potential for 

encounters on the Resurrection Pass Trail and cabins would be eliminated. Even though 

the Summit unit has some motorized acreage, the potential for encounters (and conflict) 

would be reduced because motorized users would utilize a corridor adjacent to the 

Seward Highway (all the way to the Hope Y) and non-motorized users could utilize the 

upper slopes away from this corridor. Management of the west side of the Seward 

Highway as one large contiguous area with boundaries that follow discernible features 

on the east side of the highway would reduce boundary confusion and the potential for 

conflicts between groups from unintentional motorized use in the non-motorized areas. 

The effects for the Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, and Snow 

units are similar to the effects displayed in Season A. However, with the Resurrection 

unit closed to motorized, more motorized users are likely to displace into the 

Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. Conflicts between motorized users may increase if 

the volume of use increases on both trails and routes, and in snowplay areas. 

Although the Snow River unit currently receives low amounts of use, with the 

Resurrection unit closed, conflicts between motorized users may also increase, 

particularly when the snow conditions are favorable. 

Effects Common to Both Season A and Season B for the Proposed Action 

• The expanded non-motorized terrain in the Lost Lake unit encompasses the Iditarod 

National Historic Trial and provides easy access from the Seward Highway for nonmotorized use. The potential for encounters would be reduced in this unit. If nonmotorized users travel out of the non-motorized area into the alpine, the potential for 

encounters would be high because the area is popular for snowmachines. While the 

potential for conflict between groups exists, the encounters would occur in a large 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 95 

area and would not occur on confined, narrow trail corridors. In addition, the potential 

for safety-related conflict that results from encounters on the Lost Lake Trail should 

be decreased with the alternative route for non-motorized uses. 

• Even though the Tiehack/Mt Alice unit has some motorized acreage, the potential for 

encounters are currently low due to difficult access and terrain. In this alternative, the 

potential for encounters is likely to remain unchanged or decrease because key 

access points are managed as non-motorized. While it is possible that encounters 

could occur along the motorized access corridor (northern boundary) with the South 

Fork of Snow River, any conflict is expected to be minimal and is expected to be 

limited to when snow conditions are favorable for accessing Nellie Juan. 

• Guided helicopter skiing could also occur in the Snow River unit. The potential for 

encountering this use and the potential for conflict between both motorized and nonmotorized uses is possible – primarily during good snow conditions. However, given 

the challenging terrain, the overall volume of use into this portion of the unit by 

motorized and non-motorized groups is expected to be low. 

Modified Preferred Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, approximately 61 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 21 percent would be designated non-motorized, and 18 percent would be 

managed as an alternating Season A/Season B scenario. 

Season A 

The four units that would reduce the potential for encounters the most, compared to the 

No Action Alternative, would be Summit, Russian, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice. 

The Summit unit reduces the potential for encounters (and conflict) because motorized 

users would have to utilize a corridor immediately adjacent to the Seward Highway (all 

the way to the Hope Y) and non-motorized users could utilize the upper slopes away 

from this corridor. 

Encounters in the Russian unit are eliminated in the non-motorized portion of the unit 

(which includes two cabins). The unit effectively separates users because Cooper Lake 

and the Russian Lakes Trail are discernible boundaries. The potential for encounters 

(and conflict) along the Upper Russian Lakes Trail and the Upper Russian cabin would 

not change. 

Overall, the potential for encounters in both the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units 

may be high due to the popularity of the units (the terrain, trails and cabins) for both 

groups. However, in the Carter/Crescent unit, the potential for safety-related conflict that 

results from encounters on the Carter Lake Trail would decrease with the alternative 

route that is available for non-motorized users. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 96 

Season B 

The four units that would reduce the potential for encounters the most would be 

Resurrection, West Resurrection, Snow River, and the majority of Summit. The potential 

for encounters on the Resurrection Pass Trail and cabins would be eliminated. Even 

though the Summit unit has some motorized acreage, the potential for encounters (and 

conflict) would be reduced because motorized users would have to utilize a corridor 

immediately adjacent to the Seward Highway and non-motorized users could utilize the 

upper slopes away from this corridor. Management of the west side of the Seward 

Highway as one large contiguous area with boundaries that follow discernible features 

on the east side of the highway would reduce boundary confusion and the potential for 

conflicts between groups from unintentional motorized use in the non-motorized areas. 

The effects for the Russian, Tiehack/Mt Alice, Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, and Snow 

units are similar to the effects displayed in Season A. However, with the Resurrection 

unit designated non-motorized, more motorized users are likely to displace into the 

Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. Conflicts between motorized users may increase if 

the volume of use increases on both trails and routes and in snowplay areas. 

Although the Snow River unit currently receives low amounts of use, with the 

Resurrection unit closed, conflicts between motorized users may also increase, 

particularly when the snow conditions are favorable for accessing the Nellie Juan area. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for the Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

• The expanded non-motorized terrain in the Lost Lake unit encompasses the Iditarod 

National Historic Trial and provides easy access from the Seward Highway for nonmotorized use. The potential for encounters would be reduced in this unit. If nonmotorized users travel out of the non-motorized area into the alpine, the potential for 

encounters would be high because the area is popular for snowmachines. While the 

potential for conflict between groups exists, the encounters would occur in a large 

area and would not occur on confined, narrow trail corridors. In addition, the potential 

for safety-related conflict that results from encounters on the Lost Lake Trail should 

be decreased with the alternative route for non-motorized uses. 

• Even though the Tiehack/Mt Alice unit has some motorized acreage, the potential for 

encounters are currently low due to difficult access and terrain. In this alternative, the 

potential for encounters is likely to remain unchanged or decrease because key 

access points are managed as non-motorized. 

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, approximately 56 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 23 percent would be non-motorized, and 21 percent would be managed as 

an alternating Season A/Season B scenario. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 97 

Season A 

The six units that would reduce the potential for encounters the most would be Russian, 

Resurrection, West Resurrection, and the majority of Summit, Tiehack/Mt Alice, and 

Snow River. 

The potential for encounters (and conflict) in both the Russian and Resurrection units 

would be eliminated. Even though the Summit unit has some motorized acreage, the 

potential for encounters (and conflict) would be reduced because motorized users would 

have to utilize a corridor immediately adjacent to the Seward Highway to Lower Summit 

Lake and non-motorized users could utilize the upper slopes away from this corridor. 

Although both the Tiehack/Mt Alice and Snow River units would have acreage 

designated for motorized use, the potential for encounters would be reduced or low 

because key access from the Seward Highway would be designated for non-motorized 

use. Should there be encounters in these units, conflict between groups is expected to 

be low due to low volumes of use and no foreseen increases in use. 

Most of the Lost Lake and all of Carter/Crescent units would be open to all uses. 

Because the Resurrection unit would be designated non-motorized, it is likely that more 

motorized use would occur in both units. With the increased potential for encounters, 

increased conflict between motorized and non-motorized groups and between motorized 

users may occur. Encounters between motorized and non-motorized groups on the Lost 

Lake Trail, Primrose Trail, and the Carter Lake Trail would continue and the potential for 

safety-related conflicts would not change and would be high. 

Season B 

The five units that would reduce the potential for encounters the most would be the 

Russian, Carter/Crescent, Summit, Tiehack/Mt Alice, and Snow River units. 

The potential for encounters (and conflict) in the Russian, Carter/Crescent and Summit 

units would be eliminated. Even though the Summit unit would have a motorized corridor 

adjacent to the Seward Highway and extending to lower Summit Lake, the potential for 

encounters (and conflict) between groups should be reduced because the non-motorized 

users would utilize the upper slopes away from this corridor. 

With the Carter/Crescent unit closure in Season B, increased motorized use and the 

potential for conflict between motorized users may increase (and be moderate to high) in 

the Resurrection, Lost Lake, and Johnson Pass units. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for Alternative 1 

• Although both the Tiehack/Mt Alice and Snow River units have acreage designated 

for motorized use, the potential for encounters would be decreased or low because 

key access from the Seward Highway would be designated non-motorized. Should 

there be encounters in these units, conflict between groups is expected to be low due 

to low volumes of use and no foreseen increases in use. 

• Guided helicopter skiing could also occur in the Snow River unit. The potential for 

encountering this use and the potential for conflict between both motorized and non-
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 98 

motorized users is possible – primarily during good snow conditions. However, given 

the challenging terrain, the overall volume of use into this portion of the unit by 

motorized and non-motorized groups is expected to be low. 

• The conflict that results from safety issues associated with access into the Lost Lake 

unit would remain unresolved and the potential for encounters would remain high on 

the Lost Lake Trail. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, approximately 53 percent of the project area would be designated 

motorized, 11 percent would be non-motorized, and 36 percent would be managed as 

an alternating Season A/Season B scenario. 

Season A 

The potential for encounters (and conflict) between motorized and non-motorized users 

in the Russian, Carter/Crescent, Summit and North Fork of Snow units would be 

eliminated. 

With the Resurrection unit designated motorized, an indirect effect may be an increase 

in the volume of non-motorized use in the Carter/Crescent unit. This could result in other 

“quality of experience” conflicts within this user group. In addition, increased motorized 

use and the potential for conflict between motorized users or groups may increase in the 

Resurrection unit. 

Even though the Summit unit has a motorized corridor that is adjacent to the Seward 

Highway and extends to lower Summit Lake, the potential for encounters (and conflict) 

between groups should be decreased or eliminated because the non-motorized users 

could utilize the upper slopes away from this corridor. 

Although there is likely to be some displacement of non-motorized users out of the 

Resurrection unit and into the North Fork of Snow River, no conflict between nonmotorized users are foreseen because of the difficult access and challenging terrain. 

However, the potential for a low to moderate number of encounters between motorized 

and non-motorized groups in the South Fork of Snow River could occur – particularly 

when snow conditions are favorable. Overall, the potential for conflict may only increase 

during times of good snow conditions. In addition, the removal of guided helicopter skiing 

from this unit would preclude any potential conflict with both non-motorized and 

motorized users. 

Season B 

The potential for encounters (and conflict) between motorized and non-motorized users 

in the Resurrection, West Resurrection and Summit units would be eliminated. 

Even though the Summit unit has a motorized corridor that is adjacent to the Seward 

Highway and extends to lower Summit Lake, the potential for encounters (and conflict) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 99 

between groups should be decreased or eliminated because the non-motorized users 

could utilize the upper slopes away from this corridor. 

Although Tiehack/Mt Alice has a mix of motorized and non-motorized acreage, user 

conflicts are not expected due to difficult access and challenging terrain. 

There would continue to be a high potential for encounters between motorized and nonmotorized users in the Carter/Crescent and Lost Lake units. In addition, increased 

motorized use and the potential for conflict between motorized users or groups may 

increase (moderate to high) in Carter/Crescent and in the Lost Lake and Johnson Pass 

units as a result of this concentration of use. 

There would be a high potential for encounters and potential conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized users in the western portion of the Russian unit because of the 

popularity of, and easy access to, Barber Cabin. 

Although the Snow River unit currently receives low amounts of use, with the 

Resurrection unit non-motorized, conflicts between motorized users may also increase, 

particularly in South Fork of Snow River when the snow conditions are favorable. There 

are no foreseen changes in the potential for encounters or conflicts in the North Fork of 

Snow River because of the challenging terrain coupled with uncertain snow conditions. 

The removal of guided helicopter skiing from this unit would preclude any potential 

conflict with both non-motorized and motorized users. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for Alternative 2 

• The majority of the Lost Lake unit would be open to all uses and the potential for 

encounters would be high – particularly in alpine terrain. The conflict that results from 

safety issues associated with access into the Lost Lake unit would remain unresolved 

and the potential for encounters would remain high on the Lost Lake Trail. 

• There would be no encounters in the non-motorized portions of Tiehack/Mt Alice. 

Although this unit has some motorized terrain, lower recreation use, challenging 

access or terrain, and physical boundaries such as ridges, slopes and rivers would 

continue to effectively separate most use. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

In the near future, the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail project will 

provide additional trails that are both motorized and non-motorized. This will create 

additional spatial separation and further reduce the potential for user conflict. In addition, 

the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System (a future project) may further reduce the 

potential for conflict by providing additional opportunities for both uses. This project may 

create more routes that are managed to separate use types. Overall, options for 

providing access that can separate use have occurred. Past projects combined with this 

and future project are likely to reduce potential conflicts between groups. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 100 

Indicator 

As first shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2. the indicator for this element is: 

• Opportunity for Quiet: Narrative on the ability to experience quiet (natural quiet) 

Methods 

This analysis considers if the opportunity for quiet is attainable for non-motorized uses. 

In addition to considering what units may be managed as non-motorized, the affect of 

highway noise is also considered. 

Affected Environment, Opportunity for Quiet 

The opportunity for quiet can be impacted by motorized interactions that affect both the 

recreational experience and the experience of people seeking natural quiet. The LRMP 

addresses the need to maintain areas where natural quiet will predominate through ROS 

settings and management prescriptions (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-8). 

For some people, the recreation experience is negatively affected when noise, coupled 

with the smell of snowmachine emissions, is encountered. See Air Quality 3.8 for more 

information on snowmachine emissions. Snowmachines and helicopters are the two 

sources of noise most applicable to the analysis area. Automobile traffic is a third source 

of noise at parking lots, trailheads, staging areas, and terrain adjacent to transportation 

routes. 

Within the analysis area, several shared staging areas, trailheads, and parking areas 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized winter use. In these areas, noise 

and smells from vehicle exhaust and snowmobile emissions associated with 

snowmobiles and vehicles occurs. The primary transportation routes within the analysis 

area are the Seward, Sterling, and Hope Highways. Highway traffic sounds are 

estimated to be 70 decibels (dB) for passing automobiles and 80 dB for heavy traffic as 

heard from a sidewalk (USDA-FS, 2004d, p. 3-3, 3-4). For more information on 

measuring sound, refer to the Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing FEIS. 

Snowmachines are reported to routinely produce sounds levels exceeding 80 dB and 

some have been reported to exceed 100 dB (USDA-FS, 2004d, p. 3-3). For comparative 

purposes, a normal conversation produces 60 dB and a rock music concert produces 

115 dB. The LRMP standard for snowmachine noise is the maximum noise level 

expected for factory standard equipment (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-35). 

Because changes and improvements in motorized technology are allowing more 

motorized users to access backcountry areas and terrain (steep slopes), it is becoming 

more common to find snowmachine use in remote parts of the analysis area that may 

not have been used in the past. Comments received during the collaborative workshops 

for this analysis supported this finding. Backcountry recreationists who travel on 

extended trips to reach remote terrain are now commonly finding snowmachine users 

present (USDA-FS, 2005, Kenai Winter Access Collaboration Meeting). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 101 

Guided helicopter skiing occurs in the Hope, Johnson Pass, Ptarmigan/Grant, and Lost 

Lake units. The deferred exploratory units subject to this analysis decision are located in 

Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units. See Map A-2-1, the No Action Alternative, which 

displays the core and exploratory guided helicopter skiing units. The 2004 Commercially 

Guided Helicopter Skiing FEIS analyzed the effects of aircraft and snowmachine sound. 

The helicopters used produce 87.1 to 94.5 dB during power ascent. During landing 

approaches, they produce 75 dB while flying at 500 feet in elevation (USDA-FS, 2004d, 

p. 3-4). 

Sound level (noise) dissipates predictably as a function of distance from source and 

receptor (in this case, humans). For example, an automobile might produce 80 dB at a 

distance of 25 feet. At 50 feet, the noise level will be 74 dB, at 100 feet, 68 dB, and at 

200 feet, 62 dB. In addition to distance, terrain, ground cover, vegetation, and 

temperature may also affect the transmission or reflection of noise. For example, sound 

dissipates less in cold, dense air. Vegetation, in general, tends to absorb sound but 

snow cover tends to mask the absorptive capacity of vegetation. Sound will tend to 

reflect within canyons and valleys (USDA-FS, 2004d, p. 3-4). 

Environmental Consequences, Opportunity for Quiet 

No Action Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Areas where opportunities for natural quiet (or solitude) would be most attainable would 

be in three units – in the more remote parts of the Summit unit, the western portion of 

the Russian unit, and in the Resurrection unit after the February 15 mid-season swap. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

• Noise and exhaust would continue to be found at any winter staging area and 

trailhead, particularly those along highways, roadways, communities, within private 

subdivisions, and on State lands. All access points on the Seward Ranger District fit 

one or more of these descriptions. 

• Most units are likely to have some heavy timber or vegetation in the valley bottoms. 

Non-motorized users are likely to be able to move beyond hearing snowmachine 

noise by having the ability to use these areas to access the higher elevations. 

• Even though a unit may be managed as non-motorized, there is the potential to 

encounter subsistence users with snowmachines. 

• The main corridor of Johnson Pass (as with most of the units) would likely be a mix of 

helicopter and snowmachine sounds. However, once off the main corridor, ample 

drainages and terrain exists where noise would be minor. 

• The Lost Lake unit would likely have snowmachine sounds present at any given time, 

particularly on weekends and later in the year when it is lighter and there is better 

snowpack in the higher elevations. The presence of guided helicopter skiing traffic in 

the Lost Lake unit during the weekdays may further impact the ability to find areas 

without some type of mechanized noise. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 102 

• Even though the percentage varies by alternative, the majority of the Summit unit 

would be non-motorized. However, for skiers who recreate on the slopes facing the 

highway, noise would continue to be present because of snowmachine and highway 

traffic. Until skiers climb the slopes and ridges and get out of the highway corridor, 

sound is likely to hinder the experience. This would not be the unit to seek quiet, 

unless traveling into the backcountry and away from the highway corridor. 

• Regardless of the alternating Season A/Season B management, motorized use would 

continue to be most prevalent within 3 to 5 miles from the community of Moose Pass 

in the Ptarmigan/Grant unit. Once past this point, many opportunities for experiences 

without mechanized noise should exist. However, with the addition of guided 

helicopter skiing in the remote parts of this unit, there could continue to be times 

when helicopters, snowmachine, or both are heard. 

Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Season A 

The opportunity for quiet would be best found in the Russian unit. In the Russian unit, 

the opportunity for quiet would be enhanced because of the increase in non-motorized 

acreage and the physical boundary of Cooper Lake, which separates the motorized and 

non-motorized uses. 

The Resurrection unit would be designated motorized for the entire season. If nonmotorized users choose this unit, the possibility of encountering snowmachines along 

the trail or at the public use cabins would be higher (as use would be expected to 

increase), especially in the later part of the season when there is more sunlight and 

weekend use increases. The opportunity for quiet is not likely to be available in this unit 

due to the popularity of the trail and cabin system. 

Season B 

The opportunity for quiet or solitude would be best found in three units - Resurrection, 

West Resurrection, and Russian. While the opportunity for quiet in the Resurrection and 

West Resurrection units would be optimized (because the units are managed as nonmotorized), the opportunity for quiet in the Russian unit would also be enhanced 

because of the increase in non-motorized acreage, and the physical boundary of Cooper 

Lake which separates the motorized and non-motorized uses. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for the Proposed Action 

• Carter/Crescent would likely have snowmachine sounds present at any given time, 

particularly on weekends and later in the year when it is lighter and there is better 

snowpack in the higher elevations. 

• The Snow River unit would be designated motorized and snowmachine use is likely 

to be heard when snow conditions are favorable. For those recreationists who are 

able to travel to the more remote parts of this unit, particularly the North Fork of Snow 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 103 

River, the presence of guided helicopter skiing use may further impact the ability to 

find areas without some type of mechanized noise. 

• The Tiehack/Mt Alice unit would have increased non-motorized acres. Once off the 

main motorized corridors (Seward Highway and the South Fork of Snow) the 

opportunity for quiet would exist. 

Modified Preferred Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Season A 

The opportunity for quiet would be best found in the Russian unit. In the Russian unit, 

the opportunity for quiet would be enhanced because of the increase in non-motorized 

acreage and the physical boundary of Cooper Lake, which separates the motorized and 

non-motorized uses. 

The Snow River unit would also provide increased opportunities for quiet recreation 

because of the expansion of non-motorized areas particularly in the North Fork of Snow 

River drainage. 

The Resurrection unit would be designated motorized for the entire season. If nonmotorized users choose this unit, the possibility of encountering snowmachines along 

the trail or at the public use cabins would be higher (as use would be expected to 

increase), especially in the later part of the season when there is more sunlight and 

weekend use increases. The opportunity for quiet is not likely to be available in this unit 

due to the popularity of the trail and cabin system. 

Season B 

The opportunity for quiet or solitude would be best found in three units - Resurrection, 

West Resurrection, and Russian. While the opportunity for quiet in the Resurrection and 

West Resurrection units would be optimized (because the units are managed as nonmotorized), the opportunity for quiet in the Russian unit would also be enhanced 

because of the increase in non-motorized acreage, and the physical boundary of Cooper 

Lake which separates the motorized and non-motorized uses. 

The Snow River unit would also provide increased opportunities for quiet recreation 

because of the expansion of non-motorized areas particularly in the North Fork of Snow 

River drainage. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for the Modified Preferred 

Alternative 

• The Carter/Crescent unit would likely have snowmachine sounds present at any 

given time, particularly on weekends and later in the year when it is lighter and there 

is better snowpack in the higher elevations. 

• The Snow River unit would be mostly designated non-motorized except for a 

motorized corridor up the South Fork. Snowmachine use is likely to be heard when 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 104 

snow conditions are favorable. For those recreationists who are able to travel to the 

more remote parts of this unit, particularly the North Fork of Snow River, the 

opportunity for quiet would be high. 

• The Tiehack/Mt Alice unit would have increased non-motorized acres. Once off the 

main motorized corridors (Seward Highway and the South Fork of Snow) the 

opportunity for solitude would exist. 

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Season A 

The opportunity for quiet would be best found in four units - Resurrection, West 

Resurrection, Russian, and Tiehack/Mt Alice. 

Season B 

The opportunity for quiet would be best found in three units - Russian, Tiehack/Mt 

Alice, and Carter/Crescent. 

The Carter/Crescent unit would provide increased opportunities for quiet and solitude for 

non-motorized uses. However, with the Resurrection unit designated motorized, there 

would likely be more people using the Carter/Crescent unit. The increased volume of 

use in this unit may affect the ability to find quiet and solitude. 

In the West Resurrection unit, motorized use would occur in the adjacent (main) 

Resurrection unit. The possibility of encountering snowmachines along the trail or at the 

public use cabins would be high because use would be expected to increase 

(particularly later in the season when there is more daylight and better snowpack). For 

this reason, the West Resurrection unit has not been included as an area to seek 

opportunities for quiet. 

Effects Common to both Season A and Season B for Alternative 1 

• The Tiehack/Mt Alice unit would have an increase in non-motorized acres. Once off 

the main travel corridors the opportunity for solitude would exist. 

• Although the key access points into the Snow River unit would be non-motorized, 

guided helicopter skiing would be permitted. For those non-motorized recreationists 

who are able to access this unit and who may not be expecting to hear any type of 

motorized equipment, the ability to hear helicopters in a relatively pristine part of the 

unit would negatively affect the opportunity for quiet. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 105 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Season A 

Opportunities for quiet and solitude would be best found in four units - Russian, 

Carter/Crescent, Snow River, and Tiehack/Mt Alice. Because Russian and 

Carter/Crescent are managed entirely for non-motorized use, the opportunity for quiet 

would be optimized. Although a portion of the Snow River unit is motorized, the 

opportunity for quiet would be available in the North Fork of Snow because key access 

points would not be available to motorized uses, guided helicopter skiing would not be 

permitted, and there are no foreseen increases in non-motorized use (due to the lack of 

trailheads and challenging terrain). However, during good snow conditions, the 

opportunity for quiet may not be attainable in the South Fork of Snow River due to 

increased motorized use. 

Although the majority of the Tiehack/Mt Alice unit would be designated motorized, once 

away from the motorized travel corridors, (Seward Highway and South Fork of Snow 

River) the opportunity for solitude would exist. 

Season B 

Opportunities for quiet and solitude would be best found in three units – Resurrection, 

West Resurrection, and Tiehack/Mt Alice. 

The Russian unit would be motorized and Season B management provides a new cabin 

opportunity for motorized users. Given the proximity of the Barber Cabin to the trailhead 

(3 miles), solitude may not be attainable with increased use. However, given the remote 

nature and limiting terrain within this unit, opportunities for quiet may still exist farther 

from the trailheads, campgrounds, and roads. 

The Snow River unit would be motorized and snowmachine use is likely to be heard 

when snow conditions are favorable and with the increased access opportunities (when 

compared to the No Action Alternative). The closure of a portion of the unit to guided 

helicopter skiing use would reduce the chance of hearing a mix of both helicopter and 

snowmachine sounds for those recreationists who are able to travel farther into the more 

remote and pristine parts of this unit. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The No Action and action alternatives share commonalities by providing areas where 

motorized use would be permitted and areas where motorized use would be prohibited. 

Large contiguous units that are either managed as motorized or non-motorized for a 

winter season would cumulatively offer greater opportunities for quiet and solitude when 

considered at a district-wide scale. The effects of helicopter use coupled with 

snowmachine use have been analyzed (in the 2004 Commercially Guided Helicopter 

Skiing analysis) and specific mitigation was applied to reduce or eliminate the impacts in 

the Lost Lake, Ptarmigan/Grant, and Johnson Pass units (USDA-FS, 2004d). 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 106 

The Johnson Pass and Summit units are foreseeable units for backcountry hut 

development. Currently, the Johnson Pass unit is managed as a mix of motorized and 

non-motorized use with core helicopter use. It is still possible to attain solitude by moving 

farther into and away from the main corridors. With the foreseeable future development 

of the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System (with winter use potentially concentrated in 

the Johnson Pass and Center Creek areas), an additive effect may occur to the current 

level of snowmachine and helicopter use, making this unit less desirable for 

experiencing natural quiet. In the Snow River unit, the alternatives that restrict helicopter 

use and snowmachine use would cumulatively allow for the opportunity for quiet in this 

unit. Along transportation corridors, foreseeable projects such as Sterling Highway 

Realignment and the Cooper Lake parking area may increase the noise associated with 

snowmachines and automobiles. Implementation of the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod 

National Historic Trail actions such as new motorized trails and an increase in cabins 

(potentially six new cabins) may add more snowmachine-associated noise as new 

routes and amenities become developed and utilized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 107 

3.2. WILDLIFE 

Introduction 

Recreation activities, both motorized and non-motorized, can cause disturbance or 

displacement to individual animals and affect use of their winter habitats. Commonly 

documented effects include facilitated access that can increase hunting or trapping 

pressure, animal disturbance, and displacement of wildlife or wildlife avoidance of areas. 

Effects on individual animals would vary by species. The effects depend on the 

sensitivity of the species to disturbance, the type of disturbance, the duration and 

concentration of disturbance, and its location (effects over time and space). Habituation 

can and does occur in certain situations. Our assumptions were that the greater the 

percent of motorized or non-motorized use within an alternative, the more likely the 

effects would be from that type of activity (See Table 3-6). Differences in allowed use by 

alternative are displayed in Table 3-7. 

It was assumed that alternatives with a greater percentage of motorized use have 

greater effects to individual animals. This assumption was made because both 

motorized and non-motorized users and effects may be present, compared to nonmotorized areas, which would only have effects from non-motorized users. In some 

cases non-motorized activities have the capacity to cause more disturbances to an 

animal, than motorized activities. These disturbances may be more localized. Motorized 

activities, because of the nature of a larger "foot print" may cause varying degrees of 

disturbances over greater areas. The acres of affected habitat remain generally the 

same for any particular species across alternatives. The allowed use (motorized or nonmotorized), changes by alternative (See Tables 3-6 and 3-7). 

Long-term impacts of how Season A/Season B use scenarios affect a species use of its 

habitat are unknown. In the short term, this may eliminate motorized effects in areas 

when they are non-motorized, but may concentrate more human use and effects in other 

areas that are motorized. For species that continue to use Season A/Season B areas, 

when they are non-motorized, there may be a reduction in effects every other year. It is 

unknown if some species would be permanently displaced. 

The real question is whether the effects of motorized or non-motorized use could affect a 

species population. To help answer this, a ranked criteria to estimate the level of effect 

and risk to populations that might result from any alternative was developed (see Table 

3-6). The criteria are based on (1) the percent of available winter habitat affected, (2) 

how important/critical the habitat is for survival, (3) whether the effect can impact 

reproduction or recruitment into the population or cause mortality, (4) if the current 

population trend is stable, increasing, declining, or unknown. The greater the percentage 

of available habitat affected and the more important the affected habitat is for survival or 

reproduction, the smaller or less stable the population, plus the amount of information 

that is unknown about the population or important habitat, the higher the risk of affecting 

the population. 

Impacts to wildlife were categorized as negligible-low, low-moderate, moderate, or high 

based on ranked criteria (see Ranked Criteria on page 110). Mountain goat, Dall sheep, 

and Barren-ground caribou were selected as the species that could experience 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 108 

negligible impacts and risk to the population. Species that could experience negligiblelow impacts/risk include brown bears in spring (without cubs) after den emergence. 

Species that could experience low-moderate impacts/risk include brown bears in 

denning habitat and core areas1

, moose, wolves, lynx, bald eagles, northern goshawks, 

black bears, small mammals, migratory birds, and marbled murrelet. Species that could 

experience moderate impacts/risk include brown bear and wolverine. No species are 

expected to experience high impacts (See Table 3-6). 

For brown bear, the No Action Alternative has the highest probability of affecting 

individuals, followed by Alternative 2, Proposed Action, Modified Preferred Alternative 

and Alternative 1. For wolverine, the No Action Alternative has the highest probability of 

affecting individuals, followed by the Proposed Action, Modified Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative2. 

In summary, effects by species category are as follows: 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

• There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, or 

proposed species because they do not occur within the permit area during the 

operating period. 

Management Indicator Species 

• Direct, indirect, or cumulative effects may occur to individual brown bears, moose and 

mountain goats due to recreation activity. The risks of affecting the populations of 

these species range from negligible to moderate. 

Species of Special Interest 

• Direct, indirect, or cumulative effects may occur to individual species of special 

interest (wolverine, wolves, lynx, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, bald eagle) 

due to recreation activity. Risks of affecting the populations is low-moderate for all 

species except wolverine, which is moderate. 

Issue: Disturbance to Wildlife 

Winter recreation use increases human access into wildlife habitat, which may 

potentially affect an animal’s use of the habitat for denning, nesting, cover, or foraging. 

Indicators 

• Percent of affected habitat that is motorized and non-motorized within a 

species habitat 

• Level of effect/risk to species and its population 

 

1

 Core areas are identified in the LRMP. The intent of core areas is to manage habitat and meet population objectives for 

brown bears, and to reduce dangerous encounters between humans and bears (USDA- FS, 2002b, and pg 4-54). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 109 

Methods, Units of Measure, Assumptions, and Limitations 

Methods 

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

Federal biologists, LRMP direction, and scientific literature were used to investigate the 

significance of potential disturbance to wildlife. Affected habitat was based on existing 

recreation use, which is our best estimate of accessible areas. An existing winter 

recreation use map was developed to serve as a baseline for the affected environment 

and cumulative effects analysis (Map A-3-2, Existing Winter Recreation Use Map). This 

map displays how and where people are recreating now, even if other uses are allowed. 

The intent was to focus the analysis on areas that are accessible and preferred, knowing 

that in the future recreation use may expand as access or equipment capability 

increases. The map was based on recreation use maps developed for the Chugach 

Powder Guides FEIS (USDA-FS, 2004d), knowledge of recreation use by USFS 

recreation specialists, maps of local ski areas from public input, and aerial locations of 

recreation use (Poe et al., 2005). 

Units of Measure 

1. Percent of Motorized and Non-motorized Use within the Affected Habitat: 

The percent of motorized and non-motorized use within the affected habitat displays the 

relative level of effect to individuals of a species. 

Assumption: The acres of affected habitat remain the same for any species across 

alternatives, the allowed use (motorized or non-motorized) changes by alternative. 

Although many of the effects of motorized and non-motorized recreation are similar, 

some of the effects may differ depending on the species or individual animals. It is 

expected that alternatives with a greater percentage of motorized use, would have 

greater effects on individuals because both motorized and non-motorized users and 

effects may be present. 

Limitations: Displays relative differences between alternatives regarding the types of 

use potentially affecting wildlife. While percentages of habitat affected by the use 

allowed are reported, no threshold values are available in the literature to determine if a 

certain value would be significant in affecting a species or population. 

2. Level of Effect and Risk to the population: 

The level of effect and risk to the population displays the level of effect to the species 

and risk of affecting the population. This is based on (1) the percent of available winter 

habitat affected, (2) how important and critical the habitat is for survival, (3) whether the 

effect can impact reproduction or recruitment into the population or cause mortality, and 

(4) whether the current population trend is stable, increasing, declining, or unknown. 

Assumption: The greater the percentage of available habitat affected and the more 

important the affected habitat is for survival or reproduction, the smaller or less stable 

the population. Additionally, the more information that is unknown about the population 

or important habitat, the higher the risk of affecting the population. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 110 

Limitations: In some instances, information used to evaluate the level of effect and risk 

to populations was based on the professional judgment of the Chugach National Forest 

biologists and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) biologists. Habitat 

information for some species is limited and based on GIS cover types and ADF&G range 

maps. Habitat acres and percentages may be over or underestimated. 

Ranked Criteria: Level of Effect and Risk to Populations 

Potential impacts to each species were considered using the following ranked approach. 

Negligible-Low Impacts 

• No species of concern are present, or present in low numbers. No or minor impacts 

expected. 

• Affected habitat is less than 20 percent of available on the Seward Ranger District. 

• Habitat is not critical for survival and not limited to the project area. 

• Population trends are considered to be stable, increasing, decreasing, or unknown. 

• Minor impacts that do occur have no long-term or population effects. 

Low Impacts-Moderate Impacts 

• Breeding or non-breeding animals of concern may be present for critical life stages. 

• Affected habitat is less than 25 percent of available on the Seward Ranger District. 

• Habitat may be critical for survival or reproduction, but is not limited to the analysis 

area. 

• Population trends are considered to be stable, increasing, declining, or unknown. 

• Mortality/interference with activities necessary for survival may occur but is not 

expected to threaten the continued existence of species in the area. 

Moderate Impacts 

• Breeding animals of concern are present for critical life stages. 

• Affected habitat is less than 50 percent of available on the Seward Ranger District or 

is unknown. 

• Habitat may be critical for survival or reproduction, but is not limited to the analysis 

area. 

• Population trends are considered declining or unknown. 

• Mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival may occur and could 

potentially threaten the continued existence of species in the area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 111 

High Impacts 

• Breeding animals present in high numbers or during critical life stages. 

• Winter recreation occurs during critical life stages during critical periods. 

• Habitat is limited and animals cannot relocate to avoid impacts. 

• Affected habitat is greater than 50 percent of available on the Seward Ranger District 

or is unknown. 

• Population trends are considered declining or unknown. 

• Mortality or other effects (injury, physiological stress, effects on reproduction and 

young raising) are expected on a regular basis; these effects threaten the continued 

survival of the species. 

Definitions: 

Regular: Occurring at fixed intervals (annually) 

High: Greater than normal or average numbers 

Low: Less than normal or average numbers 

Minor impacts: Impacts have no substantial effects on individuals or populations 

Core area: Brown bear core areas provide for the seasonal needs of brown bears, plus 

provide connectivity for brown bear movements 

Mammals: Disruption of breeding, abandonment of denning sites or displacement from 

foraging areas for females with young after den emergence. 

Primary differences in level of effect and risk of affecting wildlife populations are 

displayed in Table 3-6. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 112 

Table 3-6 Wildlife Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects and Level of Effect/Risk of Affecting th

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

M 43 unknown Y Y Motorized 93 78 84 

Nonmotorized 4 19 13 

Season A 

/Season B 0 3 3 

Brown Bear – spring with cubs 

Mid-season 

swap 

3 0 0 

L 17 unknown Y N Motorized 68 39 62 

Nonmotorized 22 47 25 

Season A 

/Season B 0 13 13 

Brown Bear – spring without cubs 

Mid-season 

swap 

10 0 0 

1 See Ranked Criteria above 2 Includes the percent of winter habitat on the Seward Ranger District potentially affected by winter recreation use. Affected habitat is based on current re

best estimate of accessible areas. 

3 Considers whether the population is stable, increasing, decreasing or trends are unknown. 4 Includes areas that are thought to be very important to survival or reproduction within winter range. Habitat was identified as high importance in LRMP, L

as important for supporting high numbers of animals by ADF&G, or they are known breeding, nesting, calving, or denning areas, or winter range is consid

populations, or the area has high value for winter foraging. 5 Has the potential to affect recruitment of individual animals into the population because it could affect breeding or survival of young. 6 A percentage of the percent winter habitat affected by alternative by allowed use. 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

L-M 5 unknown Y Y Motorized 77 66 65 

Nonmotorized 18 28 29 

Season A/ 

Season B 0 6 6 

Brown Bear – denning 

Mid-season 

swap 

5 0 0 

L-M 14 unknown Y Y Motorized 99 95 95 

Nonmotorized 1 5 5 

Season A 

/Season B 0 0 0 

Brown Bear – core 

Mid-season 

swap 

0 0 0 

L-M 17 stable to declining Y N Motorized 68 39 62 

Nonmotorized 22 47 25 

Season A 

/Season B 0 13 13 

Moose 

Mid-season 

swap 

10 0 0 
Kenai Winter Access 

 114 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

N 2 declining Y N Motorized 75 53 52 

Nonmotorized 19 39 40 

Season A 

/Season B 0 7 7 

Mountain Goat 

Mid-season 

swap 

6 0 0 

L-M 17 unknown Y N Motorized 68 39 62 

Nonmotorized 22 47 25 

Season A 

/Season B 0 13 13 

Gray Wolf 

Mid-season 

swap 

10 0 0 

L-M 20 unknown Y N Motorized 74 59 68 

Nonmotorized 14 27 18 

Season A 

/Season B 0 14 14 

Lynx 

Mid-season 

swap 

13 0 0 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

M 15 unknown unknown Y Motorized 82 73 78 

Nonmotorized 10 19 13 

Season A 

/Season B 0 9 9 

Wolverine 

Mid-season 

swap 

8 0 

L-M 15 stable or increasing Y Y Motorized 53 54 61 

Nonmotorized 23 22 15 

Season A 

/Season B 0 24 24 

Bald Eagle 

Mid-season 

swap 

24 0 0 

L-M 16 unknown Y Y Motorized 100 100 100 

Nonmotorized 0 0 0 

Season A 

/Season B 0 0 0 

Northern Goshawk 

Mid-season 

swap 

0 0 0 
Kenai Winter Access 

 116 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

N <1 declining Y N Motorized 84 44 44 

Nonmotorized 1 12 12 

Season A 

/Season B 0 44 44 

Dall Sheep 

Mid-season 

swap 

15 0 0 

N 4 stable Y N Motorized 0 0 0 

Nonmotorized 0 0 0 

Season A 

/Season B 0 100 100 

Barren Ground Caribou 

Mid-season 

swap 

100 0 0 

L 17 N/A unknown Y Motorized 74 60 67 

Nonmotorized 14 26 19 

Season A 

/Season B 0 14 14 

Black Bear – denning 

Mid-season 

swap 

13 0 0 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

L 12 unknown variable Y Motorized 76 64 70 

Nonmotorized 13 24 18 

Season A 

/Season B 0 12 12 

Small Mammals 

Mid-season 

swap 

11 0 0 

L 12 variable variable Y Motorized 76 64 70 

Nonmotorized 13 24 18 

Season A 

/Season B 0 12 12 

Migratory Birds1

Mid-season 

swap 

11 0 0 

M unknown stable Y Y Motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Nonmotorized unknown unknown unknown 

Season A 

/Season B unknown unknown unknown 

Marbled Murrelet 

Mid-season 

swap 

unknown unknown unknown 

1 Courtship, nesting, survival of eggs or chicks. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 118 

Species or 

Habitat 

Effect/ 

Risk to 

Population

1

 % Available 

Winter 

Habitat 

Affected

2

Population 

Trend

3

Important/ 

Critical 

Habitat

4

Recruitment

5

Allowed Use 

No Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat

6

Modified 

Preferred 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

Proposed 

Action 

% of Affected 

Habitat 

M unknown unknown Y Y Motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Nonmotorized unknown unknown unknown 

Season A 

/Season B unknown unknown unknown 

River Otter 

Mid-season 

swap 

unknown unknown unknown 

Note: Motorized use occurs for 10 months in any 2 year period in units managed as a Season A/ Season B scenario. Non-motorized use occurs for 10 months in any 2-year period in units managed as a Season A/ Season B scenThe February 15 mid-season swap occurs only in the West Resurrection and Resurrection units, and allows botmotorized use for 5 months in any two-year period. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Decimal places are not shown.
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences The differences in alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative are displayed in Table 3-7. The difference

potential to affect individual animals. 

Table 3-7 Comparison of Alternatives: Differences in Percent of Allowed Use Compared to the No A

Species or Habitat Allowed Use 

Modified Preferred 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Proposed Action 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Alt 1 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Motorized -15 -9 -15 

Non-motorized 15 9 15 

Season A/ Season B 3 3 3 

Brown Bear – spring with cubs 

Mid-season swap -3 -3 -3 

Motorized -29 -6 -28 

Non-motorized 25 3 6 

Season A/ Season B 13 13 32 

Brown Bear – spring without cubs 

Mid-season swap -10 -10 -10 

Motorized -11 -12 -21 

Non-motorized 10 11 18 

Season A/ Season B 6 6 9 

Brown Bear – denning 

Mid-season swap -5 -5 -5 
Kenai Winter Access 

 120 

Species or Habitat Allowed Use 

Modified Preferred 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Proposed Action 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Alt 1 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Motorized -4 -4 -45 

Non-motorized 4 4 6 

Season A/ Season B 0 0 38 

Brown Bear core 

Mid-season swap 0 0 0 

Motorized -29 -6 -28 

Non-motorized 25 3 6 

Season A/ Season B 13 13 32 

Moose 

Mid-season swap -10 -10 -10 

Motorized -22 -23 -35 

Non-motorized 20 21 25 

Season A/ Season B 7 7 16 

Mountain Goat 

Mid-season swap -6 -6 -6 

Motorized -29 -6 -28 

Non-motorized 25 3 6 

Season A/ Season B 13 13 32 

Gray Wolf 

Mid-season swap -10 -10 -10 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Species or Habitat Allowed Use 

Modified Preferred 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Proposed Action 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Alt 1 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Motorized -15 -6 -18 

Non-motorized 13 4 14 

Season A/ Season B 14 14 15 

Lynx 

Mid-season swap -13 -13 -13 

Motorized -9 -4 -18 

Non-motorized 9 3 12 

Season A/ Season B 9 9 15 

Wolverine 

Mid-season swap -8 -8 -8 

Motorized 1 8 -26 

Non-motorized -1 -8 10 

Season A/ Season B 24 24 39 

Bald Eagle 

Mid-season swap -24 -24 -24 

Motorized 0 0 0 

Non-motorized 0 0 0 

Season A/ Season B 0 0 0 

Northern Goshawk 

Mid-season swap 0 0 0 
Kenai Winter Access 

 122 

Species or Habitat Allowed Use 

Modified Preferred 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Proposed Action 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Alt 1 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Motorized -40 -40 -40 

Non-motorized 11 11 11 

Season A/ Season B 44 44 44 

Dall Sheep 

Mid-season swap -15 -15 -15 

Motorized 0 0 0 

Non-motorized 0 0 0 

Season A/ Season B 100 100 100 

Barren Ground Caribou 

Mid-season swap -100 -100 -100 

Motorized -14 -7 -17 

Non-motorized 12 5 16 

Season A/ Season B 14 14 13 

Black Bear – denning 

Mid-season swap -13 -13 -13 

Motorized -12 -6 -16 

Non-motorized 11 5 14 

Season A/ Season B 12 12 13 

Small Mammals 

Mid-season swap -11 -11 -11 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Species or Habitat Allowed Use 

Modified Preferred 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Proposed Action 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Alt 1 

% Difference from 

No Action 

Motorized -12 -6 -16 

Non-motorized 11 5 14 

Season A/ Season B 12 12 13 

Migratory Birds 

Mid-season swap -11 -11 -11 

Motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Non-motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Season A/ Season B unknown unknown unknown 

Marbled Murrelet 

Mid-season swap unknown unknown unknown 

Motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Non-motorized unknown unknown unknown 

Season A/ Season B unknown unknown unknown 

River Otter 

Mid-season swap unknown unknown unknown 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 124 

Analysis Area 

The Seward Ranger District is the bounds of wildlife analysis for the Kenai Winter 

Access project. 

For the purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement, a number of wildlife species 

were selected for detailed analysis. For a complete list of species considered and more 

detailed information, see the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, or 

proposed species in any of the alternatives because they do not occur within the 

analysis area during the winter recreation period (See Wildlife Specialist Report, 

Biological Assessment and Evaluation, Appendix E). 

Management Indicator Species, Species of Special 

Interest and Species of Concern 

3.2.1. Brown Bear 

Affected Environment 

Brown bear habitat that is important during the winter recreation period includes core 

areas, potential denning habitat, and post den emergence habitat (spring habitat) for 

females with cubs and other bears without cubs. 

The intent of core areas is to manage habitat and meet population objectives for brown 

bears, and to reduce dangerous encounters between humans and bears (USDA- FS, 

2002b, and pg 4-54). Core areas occur in the Russian, Carter/Crescent, 

Ptarmigan/Grant, and Johnson Pass units. Currently, 9,997 acres, or 14 percent of the 

core areas overlap current winter recreation use areas. The greatest amount of current 

recreation use occurs in the Carter/Crescent area. 

Potential denning habitat occurs throughout the project area on all aspects of steep 

mountain slopes. Habitat potentially affected by winter recreation use that is 80 to100 

percent more likely to provide denning habitat, occurs on 15,283 acres or 5 percent of 

what is available, primarily in the Johnson Pass, Summit, and Hope units. 

Emergence from dens typically occurs in early spring when much of the habitat is still 

snow covered. There has been no denning chronology performed on the Kenai 

Peninsula brown bear population, so actual dates are uncertain, and potential exists for 

emerging bears to be active in areas overlapping winter recreation use. Males are the 

first to emerge in March, followed by lone females and sub-adults at the end of April, and 

finally females with cubs, which may stay in or near the den until late May (Farley, 2005). 

Males, females without cubs, and sub-adults are most likely to be affected by winter 

recreation after den emergence and through the end of the winter recreation period. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 125 

Males depend on winter-killed moose and other animals for food, as other food sources 

are limited at this time of year (LeFranc et al., 1987; Farley, 2005). Affected habitat 

occurs on 17 percent of available foraging areas in the Resurrection, Summit, Russian, 

Snow, Ptarmigan/Grant, Hope, and Lost Lake units (see moose section). 

Suring et al. (2005) indicated that in the spring, female brown bears without cubs were 

associated with areas with low densities of human developments and roads, as well as 

with riparian areas that have summer salmon. Units that meet this description include 

Resurrection (Resurrection Creek), Russian (Russian River), Lost Lake (Resurrection 

River), Ptarmigan/Grant (Trail Creek), and Snow River (South Fork of Snow River). 

Suring et al. (2005, pg 13-14) found when female brown bears with cubs leave dens, 

they are more associated with upland habitats in close proximity to cover. Suring's brown 

bear model determines the potential for habitat use in terms of probability. He estimates 

that the areas with a probability of 80 to 100 percent have the highest potential for use. 

Suring's brown bear model indicates that 636 acres of habitat with the highest potential 

for use by bears could be affected by winter recreation. That corresponds to about 43 

percent of the brown bear winter habitat on the Seward Ranger District. This habitat 

occurs in the Ptarmigan/Grant, Johnson Pass, Snow, and Hope units, and some overlap 

in the Tern Lake, Resurrection, and Lost Lake units. 

Environmental Consequences 

There are two stages in the annual cycle where brown bears are vulnerable to the 

impacts of winter recreation use: (1) denning and (2) post-denning emergence (Olliff et 

al., 1999, pg 53). 

The majority of brown bears are denning during winter recreational activities. Denning 

allows brown bears to reside in a state of energy conservation; and, the concern is the 

energetic costs of disturbance. 

A larger issue is the potential for bear-human conflicts and bear displacement while 

bears are foraging after den emergence. These conflicts can occur from surprise 

encounters between humans and bears in backcountry areas, although reports of this 

happening are few (Olliff et al., 1999, pg 53). 

Winter recreation has the potential to disturb or displace bears from denning or foraging 

areas, increase energy expenditure, and potentially increase incidences of defense of 

life and property kills (DLPs). The No Action Alternative has the highest probability of 

affecting individuals, followed by Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, the Modified 

Preferred Alternative, and Alternative 1. The Modified Preferred Alternative may have 

additional effects related to disturbance to denning bears, foraging bears in the spring, 

and foraging bears during the summer in the core area due to the non-motorized access 

corridors in the Carter-Crescent and Lost Lake units. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects may occur to denning or foraging bears from other winter recreation 

activities such as guided helicopter skiing, vegetation and fuels treatments, and road 

construction or development. Effects from guided helicopter skiing are generally the 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 126 

same across alternatives in core areas and foraging habitats. Denning bears may 

experience increased cumulative effects in the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, 

and Alternative 1 due to greater acres of denning habitat open to guided helicopter 

skiing. Cumulative effects may occur on up to 1 percent of the available denning habitat 

on the Kenai Peninsula. Vegetation treatments may also enhance foraging habitat. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

The current population level and trends for brown bears is unknown. Important habitats 

such as core areas, denning and foraging habitats for bears with and without cubs are 

potentially affected (See Table 3-6). Recruitment into the population could be affected if 

mortality of cubs occurs due to den disturbance, displacement from high quality foraging 

areas, or DLPs. The risk of affecting brown bear populations due to disturbance or 

displacement in core areas is low, disturbance or displacement in denning habitat would 

be low-moderate, disturbance or displacement in spring foraging habitat for bears 

without cubs would be low, and disturbance or displacement in spring foraging habitat 

for bears with cubs would be moderate. 

All factors considered together, the level of effect and risk to brown bear populations on 

the Seward Ranger District is moderate because of the high amount of spring foraging 

habitat for females with cubs potentially affected, the concern over maintenance of the 

population if reproduction is affected, and unknown population levels and trends, and 

unknown dates of den emergence. Bear-human interactions resulting in DLPs may also 

affect bears. Whether these effects cause permanent harm to bears, individually or at 

the population level is not known, and is an information need. Because brown bears 

react to winter recreation in a variety of ways, most of which appear to cause no 

permanent harm to the bears, at present, the intersection between this subset of bears 

and winter recreation is not viewed as causing irreversible harm to the brown bear 

population. 

3.2.2. Moose 

Affected Environment 

Within the project area, there are 95,738 acres of moose winter range occurring in all 

geographic units. The affected environment constitutes 17 percent of the available 

moose winter range on the Seward Ranger District, and includes both foraging and 

cover areas. Most of the recreation use in moose winter range currently occurs in the 

Snow and Summit units. The Johnson Pass unit, which includes the West Bench Peak 

guided helicopter skiing unit, is also a primary recreation use area in moose winter 

range. 

Environmental Consequences 

Winter recreation may disturb or displace moose from bedding or foraging areas, cause 

energetically expensive flight, stress, habituation or tolerance, or allow increased access 

to predators such as wolves. In winter, most moose are restricted to specific geographic 

areas because of limited forage resources. To compensate, they have physiological and 

behavioral adaptations to reduce energy requirements. When in this condition, moose 

responses to human recreation range from apparent disinterest to flight (Colescott and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 127 

Gillingham, 1998, pg 329, 334-336; Canfield et al., 1999, pg 6.6). A number of reports do 

relate the negative aspects of snow machines, but at times snow machines can be less 

distressing than cross-country skiers (Canfield et al., 1999, pg 6.7). All forms of 

recreation can displace animals to less desirable habitat or increase animals habituation 

and tolerance of the activity (Canfield et al., 1999). Results depend on the predictability 

of the recreational event. The majority of affected habitat in all alternatives is in 

motorized areas, where both motorized and non-motorized effects can occur. The No 

Action Alternative has the highest probability of affecting individual moose, followed by 

the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, Alternative 1, and the Modified Preferred Alternative 

because of the decreasing amount of motorized use allowed in the affected habitat (see 

Tables 3-6 and 3-7). 

The non-motorized Grouse Lake access corridor in the Proposed Action intersects the 

winter range for 0.5 miles, which may increase existing use within the area, increasing 

potential disturbance to moose. 

Cumulative Effects 

Guided helicopter skiing can occur on approximately 956 acres in all alternatives. 

Currently, 169 miles of road and approximately 129 miles of maintained trail run through 

the moose winter range contributing to animal mortalities. Continuing development of 

roads, trails, and private and public lands in the valley bottoms along the major road 

corridors has the potential to degrade moose winter range. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System, which would add new trails and huts in the Mills Creek area, could disturb or 

displace moose in their winter range. The Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic 

Trail would bisect three areas of winter range that receive recreation use. 

Past and future hazardous fuel reduction projects near Palmer Creek Road, Victor 

Creek, Cooper Lake, Primrose, and Juneau may improve moose winter range through 

hardwood regeneration. Fuel treatments may cause short-term disturbance or 

displacement of moose from foraging areas. 

Mining claims occur at lower elevations along streams within moose winter range. 

Mining activities may lower foraging quality by removing vegetation along stream banks. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

The current population level and trends for moose are stable to declining because early 

seral habitat used for foraging is declining. On the Kenai Peninsula, limitations to 

population growth include winter habitat, predation, hunting, and mortality from vehicular 

collisions (USDA-FS, 2002a, pg 3-216). Winter habitat is important, but it is not limited to 

the Seward Ranger District. Important foraging areas have not been identified, but work 

is underway now in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

to update population numbers and habitat maps and develop a cooperative Moose 

Management Plan. All alternatives would potentially affect moose use of 17 percent of 

the available winter habitat on the Seward Ranger District. Calving occurs after April 30, 

so there should be no direct effect on juvenile survival. Interference with foraging may 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 128 

occur at times. Cumulative effects may be higher than some other species, as moose 

winter range has had much activity in relation to development, roads, trails, and 

vegetation treatments. The level of effect and risk to moose populations on the Seward 

Ranger District across all alternatives would be low-moderate. 

3.2.3. Mountain Goat 

Affected Environment 

Mountain goats use cliffs, alpine, and sub-alpine habitats. Winter habitat may limit 

mountain goat populations in Southcentral Alaska (USDA-FS, 2002b,). 

Mountain goat habitat primarily occurs on steep slopes greater than 50 percent, which is 

often inaccessible to most recreationists, although some overlap does occur (Poe, 

2005). 

Mountain goat winter range currently receives use on approximately 1,642 acres within 

the project area on 2 percent of their available winter range. The majority of use is by 

snowmachines and occurs in the Summit, Hope, and Johnson Pass units. 

Environmental Consequences 

Snowmachiners and skiers have the potential to disturb mountain goats (Olliff et al., 

1999, pg 92) causing abandonment of habitat, increased and continuing stress, and 

excess energy expenditure (Olliff et al., 1999). Goats also appear adaptable and able to 

habituate to adverse stimuli if they are gradually acclimated, and no negative affects are 

associated with the activity (Penner, 1988). Compaction of snow caused by 

snowmachines may also increase access to goats from predators such as wolves (Claar 

et al., 1999) or hunting when open seasons overlap the winter recreation period. 

The majority of effects on goats is expected to be from motorized recreation. The No 

Action Alternative has the highest probability of affecting individual goats, followed by the 

Modified Preferred Alternative, the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and Alternative 1 (see 

Tables 3-6 and 3-7) because of decreasing amounts of allowed motorized use. Effects 

will likely be concentrated in areas open to motorized use in alternatives with Season 

A/Season B scenarios. 

Cumulative Effects 

Aircraft-assisted recreation such as dog sledding, guided helicopter skiing, and flightseeing has increased annually in amount and distribution. Current motorized and nonmotorized use occurs within areas also used for guided helicopter skiing, particularly in 

the Johnson Pass and Lost Lake units. The No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, 

and Alternative 1 may affect up to 652 acres in goat habitat, and Alternative 2 and the 

Modified Preferred Alternative would affect 642 acres. Future actions such as the 

proposed Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System project may affect mountain goats from 

aircraft within the Johnson and Summit units. Mitigation for aircraft to maintain 1500’ 

AGL (above ground level) will minimize these effects (USDA-FS, 2004d). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 129 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

The current population level and trends for goats indicate a gradual decline across the 

Kenai Peninsula for unknown reasons. Winter habitat is important but it is not limited to 

the Seward Ranger District. Carter/Crescent is an important habitat area identified by 

ADF&G. All alternatives would only potentially affect mountain goat use of 2 percent of 

the available winter habitat on the Seward Ranger District. Kidding occurs after April 30, 

so there should be no direct effects on juvenile survival. Interference with foraging may 

occur at times. Cumulative effects are primarily associated with guided helicopter skiing. 

The level of effect and risk to goat populations on the Seward Ranger District across all 

alternatives would therefore be negligible. 

Species of Special Interest 

3.2.4. Gray Wolf 

Affected Environment 

In 2001, 10 to 11 resident wolf packs were estimated within the project area, spread 

across all areas of winter recreation use (Spraker, 2001). From February 2007 to March 

2007 aerial surveys to locate wolf packs found one, evidence of a second (only sign 

observed), and a small pack of three (Harris, 2007). Surveys occurred on roughly twothirds of the Seward Ranger District. 

Wolves forage in all areas and habitats, although in the winter, their primary foraging 

area is likely to be moose winter range and avalanche chutes where winter kills may be 

available (Shuster, 2005). Deep snow may limit access into other big game winter range 

(sheep and goats) outside of windblown ridges, unless compaction from recreation 

allows access, and wolves use this access. Foraging habitat (based on moose winter 

range) occurs on 95,738 acres in the Seward Ranger District (17 percent of available 

habitat) primarily in the Resurrection, Summit, Russian, Snow, Ptarmigan/Grant, Hope, 

and Lost Lake units with most of the winter recreation use in wolf foraging areas 

occurring in the Snow and Summit units. 

Environmental Consequences 

Winter recreation may disturb or displace wolves from foraging areas, cause stress, 

allow increased access to hunters and trappers, allow increased access to prey species 

such as moose through snow compaction, and increase chances of disease or parasite 

transfer from domestic dogs. Wolves use trails made by snowmachines. This may result 

in mortality (i.e. shooting and running over), increased physical exertion, and altered 

movements (Claar et al., 1999). 

The No Action Alternative has the highest probability of affecting individual wolves, 

followed by the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, Alternative 1, and the Modified Preferred 

Alternative, based on the decreasing amount of motorized use allowed in the affected 

habitat (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7). Effects will be concentrated where motorized use 

would be allowed in alternatives with Season A/Season B scenarios during the 

motorized periods. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 130 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of guided helicopter skiing, roads and trails, and development are the 

same as those for moose. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System project, could potentially contribute to cumulative effects (such as disturbance, 

displacement, increased access to trappers, and harassment) from new trails, and huts. 

Similar effects may occur where the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail 

will bisect three areas of moose winter range. 

Hazardous fuel reduction projects that have occurred or will occur near Palmer Creek 

Road, Victor Creek, Cooper Lake, Primrose, and Juneau should improve prey species 

habitat. 

Increasing development of private and State lands may contribute to reduction of habitat 

quality for moose and wolves. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

The current population level and trends for wolves are unknown. Important habitat areas 

are considered big game winter range, which is not limited to the Seward Ranger 

District. All alternatives would potentially affect wolf use of 17 percent of the available 

winter foraging habitat on the Seward Ranger District. Wolves have young outside the 

winter recreation period so there will be no direct effects on juvenile survival. Mortality 

may occur at times because of recreation use or increased access. Cumulative effects 

would primarily be in relation to development, roads, and trails. The level of effect and 

risk to wolf populations on the Seward Ranger District across all alternatives would 

therefore be low-moderate. 

3.2.5. Lynx 

Affected Environment 

Lynx may be affected on up to 20 percent of their foraging habitat on the Seward Ranger 

District. Lynx foraging habitat occurs in the Resurrection, Summit, Russian, Snow, 

Ptarmigan/Grant, Hope, and Lost Lake units on 316,187 acres on the Seward Ranger 

District. 

Environmental Consequences 

Winter recreation may disturb or displace lynx from foraging areas, cause stress, allow 

increased access to hunters and trappers, allow increased access to predators and 

competitors such as wolves and coyotes through snow compaction, and may alter 

movements of prey species. The No Action Alternative has the highest probability of 

affecting individual lynx, followed by the Proposed Action, the Modified Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Primary affected areas are the Snow River 

and Summit units. Additional effects may occur in Alternative 2 because of the Mount 

Adair access corridor, which intersects lynx habitat for 0.5 mile, and the Grayling to Lost 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 131 

Lake access corridor, which intersects lynx habitat for approximately 2.4 miles. This may 

reduce foraging opportunities and increase competition and predation from wolves. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects for this alternative, as it relates to guided helicopter skiing, would 

be on 14,963 acres in the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and Alternative 1, and 

on 99 acres less in Alternative 2 and the Modified Preferred Alternative. 

Vegetation treatments may disturb or displace foraging lynx, but the treatments may also 

improve foraging habitat for prey species. 

Cumulative effects may also occur due to recreation disturbance or increased access to 

trappers along the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail or the Mills Creek 

Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System trail system in Mills Creek in all alternatives. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

The current population level and trends for lynx are unknown. Important habitat areas 

occur where snowshoe hare are found and are not limited to the Seward Ranger District. 

All alternatives would potentially affect lynx use of 20 percent of the available winter 

foraging habitat on the Seward Ranger District. Lynx do not den during the winter 

recreation period so there will be no direct effects on juvenile survival. Mortality because 

of recreation use or increased access may occur at times. Cumulative effects would 

primarily be in relation to guided helicopter skiing. The level of effect and risk to lynx 

populations on the Seward Ranger District across all alternatives would therefore be 

low-moderate. 

3.2.6. Marbled Murrelet 

Affected Environment 

Marbled murrelets are medium-sized seabirds that inhabit near-shore coastal waters, 

inland freshwater lakes, and nest in inland areas of old-growth conifer forest or on the 

ground (Carter and Sealy, 1986; Marshall, 1988) within 31 miles of the coast. In Alaska, 

nesting is initiated mid-March through July (Hamer and Nelson, 1995), although egg 

laying and the incubation period do not occur until mid-May through late July. Specific 

nest sites on the Seward Ranger District are unknown, but some overlap between 

murrelet nesting habitat and winter recreation is possible where they are known to occur 

during the breeding season in the Lost Lake, Ptarmigan/Grant, and Tiehack/Mt Alice 

units. Murrelet nesting habitat is most likely to occur within the hemlock-spruce and Sitka 

spruce cover types in areas that are denser and not preferred by winter recreationists. 

Environmental Consequences 

Limited information is available on the effects of recreation activities on marbled 

murrelets. In a few places, marbled murrelets nest in state parks and other recreation 

areas with consistent human activity. It is unknown whether murrelets nest in trees or on 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 132 

the ground on the Seward Ranger District. Ground-nesting murrelets are easily disturbed 

by human activity (Nelson, 1997). 

There may be short-term disturbance or displacement of individuals during March and 

April in all alternatives. Whether disturbance could affect reproduction is unknown. 

The Grayling-Lost Lake (Proposed Action, Modified Preferred Alternative) and Lost Lake 

(Alternative 2) access corridors may affect potential murrelet nesting habitat through 

disturbance to nesting birds during the beginning of the breeding season in April. 

Based on units where potential nesting habitat exists, the No Action Alternative has the 

greatest potential to affect murrelets, followed by Alternative 2. The Modified Preferred 

Alternative, the Proposed Action, and Alternative 1 have the least potential to affect 

murrelets due to a reduction in motorized use in the Tiehack/Mt Alice, Lost Lake and 

Ptarmigan/Grant units. 

Cumulative Effects 

Potential nesting habitat exists under the flight paths (but not likely in the skiing areas) in 

the guided helicopter skiing exploratory areas. Individuals may be disturbed or frightened 

by helicopter over flights. Mitigation to remain 1500’ AGL (above ground level) should 

reduce potential effects (USDA-FS, 2004d). Cumulative effects of guided helicopter 

skiing may be less in the Modified Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, which would 

not permit guided helicopter skiing in the Snow River exploratory area. 

Cumulative effects may occur from mature and old growth habitat loss due to spruce 

bark beetle and associated hazardous fuel reduction treatments (Holsten et al., 1999), 

which would reduce the amount of available nesting habitat. Vegetation and hazardous 

fuel treatments have the potential to disturb murrelets during the breeding season in old 

growth habitats. 

Some overlap between potential murrelet habitat and winter recreation is possible when 

the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail is complete in the 

Grayling/Meridian Lakes area and near Bear Lake. The Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System project would not contain potential nesting habitat, so no cumulative effects 

would be expected. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Murrelet populations are thought to be stable on the Chugach National Forest (USDAFS, 2002b). The percent of habitat affected in all alternatives by varying amounts of 

motorized and non-motorized use is unknown but is expected to be minimal as the 

denser areas preferred for nesting are not preferred by recreationists. Important habitat 

areas are potential nesting areas in old growth conifers within 31 miles of the coast, and 

are potentially located in the Lost Lake, Ptarmigan/Grant, and Tiehack/Mt Alice units. 

Important habitat is not limited to areas where winter recreation occurs, and again, 

habitats are denser and not preferred as winter recreation areas. Winter recreation does 

overlap the nesting season, so potential exists to affect reproduction. For the reasons 

listed above, the level of effect and potential risk to affect the population would be 

moderate. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 133 

3.2.7. River Otter 

Affected Environment 

River otters, associated with riparian areas, protected inlets, and coves, require aquatic 

and adjacent shoreline habitats, and may be impacted by both water-based and 

shoreline recreational activities. 

Otters bear young in offshore subterranean burrows between January and June, and 

pups emerge when about 2 months old. During the winter, they dig elaborate tunnels 

and feeding dens in snow over frozen lakes and bays where fluctuations in water levels 

leave cracks for them to come and go (ADF&G, 2005). Potential exists for otter habitat 

(foraging and den areas) to overlap areas used for winter recreation. 

River otters are known to occur in Resurrection River, Resurrection Creek, and Tern 

Lake and likely occur throughout the analysis area in appropriate habitats. 

Environmental Consequences 

“Disturbance may cause stressful physiological reactions, interrupt activities, and 

displace river otters from preferred habitats, with resultant energetic consequences. 

Displacement can vary from a short-term flight and return or long-term abandonment of 

the area. Disturbance during spring and early summer (breeding, dispersal, parturition, 

and post-natal periods) may be most detrimental to productivity, although disturbance at 

anytime of the year may lower fitness, reproductive success, and survival (Waller et al., 

1999).” 

“Snowmobiles operating on frozen surfaces can introduce oil residue and various 

derivatives from the combustion process into the water. These pollutants may directly 

impact fish, thereby affecting the forage base of river otters, and bioaccumulate in the 

food chain (Waller et al., 1999).” All alternatives are expected to have negligible effects 

to water quality and fish because snowmachine use on the Seward Ranger District is 

widely dispersed, occurs over relatively large frozen water bodies, and does not occur at 

concentrations that have been shown to cause adverse effects to water quality or 

aquatic organisms (see the fisheries specialist report in the project record). 

Deliberate or accidental mortality of river otters can also result from impacts with 

vehicles, such as snowmobiles (Waller et al., 1999). 

Snowmobile activity may also cause unstable banks to collapse and compromise the 

stability of bank dens (Waller et al., 1999). 

Based on the amount of motorized use allowed in each alternative, and the assumption 

that habitat is fairly equally distributed in all units, the No Action Alternative has the 

greatest potential to cause effects, followed by the Proposed Action, the Modified 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 134 

Cumulative Effects 

Otters may occur in the guided helicopter skiing exploratory areas under flight paths, but 

not likely in ski areas or aircraft landing zones. Individuals may be disturbed or 

frightened by helicopter over flights. Mitigation to remain 1500’ AGL should reduce 

potential effects (USDA-FS, 2004d). 

Vegetation and hazardous fuel treatments may have the potential to disturb otters. 

Cumulative effects may occur on up to 11 acres of otter habitat as a result of 

construction of the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail (USDA-FS, 

2003c) Effects may occur in the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System project in areas 

along suitable streams or lakes. 

Cumulative effects may be greatest in the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action 

and Alternative 1, which permit guided helicopter skiing in exploratory areas in both the 

Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units. 

Level of Effect and Risk to Population 

Otter populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest, although 

they are considered a recovered population after being affected by the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill (USDA-FS, 2002b). The percent of habitat affected in all alternatives by varying 

amounts of motorized and non-motorized use is unknown. Important habitat areas such 

as riparian areas with adjacent old growth may be affected. Important habitat is not 

limited to areas where winter recreation occurs. Winter recreation does overlap the 

denning period, and mortality may occur on occasion, so some effects on recruitment or 

reproduction could occur. For the reasons listed above, the level of effect and potential 

risk to the population would be moderate. 

3.2.8. Wolverine 

Affected Environment 

Wolverines are thought to occur in low densities on the Kenai Peninsula, an estimated 

2.95 per 386 square miles in 2004 (Golden, 2004). 

Wolverines have large foraging areas and appear dependent on carrion. It is likely they 

forage in winter ranges of sheep, goat, caribou, and moose. These winter ranges are in 

the Resurrection, Carter/Crescent, Russian, and Snow units. Approximately 15 percent 

of wolverine foraging habitat may be affected by winter recreation. Wolverine denning 

habitat on the Seward Ranger District is unknown; however, based on past 

documentation, the denning areas are probably in the Resurrection, Carter/Crescent, 

Russian, and Snow units. 

Environmental Consequences 

Hornocker and Hash (1981) state that human access on snowmachines or all-terrain 

vehicles could cause disturbance, conflict, and increased access to trappers. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 135 

Non-motorized recreation has the potential to disrupt foraging behavior along groomed 

trails. Sub-alpine cirque areas (used for denning in many other areas outside Alaska) 

may be unavailable for denning due to winter recreational activities, as they often are 

used for backcountry skiing (Claar et al., 1999). In many areas, wolverines prefer high 

elevation, north-facing talus slopes and occupy extensive snow tunnels that form a 

complex of dens (Heinemeyer et al., 2001; Magoun and Copeland, 1998). Wolverines 

may also abandon dens after human disturbance (Heinemeyer et al., 2001), which can 

lead to reduced reproduction or lower kit survival (Magoun and Copeland, 1998). 

Individual wolverines may be disturbed or frightened by winter recreationists, causing 

them stress that may alter foraging patterns or behavior. Human access to remote areas 

has the potential to displace wolverines, or disrupt foraging or traveling patterns. 

Wolverines may be impacted if prey species alter their behavior because of recreation 

activity. Motorized and non-motorized winter recreation occurs in all ungulate winter 

ranges (sheep, goat, caribou, and moose) on the Seward Ranger District, potentially 

disturbing these animals and altering foraging behavior. 

The No Action Alternative has the highest probability of affecting individual wolverines, 

followed by the Proposed Action, the Modified Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2 (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7) because of decreasing amounts of allowed 

motorized use over time and space. Effects will likely be concentrated in areas open to 

motorized use in alternatives with Season A/Season B scenarios. 

The access corridors in the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would increase existing 

use within the areas, which may increase disturbance or displacement of wolverines in 

foraging or denning areas, access to competitors, or trappers. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation activities such as guided helicopter skiing may result in the displacement of 

wolverines. Guided helicopter skiing may cause cumulative effects if the exploratory 

areas in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River units are permitted in the future. Potential 

cumulative effects may occur on 34,007 acres in the No Action Alternative, the Proposed 

Action, and Alternative 1, and 32,950 acres in Alternative 2 and the Modified Preferred 

Alternative. 

Because wolverines use the area of the proposed Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System project, there is potential to affect denning and foraging habitat in this area. 

Helicopters, recreationists, and new trail construction have the potential to disturb 

denning or foraging animals. Trails would provide new access for hunters and trappers 

into previously inaccessible areas. 

The Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail, when constructed, would also 

add new trail access for trappers, and potential for disturbance. 

Hazardous fuel and habitat improvement projects should benefit moose winter range 

and wolverines if they use these areas for foraging. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 136 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Wolverine populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest, 

although there has been some concern expressed by ADF&G that numbers from the 

most recent survey were low (McDonough, 2005). Important habitat areas such as 

denning sites are unknown, but may be affected. Important habitat is not likely limited to 

areas where winter recreation occurs. Winter recreation does overlap the denning 

period, and mortality may occur on occasion, so some effects on recruitment or 

reproduction could occur. For the reasons listed above, rarity of this species, amount of 

unknown information, and concern about recent survey indications, the level of effect 

and potential risk to affect the population would be moderate. 

3.2.9. Bald Eagle 

Affected Environment 

Bald eagles in Southcentral Alaska generally nest in old cottonwood trees near water 

and use the same nest each year (Daum, 1994). Bald eagle nest protection standards 

are outlined in an Interagency Agreement between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The agreement includes a 330 foot limited use zone around nest 

locations (USDI-FWS, 2002; USDA-FS, 2002a). The nest season is generally from 

March 1 to August 31 (USDA-FS, 2002b). 

Twenty-five nest sites are located where recreation use may be occurring within 330 feet 

of nest sites. The project area includes 15 percent of the habitat within nest limited use 

zones on the Seward Ranger District. The Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units have 

the majority of potentially affected nests. 

Environmental Consequences 

The effects of disturbance at nests and roost sites have been well studied (Buehler, 

2000). Human disturbance is defined as any human activity that induces change in eagle 

behavior. Disturbance takes many forms, including the mere presence of humans and 

human recreational activities. Disturbance impacts increase with increasing duration and 

frequency of events. Eagle response ranges from temporary agitation; to flushing of 

individuals from perches, root sites, foraging areas, or nest sites; to permanent 

displacement from otherwise suitable habitat. These changes may increase energetic 

demands. Increased energy demand reduces survival, especially during winter if food 

and quality foraging sites are limited. Once disturbed, eagles may abandon nests or 

have reproductive failure. This may affect individual pairs, although generally this is not 

significant at the population level (Buehler, 2000). 

There is a wide range of sensitivity to disturbance across individuals and populations, as 

measured by experimental flushing studies. Where possible, bald eagles avoid areas of 

high human use to avoid disturbance of nesting, foraging, perching, and roosting 

(Buehler, 2000). 

The disturbances being evaluated overlap temporally with pair bonding (which often 

occurs near the nest) and nest initiation. During these times, the birds are quite 

susceptible to the effects of disturbance and may abandon the nest site. Although the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 137 

330 foot buffer is an established management standard, it is an arbitrary distance. The 

potential for disturbance may exist further away from the nest in the spring because 

deciduous riparian foliage is not present to dampen sound (Suring, 2005b). 

The nest season is generally from March 1 to August 31 (USDA-FS, 2002b), so potential 

exists for winter recreation, both motorized and non-motorized, to disturb individual 

nesting eagles. 

The Proposed Action has the highest probability of affecting individual bald eagles, 

followed by the Modified Preferred Alternative, No Action Alternative, Alternative 2, and 

Alternative 1 (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7) because of decreasing amounts of allowed 

motorized use. Effects will likely be concentrated in areas open to motorized use (when 

they are motorized) in alternatives with Season A/Season B scenarios. The areas with 

the greatest potential for effects would be the Resurrection and Carter/Crescent units. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects may occur with additional disturbance from other winter recreation 

activities such as guided helicopter skiing 

The Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail will pass near four known nests, 

so additional disturbance may occur. 

Many of the roads, trails, and campgrounds are located near salmon streams that may 

contain potential eagle nesting habitat. People frequent these areas for recreation 

activities. Some cumulative effects from disturbance may occur to nesting eagles. 

Recreational mining may occur within potential eagle nesting habitat and may disturb 

nesting eagles. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Bald eagle populations and trends are believed to be stable or increasing on the 

Chugach National Forest. Important habitat areas such as nest sites occur within winter 

recreation use areas. Important habitat is not limited to areas where winter recreation 

occurs. Winter recreation does overlap the nesting period, and disturbance has the 

potential to affect reproduction. For the reasons listed above, the potential risk to the 

population would be low-moderate. 

3.2.10. Northern Goshawk 

Affected Environment 

The northern goshawk is an uncommon forest raptor that feeds on small and medium 

sized mammals and birds (Iverson et al., 1996). They are year-round residents on the 

Forest (USDA-FS, 1984). The breeding-nesting season is March 1 through July 31. 

The LRMP contains a guideline (USDA-FS, 2002a) to protect active goshawk nesting 

habitat by preventing continuous disturbance within a 660-foot radius of the nest during 

the active nesting season. Of the 13 known territories and 22 known nests in the project 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 138 

area, 6 territories and 8 nests are potentially affected by winter recreation within 660 feet 

of the nest site. Recreation use occurs on 44 acres or 16 percent of known goshawk 

nest buffers. The Palmer Creek territory (Hope unit) is the territory with the most 

potentially affected acres. 

Environmental Consequences 

Some types of human disturbances to goshawk nests have been a suspected cause of 

nest abandonment (Reynolds et al., 1992). Critical times include the nesting period and 

post fledgling periods for goshawks. All alternatives would affect 44 acres of goshawk 

habitat. Winter recreation has the potential to disturb or frighten birds. Nest 

abandonment could potentially occur. The Hope unit is the primary affected area. 

Recreation use would not change across alternatives in this area. 

Overall, there may be short-term disturbance or displacement of individual goshawks, 

and the potential for nest abandonment. Allowed use is 100 percent motorized in 

affected habitat and does not change across alternatives. 

Potential nesting habitat may exist along the access corridors in the Modified Preferred 

Alternative and Alternative 2. If so, then recreation activity has the potential to disturb 

nesting birds in March and April. 

Cumulative Effects 

Known goshawk nests potentially affected by all alternatives do not occur within or near 

the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail, Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut 

System, or other known recreation projects, so cumulative effects are not expected. 

Potential nesting habitat occurs along the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic 

Trail and cumulative effects may occur if winter recreation use increases in these areas 

because of allowing access corridors in the Modified Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative 2. 

Goshawks likely occur in both guided helicopter skiing exploratory areas, but not likely in 

areas used for skiing. If they are present, individuals may be disturbed or frightened by 

helicopter over flights, although mitigation to remain 1500’ AGL should minimize effects. 

Alternatives, which allow guided helicopter skiing in Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow River, 

will have the greatest potential for cumulative effects (No Action Alternative, Proposed 

Action, and Alternative 1). The alternatives that do not open the Snow River exploratory 

area (Modified Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2) would have the least effects. 

Cumulative effects may occur from mature and old growth habitat loss due to spruce 

bark beetle and associated hazardous fuel reduction treatments (Holsten et al., 1999), 

which would reduce the amount of available nesting habitat. Vegetation and hazardous 

fuel treatments in the Hope area may have the potential to disturb goshawks and cause 

cumulative effects in all alternatives. 

Cumulative effects are expected to be minimal in all alternatives, due to the limited 

amount of affected habitat and mitigation measures to protect nests in past, present and 

foreseeable projects. Effects to individuals are likely greatest in the Modified Preferred 

Alternative and Alternative 2 due to the access corridors. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 139 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Goshawk populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest. 

Important habitat areas such as nest sites and 16 percent of the nest buffer areas, may 

be affected. Important habitat is not limited to areas where winter recreation occurs, and 

goshawk nests likely occur, which have not been located. Winter recreation does overlap 

the nesting period, and disturbance has the potential to affect reproduction. For the 

reasons listed above, the potential risk to the goshawk population would be lowmoderate. All alternatives would have equal probability of affecting individuals. 

Other Species of Concern 

3.2.11. Dall Sheep 

Affected Environment 

Dall sheep inhabit the mountain ranges of Alaska on open alpine ridges, meadows, and 

steep slopes with rugged terrain based on habitat data collected from annual harvest 

information and aerial surveys conducted between 1949 and 1984 (ADF&G, 1985). 

Current winter recreation use occurs on 103 acres or less than 1 percent of Dall sheep 

habitat on the Seward Ranger District. The primary use of these areas is Nordic skiing in 

the mountains south of Shaft Creek in the Resurrection unit and north of Dave’s Creek in 

the Tern Lake unit. Snow machine use occurs on the Tern Lake and Russian units. 

Environmental Consequences 

Human activities and motorized recreation may cause increased stress and heart rate, 

and can cause fleeing behavior and possible abandonment of high quality winter range. 

Studies of bighorn sheep in Alberta, Canada showed that Dall sheep reacted to human 

pedestrians with variable responses based on the size of the group, distance and 

presence of dogs. Another study of Dall sheep in Alaska reported that there was no 

adverse stress-reaction caused by humans as close as 328 feet (Wilson and Shakleton, 

2001). Disturbance may limit habitat to areas near escape terrain, disrupt foraging, and 

may cause the sheep to move to areas of lower quality forage, resulting in lower energy 

intake. Disruption of foraging patterns may expose them to increased risks of predation 

(Olliff, 1999). 

Additional effects could include reduced reproduction if physiological disturbance is 

substantial. Other effects could result if predators such as bears, wolves, or wolverines 

reduced their use of the area because of winter recreation activities, decreasing 

predation on sheep. Conversely, snow compaction and trail formation may allow access 

by predators such as wolves that normally might not be able to navigate in the deeper 

snow. 

Based on the amount of allowed motorized use (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7), The No Action 

Alternative may have the greatest effect, followed by Alternative 1, the Proposed Action 

and the Modified Preferred Alternative with similar effects and Alternative 2 with the least 

effect. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 140 

Cumulative Effects 

Sheep may be affected on their winter range over time as helicopter-assisted recreation 

increases in amount and distribution. Projects such as the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-toHut System, and Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail would not occur in 

Dall sheep habitat, so cumulative effects are not expected. Winter Dall sheep habitat 

occurs in the Snow River and Ptarmigan/Grant exploratory units, where motorized use 

may occur in all alternatives, but use is limited (likely due to accessibility). No-fly zones 

were created for sheep and mountain goats, so cumulative effects of helicopter-assisted 

recreation are expected to be minimal (USDA-FS, 2004d). Alternatives that allow guided 

helicopter skiing in the Ptarmigan/Grant and Snow units would have the greatest 

potential for cumulative effects (No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and 

Alternative 1). The alternatives that do not open the Snow River exploratory unit (the 

Modified Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2) would have the least effects. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Sheep populations and trends are declining on the Chugach National Forest 

(McDonough, 2005). Important habitat areas such as the Carter/Crescent unit are 

minimally affected, and less than 1 percent of available habitat on the Seward Ranger 

District is affected. Important habitat is not limited to areas where winter recreation 

occurs. Sheep do not reproduce during the winter recreation period. For the reasons 

listed above, the potential risk to the population would be negligible. The No Action 

Alternative has the greatest probability of affecting individuals. 

3.2.12. Barren Ground Caribou 

Affected Environment 

Barren ground caribou inhabit the Kenai Mountains on open alpine ridges and steep 

slopes with rugged terrain between 2,000 and 4,500 feet elevation. Critical winter range 

occurs within the Resurrection unit. Winter recreation, primarily motorized, occurs 

adjacent to Hungry Creek on 4 percent of the available habitat on the Seward Ranger 

District. 

Environmental Consequences 

Snowmachine trails may affect caribou by increasing predator access. Extensive snow 

machine activity over important areas of winter forage makes catering (pawing through 

snow) for terrestrial lichens energetically expensive. As caribou use body fat and protein 

stores in the winter, this increased energy expenditure may influence body condition and 

in extreme cases, winter survival (Webster, 1997). 

Snowmachines create a hard-packed surface that may facilitate movement for predators 

such as wolves. Hard-packed trails allow predators to easily access sub-alpine foraging 

areas that are typically not available to them because of the deep snow (Webster, 1997). 

Wolf predation has been reported as an important factor in limiting caribou population 

numbers (Webster, 1997). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 141 

Some suggest ungulate management could be enhanced by use of snowmachines by 

improving mobility in poor snow conditions (Webster, 1997). Despite this possible 

benefit, many of the studies involving snowmachines and ungulates conclude that the 

machines stress the animals to some degree and trails and machines are generally 

avoided (Webster, 1997). 

Motorized and non-motorized use in caribou habitat across all alternatives is shared. 

The only difference between alternatives is that the use is either part of the February 

mid-season swap (No Action Alternative) or a Season A/Season B scenario (action 

alternatives). It is unknown whether the Action Alternatives will have more or less effect 

on individuals than the No Action Alternative. It was assumed that the effects would be 

the same across all alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects are expected in any alternative. Guided helicopter skiing and 

foreseeable recreation projects such as the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National 

Historic Trail and Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System would not occur in caribou 

habitat. No vegetation or fuel reduction projects are proposed or expected to occur in 

caribou habitat. No other past or present management actions have or are occurring in 

caribou habitat. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Caribou populations and trends are stable on the Chugach National Forest. Important 

habitat such as winter range will be minimally affected (less than 4 percent of their 

available habitat). Important habitat is not limited to areas where winter recreation 

occurs. Caribou do not reproduce during the winter recreation period. For the reasons 

listed above, the potential risk to the population would be negligible. 

3.8.13. Black Bears 

Affected Environment 

In Alaska, black bears occur over most of the forested areas of the State and are most 

often associated with forests, but during the denning season, they may be found from 

sea level to alpine areas (ADF&G, 2003). Cubs are born in their dens. Black bears tend 

to emerge around the same time as brown bears, beginning in mid-April, and follow the 

same patterns: males first, followed by lone females and sub-adults, and lastly females 

with cubs (Farley, 2005). 

There are 63,540 acres of potential denning habitat within current recreation use areas. 

Approximately 17 percent of black bear habitat is potentially affected by primarily 

motorized recreation use. The majority of potential habitat occurs in the Lost Lake, 

Johnson Pass, and Summit units. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 142 

Environmental Consequences 

In one study on the effects of winter recreation on hibernating black bears, two types of 

den abandonment occurred in response to human activities: 1) flight as the field crew 

approached; and 2) departure after immobilization. Since the quiet approach of 

investigators sometimes causes den abandonment, skiing and other recreational 

activities could have the same or more heightened effects (Goodrich and Berger, 1994). 

This could adversely affect individual fitness and reduce physical condition. Bears that 

abandoned dens in Alberta experienced greater over winter weight loss than those that 

did not (Goodrich and Berger, 1994). 

Indirect evidence of den abandonment due to recreational disturbance was observed in 

the Sierra Mountains. Bears were sighted on ski runs bordering the study area on 

several occasions in early February and late December. Because these activities 

occurred several weeks before any of the radio-collared bears emerged from dens, it 

seems likely that the uncollared bears abandoned their dens, possibly due to human 

recreational disturbance (Goodrich and Berger, 1994). Goodrich and Berger, 1994 (pg 

108) noted that two bears moved to new dens when their original dens were 0.09 

kilometer (km) from a snow machine trail. 

Other literature shows lack of a response by denning black bears and no cub 

abandonment from human disturbance (Hightower et al., 2002; Linnell et al., 2000). 

These studies also report that when bears were flushed from dens, they re-denned at no 

apparent long-term harm. 

The No Action Alternative has the greatest probability of affecting individuals, followed 

by the Proposed Action, the Modified Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 

2 (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7) because of decreasing amounts of allowed motorized use. 

Effects will likely be concentrated in areas when they are open to motorized use in 

alternatives with Season A/Season B scenarios. 

Cumulative Effects 

Expanding winter motorized and non-motorized recreation in combination with other 

helicopter-assisted recreation, such as guided helicopter skiing, may result in cumulative 

disturbance. Guided helicopter skiing overlaps other winter recreation use on 14,921 

acres in the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and Alternative 1, and on 99 acres 

less in Alternative 2 and the Modified Preferred Alternative. 

The Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail and Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-toHut System projects may occur in areas of potential denning habitat, increasing chances 

of cumulative effects. 

Current and future hazardous fuel projects may reduce dead and down material that 

may serve as denning sites for black bears, yet may enhance forage for bears over time. 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Black bear populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest. 

Affected habitat is fairly low (17 percent), but is diverse and widespread, and available 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 143 

outside the analysis area. Breeding animals may be affected, as bears give birth in their 

dens. Important habitat areas such as den sites are unknown, but also likely widespread. 

Ratios of male to female bears taken during harvest periods do not indicate cause for 

population concerns (McDonough, 2005). For the reasons listed above, the potential risk 

to the population would be low. 

3.2.14. Small Mammals 

Affected Environment 

Small mammals considered were those that use subnivean1 spaces under the snow, and 

others such as hares, squirrels, and weasels that may use or avoid snowmachine or ski 

trails. Small mammals are likely to occur in all habitats, except snow and ice and water. 

Small mammal habitat may be affected by winter recreation on 12 percent of available 

habitat, primarily by motorized use and mainly alpine areas. 

Environmental Consequences 

The impacts of motorized and non-motorized trails vary according to species. Both 

motorized and non-motorized trails can affect small mammals by facilitating movement 

for species less adapted to locomotion through deep snow, compacting of subnivean 

spaces, and altering predator-prey relationships through mortality of prey. While 

snowmachines, skis, and snowshoes all compact the snow, snowmachines compact the 

snow the most (Bury, 1978). 

Snow compaction may also occur on the access corridors. 

The No Action Alternative has the greatest probability of affecting individuals; followed 

by the Proposed Action, the Modified Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 

2 (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7). 

Cumulative Effects 

Small mammals may be affected by new recreation trails related to the Mills Creek 

Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System project and the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic 

Trail. Development of facilities, roads, and trails would contribute to habitat destruction 

or degradation. Cumulative effects may occur from mature and old growth habitat loss 

due to spruce bark beetle and associated hazardous fuel reduction treatments (Holsten 

et al., 1999), which would reduce the amount of available nesting habitat for some 

species. Hazardous fuel reduction and prescribed burn projects may cause a short-term 

increase in mortality during treatments and loss of cover by removing dead and down 

material. Over time, the resulting browse and new vegetation would provide food and 

cover for small mammals. 

 

1

 The subnivean zone is in or under the snow layer. Subnivean animals such as mice, voles, and shrews move under the 

snow in the winter for protection from heat loss and predators. For smaller animals the snow cover must be at least 6 

inches deep before the small mammals can build tunnels through it. The temperature under the snow stays about 32°F no 

matter how cold the temperature above the snow pack. These areas can be crushed by both motorized and nonmotorized winter recreationists. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 144 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Small mammal populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest. 

Affected habitat is fairly low (12 percent), but is diverse and widespread, and available 

outside the analysis area. Breeding animals may be affected during the winter recreation 

period. Important habitat areas are unknown, but also likely widespread, diverse, and 

available outside the analysis area. For the reasons listed above, the potential risk to the 

population would be low. 

3.8.15. Migratory Birds 

Affected Environment 

Most migratory birds arrive on the Seward Ranger District in April (Shuster, 2005), where 

they use a wide variety of habitats. Migratory bird habitat may be affected by winter 

recreation on 11.6 percent of available habitat. Courtship and breeding begins near the 

end of the winter motorized recreation period. 

Environmental Consequences 

Recreation routes may affect forest birds. Gaines et al. (2003) summarized data from a 

variety of researchers. He noted that brown creepers were twice as likely to occur in 

habitats that were more than 328 feet from a road and that brown creepers were 

associated with larger forest patches. Roads and motorized trails reduced forest bird 

reproduction up to a distance of 656 feet. In addition, roads and recreation trails may 

break up forest patches, increase nest predation, and increase parasitism rates. Human 

intrusion, in the form of hiking, increased the probability of gray jay recurrence, which 

may increase nest predation on other bird species. 

The access corridors may contribute to minor destruction of potential nesting and 

foraging habitat during brushing or small tree removal (which will take place outside the 

breeding season), and potential disturbance or displacement of some nesting birds due 

to recreation activity. 

The percent of motorized and non-motorized recreation allowed in the affected habitat 

by alternative is listed in Table 3-6. The No Action Alternative would have the greatest 

probability of affecting individuals, followed by the Proposed Action, the Modified 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects may occur from habitat loss due to spruce bark beetle and 

associated hazardous fuel reduction treatments if they occur during the breeding 

season. New development of recreation facilities, roads, and trails would contribute to 

habitat loss and disturbance to nesting birds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 145 

Level of Effect and Risk to the Population 

Migratory bird populations and trends are unknown on the Chugach National Forest. 

Affected habitat is fairly low (12 percent), but is diverse and widespread, and available 

outside the analysis area. Breeding animals may be affected, as many birds start 

courtship or breeding at the winter recreation period. Important habitat areas are 

unknown, but also likely widespread, diverse, and available outside the analysis area. 

For the reasons listed above, the potential risk to the population would be low. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 146 

3.3. ECONOMICS 

Effects Summary 

The economic analysis area was selected in response to the issue of potential effects of 

changes in winter motorized areas on local economic activity. The economic analysis 

reveals that the potential effects on overall local economic activity from any of the action 

alternatives would likely be relatively small. This is because: 

• The reduction in currently-used snowmachine acres is 21 percent or less across the 

action alternatives. 

• Non-local snowmachiners are believed to be only a fraction (the exact percentage is 

unknown) of the customers who frequent recreation and tourism related businesses 

in the economic analysis area in the winter. 

• Winter economic activity is a small percentage of total annual economic activity in the 

economic analysis area. 

Analysis Area 

This section presents a description of the economic environment that could be affected 

by the Proposed Action and the alternatives. The economic analysis area was selected 

in response to the economic issue of the effects on local economic activity of closing 

areas to winter motorized use. The area chosen for this analysis is the Hope SubSubarea as defined by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 

Research and Analysis (2004, p.42). This area includes the majority of the businesses 

located in the communities identified in scoping as communities of economic concern 

that could be affected by closing areas in the project area to snowmachine use. 

3.3.1. Affected Environment 

This section contains two subsections. The first subsection further describes the 

economic analysis area. The second subsection examines current levels of economic 

activity in the economic analysis area, the Hope Sub-Subarea. 

Economic Analysis Area 

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD) (2004) has 

developed classification system of communities that is used to report and compile 

information on employment. The ADLWD classification system assigns communities to 

Census Areas. The Census Areas are then divided into Census Subareas which are 

again divided into Sub-Subareas. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is a Census Area (CA), 

Kenai-Cook Inlet is a Census Subarea (CSA) of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the 

Hope Sub-Subarea (SSA) is a Sub-Subarea of the Kenai Cook-Inlet CSA. The following 

towns or places are in the Hope SSA: Cooper Landing, Grandview, Hope, Hunter, Kenai 

Lake, Lakeview, Lawing, Moose Pass, Quartz Creek, Russian River Rendezvous, 

Silvertip, Sunrise, and Tunnel. The city of Seward and the communities of Bear Creek, 

Crown Point, and Lowell Point are in a separate CSA (the Seward CSA). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 147 

According to criteria set forth in Forest Service Handbook 1909.17 Section 24, the 

economic impact area (analysis area) should be defined as (1) a functional economic 

unit of a size appropriate to the economic impact issue and (2) an area that includes 

most of the economic factors that are most directly affected by the proposed project. 

Most of the scoping comments related to economics identified concerns of the potential 

affects of winter motorized closures on local business in or near the small communities 

in or near the project area. 

Although Seward was also identified in some of the comments, it is a much larger 

community with a much more diverse economy and many more employment and 

business opportunities. The economic effects of the winter motorized closures proposed 

in any of the alternatives on Seward and throughout the rest of the Kenai Peninsula 

Borough would be too small to determine. Additionally, if these areas were included in 

the economic analysis area, their overall economic activity levels would swamp any 

changes in the economic activity levels of the smaller communities in the project area. 

The economic analysis area thus encompasses only the Hope SSA. Businesses in the 

communities of Crown Point and Primrose that use a Moose Pass zip code (99631) are 

also included in the analysis area. 

Current Levels of Local Economic Activity 

In order to respond to the issue of potential effects on local economic activity from 

changes in winter motorized use areas, an examination of the current amount of 

economic activity is necessary. This corresponds to the amount of economic activity 

associated with the No Action Alternative. Monthly employment data for the last three 

years (2002 to 2004) for the Hope SSA was obtained from the Alaska Department of 

Labor, Research, and Analysis Division (Bergen, 2005). This data includes all 

employment covered by the State of Alaska’s unemployment insurance laws. Certain 

segments of Alaska’s employed population are excluded from unemployment insurance 

coverage and thus are not included here. These segments include self-employed 

individuals, fishers, unpaid family help, domestics and most individuals engaged in 

agriculture. 

In order to focus specifically on economic activity that could be directly affected by 

changes in the number of snowmachiners visiting the project area, the employment data 

was broken into two categories. After reviewing the literature on trip-related 

snowmachine expenditures, as well as the types of businesses located in the project 

area, a recreation and tourism (RecTourism) category was selected. According to the 

Kenai Peninsula Borough Community and Economic Development Division (2005), prior 

to 2002, visitor industry employment information was reported to the Alaska Department 

of Labor and Workforce Development embedded in and part of other sectors. However, 

since 2002 visitor industry employment can now be more accurately measured due to 

changes to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that provides a 

classification called “Accommodation and Food Services,” which clearly defines 

employment in this industry. This sector includes all types of lodging as well as 

restaurants and bars. This is included in the RecTourism category below. Additionally, all 

gas stations, food, and beverage stores (including convenience stores) located in the 

economic analysis area were also included in the RecTourism category. All other 

reported employment is included in the other category. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 148 

Charts 3-1 through 3-3 display monthly employment data for 2002 through 2004 in the 

economic analysis area. Monthly employment represents a count of jobs as opposed to 

individual workers. It is not an unduplicated count of the number of individuals because 

workers holding more than one job or who change jobs during the measuring timeframe 

(the pay period that includes the 12th of the month) may be reported by more than one 

employer. 

In examining the three charts, it is obvious that the majority of economic activity, as 

measured by employment, takes place from May to October in the economic analysis 

area. Employment in the RecTourism category dwarfs employment in the other category 

during these months, but in 2004 the RecTourism category accounted for less than a 

third of total employment in the winter months from January through March, and in 

November and December. The big drop in the winter RecTourism levels beginning in 

November of 2003 can be attributed to the decision by the Kenai Princess Lodge to 

discontinue operating in the winter months. According to a manager in hotel operations 

at the company that owns this property, the lodge was open for 7 years in the winter on 

a trial basis, but there was not enough business so they no longer operate in the winter 

and they have no plans to in the near future (Cardenas, 2005). 

Because people other than snowmachiners on trips frequent many of the businesses 

included in the RecTourism category during the winter, it is incorrect to say that all of the 

winter jobs in this category would be affected by changes in the number of 

snowmachiners who visit the project area. 

One segment of the RecTourism category that is likely to be underrepresented in the 

employment figures are Bed and Breakfast Inns, since in many cases these business 

owners are self-employed or have few, if any employees. In order to examine current 

levels of economic activity associated with these businesses, quarterly gross sales 

revenues for the same three years were obtained from the Kenai Peninsula Borough 

Sales Tax Division (Tankersly, 2005). (Monthly reports were not available). All Bed and 

Breakfast Inns with addresses with the following three zip codes were included: 99605, 

99631, and 99572. Chart 3-4 displays quarterly gross sales for Bed and Breakfast Inns 

from 2002-2004. Again, the majority of economic activity in this segment, as measured 

by gross sales, occurs from April through September. In 2004, first (January through 

March) and fourth (October through December) quarter sales accounted for less than 10 

percent of total gross sales by these businesses. 

Again, because people other than snowmachiners stay at these businesses during the 

winter months it would be incorrect to say that all of their winter month gross sales would 

be affected by changes in the number of snowmachiners who visit the project area. 

Economic impact analysis focuses on the effect of dollars from outside an area (“new 

dollars”) on the area’s economy. Expenditures by local snowmachiners (those who 

reside within the economic analysis area) do not create an economic impact within the 

analysis area as their expenditures are simply a recirculation of money within the area, 

rather than an influx of money from outside the area. We do not know how many 

snowmachiners visit the area or what proportion of snowmachiners are non-locals. 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

82

95 95

107

127

138

146 146 146

107

94 9

55 56

62

108

200

296 296

284

230

142

66 

0

50

100150200250300350

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov 

Jobs

OtherRecTourism

Chart 3-1 Economic Analysis Area 2002 Employment by Month 
Kenai Winter Access 

 150 

94

105 111

120 123

158 157 151 144

124

113 

49 

162

319

384 382

330

210

106 101

89 91

0

50

100150200250300350400450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov 

Jobs

OtherRecTourism

Chart 3-2 Economic Analysis Area 2003 Employment by Month 
Final En

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

Chart 3-3 Economic Analysis Area 2004 Employment by Month 

219

305

392

310

211

42

390

39

96

33 31 32

8

90 98

117 117 118 123

106

82 83 83

88

0

50

100150200250300350400450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

J

o

b

s

Rec TourismOther
Kenai Winter Access 

 152 

$520,147 $517,395

$691,071

$50,951 $41,689

$13,147

$310,377

$249,146

$293,614

$54,479 $43,596 $34,797

$0

$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000

2002 2003 2004

Dollars

Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sep Oct-Dec

Chart 3-4 Economic Analysis Area Bed and Breakfast Inn Gross Sales by Quarter 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 153 

3.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Response to Issues 

The economics effects analysis responds to the issue of potential effects of changes in 

winter motorized areas on local economic activity. 

It is not known how many snowmachiners are currently visiting the project area. The 

changes in the amount of snowmachiner visits to the area by alternative have not been 

able to be estimated. A proxy measurement was needed for this analysis. The amount of 

change in motorized use area is used to compare the relative difference between the 

action alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives 

Alternative 2 has the largest percentage decrease in available motorized acres. 

Alternative 1 has the next largest percentage decrease in available motorized acres. The 

Proposed Action has the smallest decrease in the percentage of available motorized 

acres. The Modified Preferred Alternative decreases the available motorized acres by 

about 6 percent more than the Proposed Action. The effect of the Modified Preferred 

Alternative on the economic resources would be slightly more than the Proposed Action, 

but less than either Alternative 1 or 2. 

Assuming that changes in the amount of acreage designated motorized is a good 

indicator for changes in the local economic activity generated from trip related 

expenditures by non-local snowmachiners. Alternative 1 could have the largest negative 

impacts on local economic activity in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 

2 could also lead to some negative local economic impacts. The Proposed Action 

Alternative could lead to a decrease in local economic activity before February 15, but 

an increase in local economic activity after February 15 across any two-year period (in 

comparison to the No Action Alternative). The Modified Preferred Alternative has slightly 

less area designated motorized and so could have slightly more affect on the local 

economy. 

Alternative 2 also has the largest decrease in motorized trails of all the action 

alternatives. Alternative 1 has about 30 more miles of motorized trails in Season B 

compared to Alternative 1. The Proposed Action and the Modified Preferred Alternative 

offer more or less the same amount of motorized trails, about 175 miles in Season A and 

120 miles in Season B. 

These comparisons are the best that can be done given the currently available 

information (poor use data and no snowmachiner expenditure studies for the economic 

analysis area). As for overall economic activity in the economic analysis area, since the 

overwhelming majority of this activity occurs in the spring and summer months, the 

impact of the proposed winter motorized closures in any of the action activities would 

likely be relatively small. However, the impacts to specific businesses in particular 

communities would vary by alternative and by year. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 154 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The majority of economic activity in the economic analysis area, as measured by 

employment takes place from May to October (Charts 3-1 through 3-3). The majority of 

gross sales at Bed and Breakfast Inn establishments occur from April through October. 

Snowmachiners are only a portion of the customers that frequent RecTourism 

businesses in the winter, and only non-local snowmachiner expenditures add “new 

dollars” to the economic analysis area. The relatively small potential impacts to local 

economic activity from the proposed winter motorized closures in conjunction with past 

actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions would cause relatively small potential 

cumulative impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 155 

3.4. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Numerous laws, regulations, and Forest Service policies direct the inventory, protection, 

restoration and interpretation of heritage resources. These include the National Historic 

Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Archeological Resources Protection Act, Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, 36 CFR 800, FSM 2300, Russian River Act, and Preserve America. Also included is 

the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement #02MU-111001-076 “Among the USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding Heritage Resource Management 

on National Forests in the State of Alaska.” 

3.4.1. Affected Environment 

Prehistoric Use 

Prehistoric use on the Seward Ranger District has been documented in the Early to midHolocene (10,000 to 3,000 before present [BP]), the Riverine Kachemak (3,000 to 

1,000BP) and the Late Prehistoric (1,000 to 200BP) periods. The Late Prehistoric is 

associated with the Dena’ina culture, who constructed villages containing large multifamily houses and underground cache pits for cold storage (Boraas, 2002). The 

Dena’ina (Kenaitze Indian Tribe) still reside and are active on the Kenai Peninsula today. 

Historic Use 

Historic Russian activities in the region include the 1792 construction of a shipyard at the 

modern town of Seward in Resurrection Bay. Russian expeditions on the Seward 

Ranger District include that of mining engineer Lt Doroshin in 1849. Doroshin tested and 

explored possible mineral deposits on the Russian River, Kenai River, Cooper Creek 

and Kenai Lake (undated Manuscript). The expedition did not lead to further mining 

activities in the area. 

Gold claims were first staked on the Kenai Peninsula in the 1880s, but it was not until 

1896 that the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush began in earnest. The rapid influx of non-Native 

people first led to the formation of the towns of Hope and Sunrise, followed by Moose 

Pass and Cooper Landing. At the start of the gold rush, a native village was located in 

Hope, and Chief Affannassia and other native labor were employed as guides, 

tradesmen, porters, and workers for the miners in the Hope and Summit areas. 

The increased population and the need for goods and services led to the development of 

new transportation routes, the use of older prehistoric routes, and the completion of the 

Alaska Railroad. The formation of these routes assisted in expanding human activities. 

These activities included roadhouses, homesteads, fox farms, tie hacking activities, 

trapping, and the establishment of recreation based activities (lodges, big game and 

fishing services and smaller recreation cabins). 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 156 

Cultural Resources 

Field surveys and literature reviews have located 388 sites on the Seward Ranger 

District (Table 3-8). Prehistoric sites are villages, house pits, cache pits, and cemeteries. 

Historic sites are trails, roads, lode and placer mines, homesteads, roadhouses, fox 

farms, cabins, and cemeteries. 

Table 3-8 Heritage Sites, Acres Surveyed and Number of Sites Previously 

Monitored in the Winter 

Historic Properties 

Of the 388 cultural sites on the Seward Ranger District, two are on the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP), and one has been designated a National Historic Trail (the 

Iditarod National Historic Trail). The Hirshey Mine (SEW-00002) and Lauritsen cabin 

(SEW-00152) are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Hirshey Mine 

was placed on the NRHP in 1978 for its association with John Hirshey, mining in the 

Hope-Moose Pass Mining District, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, and the ability of 

the site to provide interpretive opportunities for the public on lode mining technologies 

from 1911 to 1942. The Lauritsen Cabin is a hand hewn dovetail notched cabin 

constructed in 1898 by Danish immigrant Lauritz Lauritsen on the original Polly Claim 

(one of the claims that helped start the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush). The cabin was 

placed on the NRHP in 1979 based on the architecture and association with an 

individual significant to the history of mining in the State of Alaska. The Iditarod National 

Historic Trail runs the entire length of the Seward Ranger District. The trail is a historic 

transportation route used to transport mail and supplies to communities from Seward to 

Nome during the early mining period. It was the first trail in the nation to be 

congressionally designated a National Historic Trail in 1978. 

Unit 

Sites 

Total 

Prehistoric 

Sites and 

Districts 

Historic 

Sites and 

Districts 

Historic 

Buildings 

Historic 

Trails 

Acres 

Surveyed 

Winter 

Monitor

Hope 77 1 68 3 5 2020 1 

Resurrection 58 12 33 5 8 2136 1 

West 

Resurrection 6 5 1 0 0 500 0 

Summit 48 0 38 3 7 900 1 

Johnson 

Pass 23 0 17 3 3 325 1 

Tern Lake 21 1 14 1 5 212 0 

Russian 66 52 9 2 2 1352 0 

Carter/ 

Crescent 12 2 8 0 2 655 0 

Ptarmigan/ 

Grant 36 0 27 3 6 1570 1 

Lost Lake 27 2 19 1 6 3650 0 

Snow 14 1 8 1 4 728 0 

Tiehack/ 

Mt Alice 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 157 

Of the remaining sites, 62 have been determined eligible and 14 have been determined 

ineligible, and 309 sites have not been evaluated for inclusion on the NRHP. 

3.4.2. Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

For all alternatives, the effects to sites that are buried and not visible under snow pack 

during the winter season are considered negligible. This would include most historic and 

prehistoric sites. However, the exception to the negligible effects would include buildings 

and other sites visible in the winter or sites near trailheads and parking areas that have 

the potential to be affected by concentrated use. There is a general lack of cultural 

resource survey coverage in the affected areas, and little to no winter monitoring has 

occurred. Only 2 percent of the Seward Ranger District has been intensively surveyed 

for cultural resources, and no survey has occurred in the Tiehack/Mt Alice unit. Of the 

buildings, only five have been monitored for winter use, all show evidence of intentional 

and unintentional impacts. 

Effects of the No Action Alternative 

Currently there are trespass and vandalism impacts from winter use to historic structures 

on the Seward Ranger District (Yarborough 2004; Schick 2004). With no action, historic 

buildings would continue to be damaged by winter activities. 

Currently there are trail maintenance needs on specific motorized historic trails caused 

by erosion during low snow conditions in the late spring. With no action, additional 

erosion requiring trail maintenance would continue to occur. 

Effects of the Action Alternatives 

The activities that have the potential to effect cultural resources are the Season 

A/Season B scenarios of the Resurrection and West Resurrection units and the 

proximity of the suggested trail corridor near Summit Lake. All of the action alternatives 

have these elements. 

The early spring closure of the No Action Alternative has the benefit of alleviating trail 

damage currently caused by poor snow conditions. 

The Season A/Season B scenarios for the Resurrection and West Resurrection units 

have the potential to alleviate known vandalism and looting to two historic buildings in 

the non-motorized year, but could increase the impacts because of the longer season in 

the motorized year. Monitoring would need to occur to document if the longer season 

increases impacts to cultural resources, or alleviates it with the year off. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects can include the destruction of cultural resources over time. There 

potentially could be an increase in the disturbance, vandalism, and looting of sites that 

are visible above the snow as a result of an increase in use and lack of monitoring. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 158 

Additionally, an increase in historic trail use could lead to additional trail maintenance 

and unintentional damage. 

Mitigation 

Education of both user groups and other mitigation may be needed if future monitoring 

indicates impacts are occurring as a result of winter use on the Seward Ranger District. 

The type of mitigation addressing the specific impacts will be determined once the cause 

is identified. 

The Modified Preferred Alternative has the potential to increase use and impacts to the 

historic Harry Johnson/Abernathy Cabin (SEW-00829), near the Resurrection Trail and 

the Lauritsen and Manitoba Cabins, but will not affect to the Michaelson Cemetery or 

historic trails. The cemetery is located outside the winter parking area and will be buried 

under snow. Closing the trails in the spring before the snow completely melts will 

mitigate impacts to the historic Resurrection Creeks and Johnson Pass Trails. The Harry 

Johnson Cabin is a popular recreation spot and will need to be monitored for adverse 

activities or vandalism on an annual basis. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring of buildings and other sites likely to be damaged or looted during winter 

months should be conducted to determine if winter recreation is having a negative 

impact on cultural resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 159 

3. 5. ECOLOGY 

3.5.1. Affected Environment 

General Vegetation Composition, Structure, and Function 

The Kenai Peninsula includes developed, altered, or disturbed areas. These developed 

areas include trails, campgrounds, remote campsites, pullouts, interpretive sites, fishing 

access points, cabin sites, recreation sites, powerline access areas, powerlines, parking 

areas, administrative sites, private structures, railroad and railroad access points, 

primary roads, secondary roads, and communities. Altered or disturbed areas include 

previously cut or managed areas, areas of previous fire, and areas of natural 

disturbance. Developments and other disturbance may have caused changes in the 

vegetation composition, structure, and function across the landscape as a whole. Many 

of these developments, alterations, or disturbances are concentrated in geographical 

areas suitable to residency, access, and use. 

The Kenai Winter Access project does not involve major changes in the amount of 

developments, alterations, or disturbances that would affect vegetation composition, 

structure, or function within the project area. Changes to the overall forested and nonforested vegetation structure, composition, and function, in any of the five alternatives, 

will not be measurably different within the scale of this project. 

On a small scale, the use of motorized vehicles on areas that do not have sufficient 

snow cover can cause significant vegetation damage. Sufficient cover can be defined as 

a foot or greater of complete coverage by snow, such that no part of a motorized vehicle 

touches any part of the ground, trail, or vegetation underneath the trail footprint. 

Inadequate snow cover directly leads to degradation of vegetation surrounding the trails, 

damage to mature or small trees adjacent to the trails, and soil compaction on the trails 

and in other areas of use, such as fields or meadows or cabin sites, preventing future 

growth and reestablishment of plants. The most severe trail damage usually occurs 

along the lower reaches of trails where snow cover melts out faster, or where snow 

becomes compacted to ice by continued use over a season. In addition, off-trail 

motorized use can introduce damage to previously untrammeled areas if use is 

continuous or particularly heavy. Use is often concentrated near parking areas and 

around cabin sites. Heavy use, motorized or non-motorized, causes degradation to all 

vegetation types, although high elevation vegetation types have a slower recovery 

potential. Trails, subject to heavy or regular motorized use, will show damage to 

vegetation on the margins of the trails. 

Cutting or alteration of vegetation cover to accommodate passage of motorized vehicles 

or to allow better snow coverage of trails by snowfall negatively affects trailside 

vegetation or vegetation at heavy use areas, such as cabins. Branches are often 

trimmed or cut to provide greater snowfall to a trail for ease of passage. Trees that are 

considered in the way of easy passage are often cut. Most of these alterations are 

normal components of trail construction, although unsanctioned cutting will occur by 

users at times. Changes in trail designations, from non-motorized to motorized, may 

affect the level of trail development that is needed for passage and use. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 160 

Acreages in each of the alternatives, when relating to vegetation composition, structure, 

and function across the Kenai Peninsula as a whole, are irrelevant given the nature of 

this resource area and the scale of the project. Acreage included for motorized or nonmotorized use, and the number of cabins accessed in any of the alternatives for 

motorized or non-motorized use is also irrelevant given the scale of the project. In 

addition, as all of the recreational use analyzed in this project occurs in the winter, the 

effects to vegetation, in the scale of this project, are largely negligible. There is already a 

certain volume of use occurring on the forest; the different alternatives will not change 

the amount of use as it affects vegetation to a measurable degree. Units of measure 

have been included in case there is any possible need to monitor individual site damage 

over time. 

Soil Compaction 

Concentrated use areas, including trails, cabins sites, favored camp sites or other 

destinations, and locations near parking areas will have the greatest degree of soil 

compaction from motorized use. Soil compaction has direct negative affects to 

vegetation growth. Annual forbs may not grow in areas of compaction. Revegetation of 

degraded areas is slowed. Recolonization by tree, shrub, or forb by seed is slowed or 

prevented. Continued growth and health of existing vegetation is compromised due to 

changes in local hydrology, oxygenation, and mineral uptake. Soil compaction will be 

addressed more thoroughly in the soil scientist specialist report. 

Fragile Environment Vegetation Degradation 

Certain areas are more susceptible to degradation than others, including riparian zones, 

lakeshores, steep slopes, alpine areas, subalpine areas, and other unique geographical 

feature areas. The Kenai Peninsula encompasses a vast range of forested and nonforested cover types, geographical zones, and elevation changes. Vegetation varies 

accordingly, including cottonwood forests in riparian zones, coastal spruce forests, mid 

slope spruce-hemlock forests, upper elevation hemlock stands, mixed 

hardwood/softwood forests, mixed conifer forests, hardwood (birch and aspen) stands, 

black spruce bogs, wet meadows, alpine meadows, sedge meadows, and rock and ice 

areas. Most areas of recreational use in the winter, both motorized and non-motorized, 

access different vegetation types. Favored areas, due to ease of passage because of a 

lack of trees, often include alpine or subalpine areas. Most of the major trail routes have 

at least part of the route in the alpine or subalpine zones. Winter weather conditions 

frequently include strong winds, which removes much or most of the snow in many of 

these areas, subjecting these fragile habitats to greater resource damage due to 

insufficient snow cover. Non-motorized use, in the volume that the Seward Ranger 

District currently receives, is not sufficient to cause damage to these areas. Motorized 

use, in low to high volumes, has been shown to cause degradation of these alpine or 

subalpine areas from insufficient snow cover and in areas of concentrated use, 

regardless of snow cover, due to complete snow compaction. Vegetation, such as fragile 

lichens, ericaceous shrubs, willows, alpine forbs, mosses, club mosses, and heath, can 

die as a result of this use and subsequent compaction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 161 

Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Sensitive plant populations are measured by meander survey for presence or absence in 

a project area. There are several known populations of listed sensitive plants on the 

Regional Forester’s List (USDA-FS, 2002i) across the Seward Ranger District, as well as 

many known populations of rare plants listed on the Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

(2005) rare vascular plant tracking list. Habitat for sensitive and rare plants throughout 

the Seward Ranger District has been determined by a predictive model (USDA-FS, 

2002b) which takes known habitat requirements for each species and determines 

suitable locations based on climatic, landcover, and landform variables. Several 

sensitive plant species are found in alpine or subalpine habitats, one of the habitats most 

affected by motorized use either in low snow conditions or in heavy concentrated use 

areas. Other sensitive plant habitat includes riparian areas, sedge meadows, and 

forested cover. Rare plants are found in every vegetation type. With snow cover, winter 

use, motorized or non-motorized, will have a minimal effect on vegetation, including 

sensitive plants. Measurable changes to the sensitive plant populations and sensitive 

plant habitats are not expected within the scale of this project. 

Non-Native and Invasive Species Introduction and Spread 

The risk of introduction and spread of non-native or invasive plant species is much lower 

in the winter due to snow cover. Non-native species are any species that are introduced 

from another geographic area. Invasive species are a subset of non-native species that 

are capable of aggressive or rapid spread in their new location. Non-native or invasive 

species could be spread by hitchhiking on non-motorized or motorized users on 

recreational equipment, camping gear, or on mechanized vehicles of any size. Given 

appropriate environmental conditions, seeds or plant fragments could grow in the spring 

after transport. The Chugach National Forest (USDA-FS, 2005c) has adopted an 

invasive species management plan, and any project implementation is expected to 

incorporate this plan as needed in the management of these species. Consistent with 

the invasive plant management plan, to help prevent the spread of invasive plants the 

public would be encouraged to inspect and clean seeds from their gear prior to entering 

the area. Measurable changes in non native invasive plant occurrences are not expected 

within the scale of this project. 

Units of Measure 

Vegetation damage is measured by percent loss of vegetation cover by cover class, and 

by percent change in vegetation composition, in the area of interest, such as along a trail 

corridor, or at a specific site, such as a cabin. Change in trail conditions can be 

measured by the width of the trail or the condition of the site. Overall vegetation habitat 

can be assessed by a scale between one and five, from severely damaged to pristine. 

Sensitive plant populations and non-native or invasive species are measured by 

presence or absence at surveyed sites of interest. Species and size of the population 

are recorded. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 162 

3.5.2. Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

With no change to the current patterns of winter non-motorized and motorized use on 

the Kenai Peninsula, there will be no change to the vegetation, other than the expected 

degradation at areas of heavy use. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Winter motorized use can cause, at individual site levels, changes to vegetation cover, 

as well as soil compaction, damage to fragile areas with heavy or repeated use, and 

possible introduction of non-native or invasive species. In addition, sensitive or rare plant 

habitat may be affected. These effects would be caused with any change, disturbance, 

alteration, or use within the Chugach National Forest on projects that involve 

development or use. 

Cumulative Effects 

As part of the Chugach National Forest continued recreation management, project 

planning, and implementation, winter motorized and non-motorized use will be 

incorporated into the short and long terms plans for the Chugach National Forest. 

Vegetation is expected to remain the same over the forestwide scale. 

Proposed Action and Modified Preferred Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Season A/Season B scenario in this alternative may reduce the effects of motorized 

use in the Resurrection and West Resurrection units, although the amount of days that 

these units will be designated motorized will not differ dramatically from the current midseason swap. Effects to vegetation, in terms of damage to trailside vegetation and 

degradation of fragile alpine vegetation, may be lessened as use will be lighter every 

winter season. The units proposed to be managed as a Season A/Season B scenario 

are already used heavily, and resource recovery of any sort, in terms of vegetation 

cover, sensitive plant habitat, or fragile alpine habitat conservation, is not expected. 

The proposed motorized corridor from Cooper Landing to Moose Pass to Summit Lake 

(with potential tie-in to Hope and Girdwood) (Modified Preferred Alternative) and the 

proposed motorized corridor from Cooper Landing to Moose Pass to the Hope Y 

(Proposed Action) would introduce a concentrated area of use to a previous nonconcentrated area. Resource damage would be expected to occur with trail improvement 

necessary to support a corridor of this length. Alpine areas are not expected to be 

affected due to the route of this corridor. Soil compaction and vegetation damage would 

occur along the length of the route. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 163 

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Less of the Kenai Peninsula would be designated for motorized use every other winter 

season with the Season A/Season B scenario. Most vegetated areas, such as those in 

the Season A/Season B units (Carter/Crescent), would not be expected to recover or 

change from a lowered use in one year. 

Less open areas, including the Russian and West Resurrection units as permanent 

closures, would allow some recovery of vegetation in areas that have been affected by 

motorized winter use. Because these areas are not receiving the high volumes of other 

units, including Resurrection and Lost Lake, resources over the entire Kenai Peninsula 

will not be measurably changed. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Season A/Season B scenario in this alternative provides the greatest separation of 

user groups, but does not deviate in effects from the Proposed Action due to the percent 

of area designated as motorized, non-motorized, in a Season A/Season B scenario. 

Effects to vegetation, in terms of damage to trailside vegetation and degradation of 

fragile alpine vegetation, may be lessened as use will be lighter every year that areas 

are designated non-motorized. Designating the Russian unit for motorized use would 

have detrimental effects because this unit was not previously designated motorized.

Most of the units that will be part of the Season A/Season B scenario are already used 

heavily, and resource recovery of any sort, in terms of vegetation cover, sensitive plant 

habitat, or fragile alpine habitat conservation, is not expected. 

Opening new areas to use is not recommended ecologically because of the changes 

that can occur, including vegetation damage and compaction to areas previously not 

subjected to use. Concentrated use is recommended rather than spreading out use to 

new areas for greatest resource protection in terms of vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects - All Action Alternatives 

As part of the Chugach National Forest continued recreation management, project 

planning, and implementation, winter motorized and non-motorized use will be 

incorporated into the short and long terms plans for the Chugach National Forest. 

Vegetation is expected to remain the same over the forestwide scale. 

Introduction of a new motorized corridor may introduce a new “trail” visible in times of the 

year other than winter if use is heavy, which may lead to use in other seasons. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 164 

3.6. SOIL 

3.6.1. Affected Environment 

Soil is the basic component of the environment. Most living things as we know it today 

depend on the soil for the initial source of nutrients from which most other living things 

evolve. All renewable resources on the Chugach National Forest depend on the soil, 

which is considered a nonrenewable resource because of the time it takes for its 

formation. 

The Chugach National Forest uses the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological 

Units (ECOMAP) as the basis for mapping landscapes, soils, and vegetation. The 

Subsection Level is the most appropriate level of delineation for this project and winter 

recreation use. This level uses climate and its influence to shape the landscape as the 

major criteria for delineation. 

The Kenai Peninsula is located in four subsections; the Chugach Icefields, the Kenai 

Fjordlands, the Eastern Kenai Mountains, and the Western Kenai Mountains. For the 

most part, the soil of the Chugach Icefields is covered with ice and snow for the entire 

year. The Kenai Fjordlands cover the area from Snow River south through Seward and 

typically has considerable amounts of snow in the high elevations, but undependable 

snow cover at low elevations. The Eastern Kenai Mountains are quite rugged from past 

alpine glaciations and still receive a considerable amount of snow at most elevations. 

The Western Kenai Mountains Subsection consists of mountains that are less rugged 

and they receive less snow, especially at the lower elevations. 

There is typically minimal or no affect by winter recreation vehicles on the soil as long as 

there is adequate snow cover. Problems commonly occur when trails located at lower 

elevations that are not covered with adequate snow are used to access areas of higher 

elevations which do have adequate snow. These trails are most problematic in the Kenai 

Fjordlands and the Western Kenai Mountains subsections. 

All soils found on the Kenai Peninsula can be disturbed when ATVs or snowmachines 

are used on them, especially when they are wet. This use is restricted to designated 

trails where the soil productivity has been eliminated. The greatest concern is 

accelerated erosion, which can have an effect on streams and water quality, and will 

result in the removal of surface soil and gravel from the trail. One trail where this has 

been a problem is the lower section of Lost Lake Trail 4, miles north of Seward. 

Accelerated erosion rates can be expected where established snowmachine trails start 

at low elevations where an adequate depth of snow is rarely obtained until well after 

there is an adequate depth at higher elevations, and in the spring when the snow melts 

first at the lower elevations. Snowmachines often use bare trails to access the snowcovered highlands. The new paddle track machines are particularly destructive because 

they dig and spit soil and gravel as they propel the snowmachine forward. 

There is guidance in the LRMP, standards and guidelines for minimizing disturbance and 

loss in soil productivity described on page 3-22 (USDA-FS, 2002a, p.3-22). One can also 

refer to the Best Management Practices in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 165 

FSH 2509.22; BMP Numbers: 16.5; Management of Off-Road Vehicle Use, 14.5; Road 

and Trial Erosion Control Plan, and 14.8; Measures to Minimize Surface Erosion (USDAFS, 2006). There are also numerous standard open and closure dates for different 

locations that are identified in the LRMP when there is sufficient snow cover to protect 

the vegetation as determined by Forest Service personnel (USDA-FS, 2002a, p.4-91 – 

4-94). 

3.6.2. Environmental Consequences 

Changes in the motorized and non-motorized acreage for each alternative, when 

considered in relation to the soils resources across the Kenai Peninsula as a whole, are 

irrelevant given the nature of this resource and the scale of the project. For this reason, 

the effect to the soils resource does not change substantially across the alternatives. 

These effects are displayed below for all alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Winter recreation (motorize and non-motorized) has little effect on soil, primarily because 

these activities are taking place on snow. With the application of the LRMP standards 

and guidelines, designed to provide protection to vegetation and, in turn, soils, any 

impact from the ripping and tearing of snowmachines would be negligible. Therefore, 

there would be minimal, if any, direct or indirect effects to the soils resource. 

Cumulative Effects 

The negligible impacts to soils from winter recreation activities in conjunction with past 

actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not cause any cumulative 

impacts. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 166 

3.7. WATER, RIPARIAN, AND WETLANDS 

The Kenai Winter Access FEIS evaluates just over 835,000 acres of National Forest 

System lands, all of which are located on the Kenai Peninsula within the boundaries of 

the Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest. Broad descriptions of the 

surface water, groundwater, riparian area, and wetland resources for the project area, as 

well as the Legal and Administrative Framework and protection measures for these 

resources on the Chugach National Forest are presented in the FEIS for the LRMP 

(USDA-FS, 2002b, p 3-22 to 3-31). 

Detailed hydrologic and climatic data records have been compiled and summarized for 

portions of the project area in the following Forest Service produced Landscape 

Assessments and Hydrologic Condition Assessments (HCAs) completed or in progress 

on the Seward Ranger District: 

• Resurrection Creek Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 2002e) 

• Resurrection Creek Watershed Association Hydrologic Condition Assessment

(USDA-FS, 2001) 

• Cooper Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA-FS, 2002f) 

• Sixmile/Canyon Creek Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 2002g) 

• Sixmile/Canyon Creek Hydrologic Condition Assessment (USDA-FS, 2002h) 

• Russian River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 2004a) 

• Russian River Watershed Hydrologic Condition Assessment (USDA-FS, 

2004b) 

• Snow River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 2005d) 

• Snow River Hydrologic Condition Assessment (USDA-FS, 2005e) 

• Trail River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, in progress) 

• Trail River Hydrologic Condition Assessment (USDA-FS, 2001b) 

The Resurrection Creek, Copper Creek, and Russian River Landscape Assessments are 

available on the internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policy-reports/. 

3.7.1. Affected Environment 

Snow 

The Kenai Winter Access FEIS addresses access issues for snow sports and 

accordingly, snowpack is an important component for the project. Within the project 

area, winter snowpack depths generally increase to the east and to the south. This is a 

result of winter storms often coming out of the Gulf of Alaska from the south and/or east, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 167 

with areas to the west and north often being “shadowed” from these storms by the 

mountains of the Kenai and Chugach Ranges. Within individual locales in the project 

area, the amount of annual precipitation generally increases with elevation, as well as 

the percent of precipitation that falls as snow. Wind, particularly above timberline, can 

redistribute winter snowpacks significantly in some locations, leaving barren ridges and 

deeply deposited snow in lee areas. 

Winter snow sports within the project area occur most prominently in the period from 

November through early April. Snow availability can vary greatly from site to site and 

year to year within the project area. A prominent pattern of increasing winter air 

temperatures has occurred over the project area in the last 20 years. Warmer winter air 

temperatures within the project area result in a larger percentage of the winter 

precipitation falling as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations. This increase 

in rain often results in shallower snowpacks and shorter snow access seasons, both of 

which are generally seen as detrimental to winter snow sports. 

Water Quality 

Watersheds within the project area are mostly pristine, particularly in the upper reaches 

that are often popular for winter sports use. Due to the lack of development within these 

drainages, water quality is generally very good as indicated in the FEIS for the LRMP 

(USDA-FS, 2002b, p 3-27). 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Wetlands and riparian areas are frequently recognized on National Forest System lands 

as being areas particularly sensitive to development due to their high fish and wildlife 

habitat values, and their susceptibility to damage from human disturbances. In relation to 

winter sports activities, adverse impacts to wetlands and riparian areas are greatly 

reduced by both the “cushioning” of the winter snowpack and impenetrability of the 

underlying frozen ground. Wetlands and riparian areas can be subject to high 

disturbance from winter sports activities, particularly motorized activities, when 

snowpacks are very shallow or the ground is unfrozen. This can be the case at lower 

elevation areas, including areas near trailheads and access points. 

3.7.2. Environmental Consequences 

The total percentage of the project area designated for motorized use does not change 

substantially between the five alternatives. These changes in the motorized and nonmotorized acreages, when considered in relation to the water, riparian, and wetland 

resources across the Kenai Peninsula as a whole, are irrelevant given the nature of this 

resource and the scale of the project. Although changes in localized effects can occur 

between the different alternatives, over the project area, impacts to water resources 

would show little variation between the five alternatives. The effects displayed below are 

for all alternatives. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 168 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Quality 

The FEIS for the LRMP (USDA-FS, 2002b, p 3-8) indicates that 2-cycle snowmachine 

engines generally bypass 20 to 33 percent of their gasoline/oil mixture unburned out the 

exhaust. Some of this unburned fuel is directly vaporized and escapes into the 

atmosphere, while the remainder is deposited as liquid droplets on the snowpack. 

The FEIS for the LRMP (USDA-FS, 2002b, p. 3-37 to 3-38) indicates that fuel deposition 

on the snowpack has the potential to concentrate in the snowpack and runoff into 

surface and ground water during the spring snowmelt. Such runoff has been displayed in 

certain instances to have adverse impacts on aquatic organisms if concentrations of 

petroleum-related toxics reach high levels. 

We are not aware of any water quality data collected on project area streams during 

spring runoff to test for the presence of dissolved petroleum-related products in the 

water. The wide areas designated for motorized use and the relatively dispersed 

motorized uses throughout the area can result in a wide disbursal of these pollutants. 

However, areas where highly concentrated winter motorized use occurs adjacent to 

water sources can likely be a detriment to water quality. Under all alternatives, the 

locations most susceptible to petroleum related water pollution would be centralized 

parking areas/trailheads and concentrated, narrow use corridors, particularly when such 

places are in immediate proximity to water sources. 

Starting in 2006 and continuing through 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) will be phasing in a new set of exhaust emission standards for new recreational 

vehicles, including snowmobiles sold in the United States (US-EPA, 2002). The new 

emission standards for snowmobiles will set maximum levels for emissions of 

hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels. The hydrocarbon standards greatly limit the 

amount of unburned fuel that can be emitted in the exhaust of new machines. 

Although the EPA emissions regulations apply to only new snowmobiles, over time these 

regulations should greatly reduce the average amount of fuel lost through exhaust by 

individual machines, and hence the amount of petroleum deposited on the snowpack. 

However, potential increases in winter motorized use within the project area would result 

in more individual sources of petroleum deposition. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Adverse impacts of winter sports activities, both motorized and non-motorized, to the 

physical environment are greatly limited by the “cushioning” provided by the winter 

snowpack (the deeper the snow, generally the less the impact), and because the ground 

underneath is generally frozen in the winter. Motorized winter use in shallow snowpack 

conditions on unfrozen ground can cause considerable vegetation damage, soil erosion, 

and stream channel and bank disturbance in certain instances, although the LRMP 

standards and guidelines provide protection (USDA-FS, 2002a, p. 3-22 and 3-35). 

Narrow track, high-horsepower snowmobiles with long paddles can cause a great deal of 

ground disturbance and excavation. Avoiding thin snow or unfrozen ground conditions 

and placing closures to motorized access when these conditions exist can go a long way 

in protecting water, soil, and vegetation from adverse physical impacts from motorized 

use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 169 

Under the five alternatives, some localized increases and decreases in impacts to 

wetlands and riparian areas are probable. Places particularly susceptible to new water 

resource impacts would be new trailheads and narrow travel corridors. The proposed 

Season A/Season B scenario for motorized use in the Modified Preferred Alternative 

could have a beneficial effect of giving wetlands and riparian areas that might have 

physical or water quality impacts a “rest-rotation” that would reduce the intensity of the 

impact and limit long-term impacts. 

The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 propose construction of access corridors to 

provide more access routes for winter recreationists. The design and location of these 

corridors has not been specified beyond the general areas in which they would occur. 

Therefore, new trail impacts to water resources can only be discussed in a general 

manner. No new access corridors are proposed in either the No Action Alternative or 

Alternative 1. 

The new proposed access corridors could be winter only (involving only vegetation 

clearing) or all-season trails. Winter-only corridors that follow a logical access corridor 

can often evolve into all-season trails over time, created by summer users. If the winteronly corridor crosses streams, riparian areas, floodplains, or wetlands, this can in some 

cases result in bank damage, vegetation damage, soil erosion, and stream 

sedimentation. Such damage can occur if the access corridor is used during shallow 

snowpack or unfrozen ground conditions, or if it is converted to an all-season trail. 

Adverse impacts to streams, wetlands, and water quality from access corridor 

development can be mitigated through the use of Forest Service best management 

practices (USDA-FS, 2006). Development and location of winter-only access corridors 

should be undertaken with the understanding of the potential of these trails to evolve to 

all-season trails over time. 

Cumulative Effects – Water, Riparian, Wetlands 

The negligible impacts to water, riparian area, and wetland resources from winter 

recreation activities in conjunction with past actions and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not cause any cumulative impacts. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 170 

3.8. AIR QUALITY 

3.8.1. Affected Environment 

The Kenai Winter Access FEIS evaluates over 835,000 acres of Chugach National 

Forest System lands located on the Kenai Peninsula and within the boundaries of the 

Seward Ranger District. Air and air quality for the project area are broadly described in 

Chapter 3 of the LRMP FEIS (USDA-FS, 2002b, p.3-3 to 3-5). This section of the FEIS 

for the LRMP also provides additional information on the Legal and Administrative 

Framework, and protection measures for air quality on the Chugach National Forest. 

As conveyed in the LRMP FEIS, the project area generally has “remarkably pristine” air 

quality (USDA-FS, 2002b, p.3-4). This is particularly true in the upper reaches of the 

project area watersheds, popular areas for winter sports access that are often located 

away from highways and communities that might have some impacts on ambient air 

quality. 

3.8.2. Environmental Consequences 

Changes in the motorized and non-motorized acreage for each alternative, when 

considered in relation to the air and air quality resources across the Kenai Peninsula as 

a whole, are irrelevant given the nature of this resource and the scale of the project. For 

this reason, the effect to air quality does not change substantially across the alternatives. 

These effects are displayed below for all alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The LRMP FEIS indicates that 2-cycle snowmobile engines generally bypass 20 to 33 

percent of their gasoline/oil mixture unburned out the exhaust. Some of this unburned 

fuel is directly vaporized and escapes into the atmosphere, while the remainder is 

deposited as liquid droplets on the snowpack (USDA-FS, 2002b, p.3-8). The LRMP 

FEIS notes that snowmobile emissions have a negative effect on air quality by emitting 

toxic air pollutants (including benzene and toluene) and volatile organic compounds. The 

FEIS states, “Snowmobile hydrocarbon emissions exceed emissions from most other 

motor vehicles, with exhaust carbon dioxide levels around 1,000 times higher than an 

automobile operating at similar speeds (USDA-FS, 2002b, p. 3-8).” The FEIS points out 

that although snowmobiles can impact air quality in places of concentrated use, 

diminishment of local air quality below Federal standards was unlikely due to the 

patterns of air movement on the Forest and relatively low concentrations of snowmobile 

users. Localized air quality impacts occur at parking lots, trailheads, and other areas of 

concentrated motorized use. Air pollutants related to motorized use and regulated by US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ambient air quality standards include carbon 

monoxide, fine particulates, and sulfur oxides. No air quality data have been collected to 

date within the project area to evaluate the presence of these pollutants in the air. 

Starting in 2006 and continuing through 2012, EPA will be phasing in a new set of 

exhaust emission standards for new recreational vehicles, including snowmobiles sold in 

the United States (US-EPA, 2002). The new emission standards for snowmobiles will set 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 171 

maximum levels for emissions of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide. The new standards 

also address the issue of fuel lost through the walls of plastic fuel tanks and rubber 

hoses (permeation). New standards starting in 2008 set a limit to the rate at which fuel 

can permeate through fuel tanks and fuel hoses. 

Although the EPA emissions regulations apply to only new snowmobiles, over time these 

regulations should greatly reduce the average amount of hydrocarbons and carbon 

monoxide emitted in the exhaust of individual machines, and hence limit any existing 

impacts to air quality. However, potential increases in winter motorized use within the 

project area would result in more individual sources of exhaust emissions to the air. 

Cumulative Effects 

The negligible impacts to air quality from winter recreation activities in conjunction with 

past actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not cause any cumulative 

impacts. 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 172 

3.9. FISHERIES 

3.9.1. Affected Environment 

This section addresses the existing resource situation (affected environment) and the 

effects of the proposed alternatives (environmental effects) on federally listed, Forest 

Service Region 10 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, Management Indicator 

Species, and Special Interest Species as well as any other species identified by the 

Forest Service or the public as being of issue. 

The project area (Seward Ranger District) contains approximately 930 miles of known 

fish bearing streams and over 26,500 acres of fish bearing lakes ranging from one to 

14,000 acres (Kenai Lake). Both anadromous (fish that mature and spend much of their 

adult life in the ocean, returning to inland waters to spawn [e.g. salmon and steelhead]) 

and resident fish (fish that are not migratory and complete their entire life cycle in fresh 

water [e.g. trout]) utilize the Seward Ranger District. Anadromous fish habitat includes 

390 miles of documented anadromous streams and 24,200 acres of anadromous fish 

lakes (ADF&G, 2005a). There are almost 700 acres of resident fish lakes and an 

unknown number of resident fish streams (USFS, unpublished data). The Seward 

Ranger District manages 22 lakes used by recreational anglers. Eight are stocked by 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game with sterile rainbow trout (ADF&G, 2005b) and 

provide ice fishing opportunities. 

There are no federally listed or Region 10 sensitive fish species on the Chugach 

National Forest or Seward Ranger District. Both Management Indicator fish species are 

found within the project area (Table 3-9). The one Species of Special Interest is not 

known to occur within the project area (Table 3-9). Table 3-9 also lists Alaska’s sport or 

subsistence fishery species occurring within the project area. 

Generally, all populations are considered robust and healthy within the project area, 

although there are several localized areas where human influences have adversely 

affected habitat and fish populations such as Cooper Creek, a tributary to the Kenai 

River. All species found in Table 3-9 and in the project area are important to 

subsistence, and sport fishermen as well as keystone species for ecosystem 

productivity. Additionally, salmon produced on the National Forest are important for 

commercial fisheries occurring in salt water. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 173 

Table 3-9 Amount of Available Habitat and Status of Fish Species Considered 

within the Kenai Winter Access Project Area 

Species Status 

Amount of 

Habitat in 

Project Area 

Anadromous Fish 

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Management 

Indicator Species 315 miles 

Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Alaska Sport Fishery 161 miles 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) Alaska Sport Fishery 160 miles 

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Alaska Sport Fishery 121 miles 

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Alaska Sport Fishery 109 miles 

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Alaska Sport Fishery Unknown 

Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) Management 

Indicator Species Unknown 

Resident Fish 

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) Alaska Sport Fishery Unknown 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Alaska Sport Fishery 242 miles 

Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) Species of Special 

Interest Unknown 

Salmon (Coho, Pink, Chinook, Sockeye, Chum) 

Salmon are important sport fisheries species on the Kenai Peninsula. Their occurrence 

within rivers and streams in the project area varies by species. The rivers and streams 

where these species occur in large numbers include the Resurrection River, 

Resurrection Creek, Salmon Creek, Quartz Creek, Sixmile Creek, Kenai River, and 

Ptarmigan Creek (ADF&G 2005a; USFS, unpublished data). The approximate amount of 

habitat used by these species is listed in Table 3-9. 

Eulachon 

These pelagic schooling smelts (common name Hooligan) live in marine environments 

offshore of the Chugach National Forest, and also spawn in fresh water within the 

Seward Ranger District. Two populations are known to occur in the project area in the 

Resurrection River and several other tributaries to Resurrection Bay near Seward. 

However, the extent of their habitat is unknown (USFS, unpublished data). 

Dolly Varden char

This species is one of the most important sport fish in Alaska and are common on the 

Seward Ranger District. The rivers and streams where this species occur in large 

numbers include the Kenai River, Russian River, Resurrection Creek, and South Fork 

Snow River (ADF&G, 2005a). 

Arctic Grayling

This fish species is not native to the Chugach National Forest. The self sustaining 

populations are the result of earlier introductions within the project area. They are 
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 174 

currently found in Kenai, Bench, Upper and Lower Paradise, Juneau and Crescent 

Lakes (USFS, unpublished data). 

Rainbow Trout

This species occurs naturally on the Kenai Peninsula. They are found in streams, rivers 

and lakes throughout the Seward Ranger District. Hatchery-raised rainbow trout were 

also introduced into eight lakes on the Seward Ranger District by the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game to provide sport fishery opportunities. They are currently in Upper and 

Lower Summit, Carter, Jerome Lake, Long, Meridian, Upper and Lower Russian, Upper 

and Lower Paradise, Johnson, Cooper, Rainbow, Trout, Swan, Juneau, and Lost Lakes. 

3.9.2. Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The action alternatives do not differ significantly in the amount of area open to winter 

motorized and non-motorized access. Therefore, the four action alternatives, including 

the Modified Preferred, do not have effects that differ among the alternatives to the 

fisheries resource. 

Possible impacts to fish populations and aquatic resources from the proposed activities 

include: 1) sedimentation caused by snowmachine caused ground disturbance activities 

during times of less than optimal snow cover; 2) introduction of petroleum-related 

products; and 3) changes in patterns of recreational fishing use that could result in overharvest of fish. 

None of the proposed alternatives would have measurable direct or indirect effects on 

any fish populations or fish habitat because all proposed activities would occur in the 

winter when snow and ice cover prevents sediment from entering aquatic habitats (see 

Soils [3.6]). Similarly, there is a low risk of petroleum-based pollutants entering aquatic 

habitat (see Water Quality [3.7]). 

There is little existing data regarding effects of snowmobiles on aquatic biota but, 

Adams, 1975 addressed the effects of high levels of lead and hydrocarbons from 

snowmachine exhaust on brown trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). His study found that that 

high-level exposure to lead and hydrocarbon can lower activity levels and feeding. The 

alternatives in this FEIS, including the Modified Preferred Alternative, are expected to 

have negligible effects to water quality and fish, including the Snow River unit, because 

snowmachine use on the Seward Ranger District is widely dispersed, occurs over 

relatively large frozen water bodies, and does not occur at concentrations that have 

been shown to cause adverse effects to water quality or aquatic organisms. The results 

of the Adams Study support this contention and state that the levels of hydrocarbons 

found in the study are “unrealistic for all but a few small lakes in well populated areas.” 

No adverse effects to fish populations are expected as a result of over-harvest of lakes 

used for recreational ice fishing. These lakes are stocked specifically as “put and take” 

fisheries and adequate regulations exist to ensure conservation of fish populations and 

opportunities for fisherman. None of the proposed alternatives would adversely affect 

Essential Fish Habitat as described under the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 

104-297, October 11, 1996). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 175 

Additionally, the USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook of Best 

Management Practices (2006), provide direction for minimizing adverse impacts to water 

and attendant fisheries resources. The majority of the fish habitat standards and 

guidelines are defined by soil and water concerns, and are designed to protect and 

maintain such elements as stream channels, stream banks, riparian vegetation, and 

water quality. Adherence to these practices will protect fisheries resources from 

detrimental effects. 

The protection measures apply to all alternatives. Changes in either the method of 

implementation or the protection measure will occur if either does not adequately protect 

the fisheries resource in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Because there are no effects of the proposed alternatives on the fisheries resource, 

there will be no cumulative effects.
Kenai Winter Access 

 Chapter 3 176 

3.10. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects, 

including human health, economic and social effects, of their actions on minority 

communities and low-income communities, addressing instances where the effects on 

these communities may be disproportionately high and adverse. A description of the 

communities in or adjacent to the project area is contained in a separate report in the 

project record. This report contains population estimates, socio-economic 

characteristics, and indicators of community attitudes and beliefs as measured in 

previous social research. All action alternatives were assessed to determine whether 

they would have disproportionately high and adverse effects, on minority or low-income 

populations. No such impacts were identified during scoping or through the effects 

analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 177 

Appendix A – Maps 

 
Kenai Winter Access 

178 Appendix A 

This page left intentionally blank
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 179 

Map A-2-1 No Action Alternative 
D

D

D

D

D (

D

TURNAGAIN ARM

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

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

Russian Lakes Tr

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

Mount Alice

Paradise Peak

Tiehacker Mountain

Godwin Glacier

Mount Adair

Marathon Mountain

South Fork Snow River

Snow River

LEGEND

Winter Access Category

Open to All Motorized Use

Open to Helicopters, Closed to Snowmachines

Open to All Motorized Use until 2/15; Closed after 2/15

Closed to Motorized Use Except for Subsistence

Other Ownership

Water

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

8 Forest Service Cabins

District and Project Area Boundary

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

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Railroad

! ! Powerlines

Trails

Proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail

4

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

June 2007

Kenai Winter Access EIS

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Long Lake

Anchorage

56 mi
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 181 

Map A-2-2 Proposed Action 
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

TURNAGAIN ARM

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

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

Russian Lakes Tr

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

Mount Alice

Paradise Peak

Sheep Mountain

Tiehacker Mountain

Godwin Glacier

Mount Adair

Marathon 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

Proposed Access Corridor; Open to Motorized Use

Proposed Access Corridor; Closed to Motorized Use

Proposed Access Corridor; Easement Required

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Area Permitted for Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing

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

8 Forest Service Cabins

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

District and Project Area Boundary

Railroad

! ! Powerlines

Trails

Proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail

4

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

June 2007

Kenai Winter Access EIS

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

PROPOSED ACTION

Long Lake

Anchorage

56 miles
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 183 

Map A-2-3 Modified Preferred Alternative 
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
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 185 

Map A-2-4 Alternative 1 
D

D

D

D

D (

D

TURNAGAIN ARM

Summit Creek

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

Russian River

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

Russian Lakes Tr

Lost Lake

Resurrection

Ptarmigan/Grant

Summit

Russian

Snow River

Johnson Pass

Carter/Crescent

Tern Lake

Tiehack/Mt Alice

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

West Resurrection

Hope

Upper Russian FS Cabin

Crescent Creek CG

Hope

Seward

Girdwood

Moose Pass

Cooper Landing

Mount Alice

Paradise Peak

Tiehacker Mountain

Godwin Glacier

Mount Adair

Marathon Mountain

South Fork Snow River

Snow River

Winter Access Category

Open to All Motorized Uses

Open to Helicopters, Closed to Snowmachines

b

b Season On/ Season Off Alternating Use with Resurrection

a

a Season On/ Season Off Alternating Use with Carter-Crescent

Closed to Motorized Use Except for Subsistence

Other Ownership

Water

Black Mountain Research Natural Area Closed to Motorized Use

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

× 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

District and Project Area Boundary

Godwin Glacier

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Railroad

! ! Powerlines

Trails

Proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail

4

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

June 2007

Kenai Winter Access EIS

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

ALTERNATIVE 1

Long Lake

Anchorage

56 miles
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 187 

Map A-2-5 Alternative 2 
D

D

D

D

D (

D

TURNAGAIN ARM

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

Russian Lakes Tr

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

Mount Alice

Paradise Peak

Sheep Mountain

Tiehacker Mountain

Godwin Glacier

Mount Adair

Marathon Mountain

South Fork Snow River

Snow River

Winter Access Category

Water

Open to All Motorized Use

Open to Helicopters, Closed to Snowmachines

Closed to Motorized Use Except for Subsistence

Other Ownership

b

b Season On/Season Off Alternating Use with Resurrection

a Season On/ Season Off Alternating Use with Carter, Russian, & Snow

Black Mountain Research Natural Area Closed to Motorized Use

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

8 Forest Service Cabins

District and Project Area Boundary

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

Godwin Glacier

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Railroad

! ! Powerlines

Trails

Proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail

Proposed Access Corridor, Open to Motorized Use

Proposed Access Corridor, Closed to Motorized Use

4

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

June 2007

Kenai Winter Access EIS

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

ALTERNATIVE 2

Long Lake

Anchorage

56 miles
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 189 

Map A-3-1 Land and Resource Management Plan, Management Prescriptions 
Al yeska

Girdwood

Hope

Sunrise

Si lvertip

Gil patricks

Cooper Landing Sn ug Ha rbor

Moose Pass

Crown Po int

Fal ls

Mu skwa Vil lag e

Lawi ng

Pri m rose

Woo drow

Be ar Cree k

Seward

Management Area Prescriptions

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

4

May 2002

Legend

Land & Resource Management Plan

Prescriptions

Primitive Prescription

Recommended Wilderness

Wild River

Wild River in Recommended Wilderness

ANILCA 501(b)-1

Designated Research Natural Area

Proposed Research Natural Area in Recommended Wilderness

Proposed Research Natural Area

Backcountry Prescription

ANILCA 501(b)-2 Prescription

EVOS Fee

Scenic River

Municipal Watershed

Brown Bear Core Area

Fish & Wildlife Conservation Area

Fish, Wildlife & Recreation Prescription

Forest Restoration

ANILCA 501(b)-3 Prescription

Recreation River

Mining Claim with Approved Plan of Operations (1998)

Transportation/Utility Corridor

Non National Forest

Water

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 191 

Map A-3-2 Existing Winter Recreation Use 
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x xx x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

x

x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x x

xx

x x

x x x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x

x

x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x

x x

x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x xx x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x

x

x

x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x

x x x x

x x

x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x

x x x x

x

x x

x x x

x

x x x x x x x

x x

x

x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x x x

x x

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

8

8

8 8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

Upper Russian FS Cabin

Hope

Seward

Moose Pass

Cooper Landing

Legend

Nordic Ski Use

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Snowmobile Use

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Snowmobile & Nordic Ski Use

Air Travel Corridor

Airplane Landing Area

! ! ! ! ! !

Ski Run

x x x Nordic Ski Route

Roads

8 Forest Service Cabins

Other Ownership

Area Permitted for Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing

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

μ

Kenai Lake

Existing Winter Recreation Use

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

February 2006

00.51 2 3 4

Miles
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A 193 

Map A-3-3 Recreation Infrastructure 
9

9

9

9

9 9

9

9

9 9

9 9

9

8

8

8 8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

Cooper Lake

Kenai Lake

Bird Creek Trail

Bull Rock Trail

Johnson

Pass

Trail

Resurrection Pass Trail

Devils

Pass

Trail Crescent Creek Trail

Crescent Lake Trail

Carter Lake Trail

Grant Lake Trail

Schooner Bend Trail

Stetson

Creek

Trail

Bean Creek Trail

Ptarmigan Creek Trail

Russian Lakes Trail

Cooper Lake Trail (historical)

Primrose Creek Trail

Paradise Valley Trail

Resurrection River Trail

Lost Lake Trail

Swan Lake Winter Route

Trout Lake Trail

Summit Creek Trail

Colorado Creek Trail

Fresno Creek Trail

Slate Creek Trail

Ptarmigan Lake Trail

Falls Creek ORV Trail

Victor Creek Trail

Mills Creek Trail

Russian River Anglers Trail

Russian River FallsTrail

Upper Russian River Winter Route

Lost Lake Winter Route

Long Lake Trail

Grayling Lake Trail

Meridian Lake Trail

Clemens Cabin Access Trail

Hope Point Trail

Gull Rock Trail

Iditarod Recreation South Trail

Lost Lake

Resurrection

Summit

Russian

Snow River

Johnson Pass

Tern Lake

Tiehack/Mt Alice

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

NNF

West Resurrection

Hope

Ptarmigan/Grant

Carter/Crescent

Ship Creek CG

Meadow Creek CG

Trail River CG Porcupine Is CG

Porcupine CG

Coeur dAlene CG

Fox Creek FS Cabin

East Creek FS Cabin

Trout Lake FS Cabin

Devils Pass FS Cabin

Caribou Creek FS Cabin

West Swan Lake FS Cabin

Upper Paradise FS Cabin

Lower Paradise FS Cabin

Swan Lake FS Cabin

Romig FS Cabin

Hope

Seward

Girdwood

Moose Pass

Cooper Landing

Barber FS Cabin

Aspen Flats FS Cabin

Dale Clemens FS Cabin

Crescent Lake FS Cabin

Upper Russian FS Cabin

Crescent Saddle FS Cabin

Recreation Infrastructure

Seward Ranger District

Chugach National Forest

LEGEND

9 Forest Service Campgrounds

8 Forest Service Cabins

Lake

Seward Highway

Sterling Highway

Railroad

Trails

District and Project Boundary

Communities

4

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

June 2007

Ptarmagin CG

Primrose CG

Tenderfoot Creek CG

Crescent Creek CG

Russian River CG Cooper Creek CG Quartz Creek CG

Juneau Lake FS Cabin
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B 195 

Appendix B – Literature Cited 

Adams, E. S. 1975. Effects of led and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on brook 

trout (Salvelinus fontinalus). Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 2:363-373. 

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1985. Alaska habitat management 

guide. Guidelines for the protection of wildlife and their habitat and on human use 

of fish and wildlife. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 32 pp. 

_____. 2003. Kenai Peninsula Caribou Management Plan. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, USDA-Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

_____. 2004. Alaska Wildlife Harvest Summary 2003-2004. www.state.ak.us/adfg. 

_____. 2005a. Wildlife Notebook Series: River Otter. Text by Solf J. D. and Howard 

Golden, 1994. 

_____. 2005b. Statewide Stocking Plan for Recreational Fisheries, 2005

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/hatchery/pdfs/05regionii.pdf [Accessed: 

August 17, 2005]. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis. 2004. 

1980 Area Classification Manual. Revised October 2004. 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). 2003. Sterling 

Highway, Milepost 45-60, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Alternatives Evaluation. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, AK. May 

2003. Document available at www.sterlinghighway.net (Accessed 6/11/2007) 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Vascular Plant Tracking List. 

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/Botany_tracking_page.htm 

Bartonek, J.C., J.G. King, and H.K. Nelson. 1971. Problems confronting migratory birds 

in Alaska. Pages 345-361 in Transactions of the Thirty-sixth North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 7-10, 1971. Wildlife 

Management Institute, Wash. D.C. 

Bergen, D. 2005. Personal Communication with D. Bergen, Alaska Department of Labor 

and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis and Lisa Crone, Forest 

Service Economist. Regarding Employment Data Files for Hope SSA. Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis 

Section, PO Box 21149, Juneau, AK 99802-1149. June 9, 2005. 

Boraas, A. 2002. “Native Life: One Hundred Years of Native Life on the Kenai Peninsula” 

in Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula: The Road We’ve Traveled. Kenai Peninsula Historic 

Association, Hope, Alaska. 

Buehler, D. A. 2000. “Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus).” In The Birds of North 

America, No. 564 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.). The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 40 pp. 
Kenai Winter Access 

196 Appendix B 

Bury, R. L. 1978. “Impacts of Snowmobiles on Wildlife.” Forty-Third North American 

Wildlife Conference. 149-156 pp. 

Campbell, B.H. 1990. Factors affecting the nesting success of dusky Canada geese 

(Branta canadensis occidentalis) on the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Can. FieldNaturalist 104(4):567-574. 

Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon, J. M. Hillis, and M. J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Chap 6 in 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana,

coordinated by G. Joslin and H. Youmans. Committee on Effects of Recreation 

on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Cardenas, C. 2005. Personal Communication with C. Cardenas, Alaska Hotel 

Properties, LLC (Hotel Operations), Seattle, WA 800-727-3199 and Lisa Crone, 

Forest Service Economist. June 22, 2005. 

Carter, H. R., and S. G. Sealy. 1986. “Year-round use of coastal lakes by marbled 

murrelets.” Condor 88: 473-477. 

Claar, J. J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. 

Olson, H. IhslePac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, and H. Youmans. 1999. “Carnivores.” 

Pages 7.1– 7.63 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation 

on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana, Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Colescott, J.H. and M.P. Gillingham. 1998. Reaction of moose (Alces Alces) to 

snowmobile traffic in the Greys River Valley, Wyoming. Alces 34: 329-336. 

Comely, J.E., M.B. Naughton, M.R. Hills, and K.M. Raferty. 1988. Distribution of 

wintering dusky and cackling Canada geese in western Oregon and western 

Washington, 1985-1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report. 20 pp. 

Daum D. 1994. Bald eagle. Wildlife Notebook Series, State of Alaska, Department of 

Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. 

Farley, S. 2005. Personal Communication with Sean Farley, Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game and Mary Ann Benoit, Forest Service Wildlife Biologist. July 2005. 

Federal Register. 2005. Notice of Intent, Kenai Winter Access, published in the Federal 

Register, April 23, 2005, p. 21733. 

Gabrielson, I.N., and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Stackkpole Co., 

Pennsylvania, and the Wildlife Management Institute, Washington D.C. 922 pp. 

Gaines, William L.; Singleton, Peter H.; Ross, Roger C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative 

effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and 

Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 79 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B 197 

Golden, H. N. 2004. “Wolverine Survey for Upper Turnagain Arm and Kenai Mountains.” 

Interagency Collaborative Project Progress Report (unpublished). 4 pp. 

Goodrich, J. M., and J. Berger. 1994. “Winter Recreation and Hibernating Black Bears 

(Ursus americanus)” Biological Conservation 67:105–110. 

Gurevich, V. S. 1980. Worldwide distribution and migration patterns of the white whale 

(beluga), Delphinapterus leucas. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 30:465-480. 

Hamer, T.E., S.K. Nelson. 1995. “Nesting chronology of the Marbled Murrelet.” Pp.49-

56 in Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (C. J. Ralph, G. L. Hunt, 

Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, eds.). USDS-GD. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152, 

Albany, CA. 

Harris, Grant. 2007. Personal Communication with Grant Harris, Chugach National 

Forest Biologist and Mary Ann Benoit, Seward Ranger District Biologist, Chugach 

National Forest. Anchorage, AK. 2007. 

Heinemeyer, K. S., B. C. Aber, and D. F. Doak. 2001. Aerial Surveys for Wolverine 

Presence and Potential Winter Recreation Impacts to Predicted Wolverine 

Denning Habitats in the Southwestern Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unpublished 

Report. Santa Cruz, CA. University of California, Santa Cruz, Department of 

Environmental Studies. 33 pp. 

Hightower, S. A., R. O. Wagner, and R. M. Tace III. 2002. “Denning ecology of female 

American black bears in southeast central Louisiana.” Ursus 13: 11-17. 

Holsten, E.W., R.W. Thier, A.S. Munson, K.E. Gibson. 1999. “The Spruce Beetle.” 

Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 127. USDA Forest Service. 9 pp. 

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. “Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern 

Montana.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1286-1301. 

Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D. Crocker-Bedford, 

P.F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern 

goshawk in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 101 pp. 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Community and Economic Development Division. 2005. 2003 

Situations and Prospects. Available online at: 

http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/CEDD/2003/S&P/Index%202003%20S&P.htm

LeFranc, M. N., Jr., M. B. Moss, K. A. Patnode, and W. C. Sugg, III, editors. 1987. 

Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Washington, 

D.C., USA. 

Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes. 2000. How vulnerable are 

denning bears to disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:400 – 413. 
Kenai Winter Access 

198 Appendix B 

Magoun, A. J., and J. P. Copeland. 1998. “Characteristics of Wolverine Reproductive 

Den Sites.” Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1313-1320. 

Manuscript. n.d. Lt. Doroshin, A Russian Engineer Prospected for Gold in Russian 

America 1848-1858. Translation of the journals for Lt. Doroshin. Anchorage, AK: 

Chugach National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

Marshall, D. B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special 

Emphasis on Populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Biological 

Report 88. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC: 19 pp. 

Mcdonough, T. 2005. Personal Communication with Thomas McDonough, ADF&G 

Biologist and Mary Ann Benoit, USFS Wildlife Biologist. 2005. 

Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 276 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D. C. 

Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding. 1999. Effects of Winter Recreation on Wildlife of the 

Greater Yellowstone Area: a Literature Review and Assessment. Report to the 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, 

Wyoming. 315 pp. 

Palmer, R.S. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Yale University Press, New 

Haven and London. 

Penner, D. 1988. Behavioral Response and Habituation of Mountain Goats in Relation to 

Petroleum Exploration at Pinto Creek, Alberta. 17 pp. 

Poe, A. J. 2005. Personal Communication with Aaron Poe, Glacier Ranger District 

Wildlife Biologist and Mary Ann Benoit, Seward Ranger District Wildlife Biologist. 

Chugach National Forest. June 2005. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Basset, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, 

Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management 

recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-217. Fort Collins, Co; USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp. 

Rugh, D. J., K. E. W. Shelden, and B. A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/July 1993-2000. Mar. 

Fish. Rev. 62(3):6-21. 

Schick, Lesli. 2004. Monitor of the McHenry Cabin. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National 

Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

Shuster, W. 2005. Personal Communication with William Shuster, Seward Ranger 

District Supervisory Staff Wildlife Biologist with Mary Ann Benoit, Seward Ranger 

District Staff Wildlife Biologist. Chugach National Forest. July 2005. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B 199 

Spraker, T. 2001. Personal Communication with Ted Spraker, Wildlife Biologist for 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK and Mary Ann Benoit 

Seward Ranger District Wildlife Biologist. 

Suring, L. H, S. Farley, G. Hilderbrand, S. Howlin, W. Erickson, and M. Goldstein. 2005. 

in prep. “Patterns of Landscape Use by Female Brown Bears on the Kenai 

Peninsula, Alaska. To be submitted to” Journal of Wildlife Management: 31 pp. 

Suring, L.H. 2005b. Personal Communication with Lowell Suring, USFS Wildlife Biologist 

and Mary Ann Benoit Seward Ranger District Wildlife Biologist. 

Tankersly, T. 2005. Personal Communication with Lisa Crone. Accounting Supervisor, 

Sales Tax Division, Finance Department, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 144 North 

Binkley, Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599. July 25, 2005. 

USDA-FS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1984. Birds of the 

Chugach National Forest. Alaska Region Leaflet Number 69. Anchorage, AK. 

Chugach National Forest. 19 pp. 

_____. 1984a. Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Anchorage, AK: USDA-FS, Alaska Region, R10, Chugach National Forest. July 

1984. 

_____. 2000-2005. “Seward Ranger District Trail Registration Data”. Unpublished 

Report. Seward, AK: USDA-FS, Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger 

District. 

_____. 2001. Trail River Hydrologic Condition Assessment. George Kalli and Dave 

Blanchet. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest. July 2001. 

_____. 2002a. Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Anchorage, AK: USDA- FS, Alaska Region, R10-MB-480c, Chugach 

National Forest. May 2002. 

_____. 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Chugach National Forest Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan. Anchorage, AK: USDA- FS, Alaska 

Region, R10-MB-480d, Chugach National Forest. May 2002. 

_____. 2002c. Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices: Chugach National 

Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Anchorage, AK: USDAFS, Alaska Region, R10-MB-480e, Chugach National Forest. May 2002. 

_____. 2002d. Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement: Chugach 

National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Anchorage, AK: 

USDA- FS, Alaska Region, R10-MB-480b, Chugach National Forest. May 2002. 

_____. 2002e. Resurrection Creek Landscape Assessment, produced by Hart Crowser 

Inc., 12556-01. Hope, AK: Chugach National Forest. January 31, 2002. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policy-ports/ep/eco_assess/resurrection_ck_lsa.pdf
Kenai Winter Access 

200 Appendix B 

_____. 2002f. Cooper Creek Watershed Analysis, edited by Dave Blanchet. Anchorage, 

AK: Chugach National April 2002. http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policyreports/ep/eco_assess/cooper_creek_wsa_final.pdf

_____. 2002g. Sixmile Creek/Canyon Creek Landscape Analysis – Hydrology Report. 

William MacFarlane and Dave Blanchet. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National 

Forest. September 2002. 

_____. 2002h. Sixmile/Canyon Creek Hydrologic Condition Assessment. William 

MacFarlane and Dave Blanchet. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest. 

November 2002.http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policyreports/ep/eco_assess/cooper_creek_wsa_final.pdf 

_____. 2002i. Alaska Region (R10) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. Juneau, AK: 

June 2002. 

_____.2002j. Title 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM). FSM 2330.3, Recreation Opportunity Class. 

Washington, DC: USDA-FS. July 11, 2002. 

_____. 2003a. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental 

Assessment Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail. Anchorage, AK: 

Chugach National Forest, Glacier and Seward Ranger Districts. June, 2003. 

_____. 2003b. Environmental Assessment Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National 

Historic Trail. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest, Glacier and Seward 

Ranger Districts. June, 2003. 

_____.2003c. Wildlife Specialist Report for the Environmental Assessment, Seward to 

Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail. Anchorage, AK. Mary Ann Benoit. 

Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District. March 21, 2003. 

_____. 2004a. Russian River Landscape Assessment. Seward, AK: Chugach National 

Forest. August 2004.http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policyreports/ep/eco_assess/Russian_River_LA_final.pdf 

_____. 2004b. Russian River Watershed Association Hydrologic Condition Assessment. 

William MacFarlane. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest. September 2004. 

_____. 2004c. Chugach National Forest Winter Motor Vehicle Closure Order Kenai 

Peninsula. Order No. 10-04-00-04-05. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach 

National Forest. 

_____. 2004d. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Commercially Guided Helicopter 

Skiing on the Kenai Peninsula. Anchorage, AK: USDA-FS, Alaska Region, 

Chugach National Forest. September 2004. 

_____. 2004e. Record of Decision for the Commercially Guided Helicopter Skiing on the 

Kenai Peninsula Final EIS. Anchorage, AK: USD-FS, Alaska Region, Chugach 

National Forest. September 2004. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B 201 

_____. 2005a. NRRS Alaska Cabin Distribution Summary. National Recreation 

Reservation System. Anchorage, AK: USDA-FS, Chugach National Forest. 

NFN_17C. 

_____. 2005b. Kenai Winter Access Collaboration Meeting. 

_____. 2005c. Chugach National Forest Invasive Species Management Plan. 

Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest. 

_____. 2005d. Snow River Landscape Assessment. Seward, AK: Chugach National 

Forest. August 2005. 

_____. 2005e. Snow River Watershed Hydrologic Condition Assessment. William 

MacFarlane. Anchorage, AK: Chugach National Forest. November 2005. 

_____. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Section FSH 2509.22, Region 10 

Amendment No 2509.22-2006-2. Forest Service Handbook. Alaska Region 

(Region 10), Juneau, AK: USFS. July 2006. 

US-EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Emission Standards 

for New Non-road Engines, Regulatory Notice EPA420-F-02-37. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

September 2002. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02037.pdf

USDI-FWS (United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. 

Bald Eagle Memorandum of Understanding. Unpublished letter to the USDA 

Forest Service. Anchorage, AK. Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK. 

Waller A. J., C. A. Sime, G. N. Bissell, and B. Dixon. 1999. Semi-aquatic Mammals. 

Pages 5.1-5.25in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation 

on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Webster, Lara. 1997. Unpublished. The Effects of Human Related Harassment on 

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Ministry of Environment, Williams Lake, BC. 

Wilson, S. F., and D. M. Shackleton. 2001. Backcountry Recreation and Mountain 

Goats: A Proposed Research and Adaptive Management Plan. British Columbia 

Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildlife 

Bulletin No. B-103. March 2001. 27 pp. 

Yarborough, Linda. 2004. Site Monitor of the Lauritsen Cabin. Anchorage, AK: Chugach 

National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office 
Kenai Winter Access 

202 Appendix B 

This page left intentionally blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix C 203 

Appendix C – List of Preparers and Contributors 

The following individuals were members of the Interdisciplinary Team during the 

development of this draft environmental impact statement: 

Core Interdisciplinary Team Members 

Elizabeth M. Bella Ecology 

Mary Ann Benoit Wildlife 

Dave Blanchet Hydrology and Air Quality 

Paula Coté Recreation 

Lisa K. Crone Social and Economic 

Dean F. Davidson Soils 

Anne Davy Co-Team Leader 

David DelSordo Co-Team Leader 

Bill MacFarlane Hydrology 

Bill Jackson Co-Team Leader 

Teneal Jensen Heritage Resources 

Eric L. Johansen Fisheries 

Chris McKee Ecology 

Lesli Schick Heritage Resources 

Support Interdisciplinary Team Members 

Joni Akin Wildlife 

Debora Cooper Seward District Ranger 

Steve Daniels Community Collaboration 

Dan Golden Administrative Services 

Grant Harris Wildlife 

Linda Kelly GIS 

Karen Kromrey Seward Ranger District Advisor and Public Services Staff Officer 

Kevin S. Laves Resource Staff Officer 

Patrick O’Leary Recreation and Seward Ranger District Advisor 

Josh Milligan Project Record 

Karin Preston GIS 

Sharon Randall SO Advisor and Acting Planning Staff Officer 

Paula Smith GIS 

Rebecca Talbott SO Advisor and Public Affairs Staff Officer 

Kristen Thrall Writer/Editor 

Gregg B. Walker Community Collaboration 

Linda Yarborough Heritage Resources 
Kenai Winter Access 

Appendix C 204 

This page left intentionally blank
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D 205 

Appendix D – Glossary and Acronyms 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

ANCSA The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, Public 

Law 92-203, 92nd Congress, 85 Stat. 688-716 

ANILCA The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 

1980. Public Law 96-487, 96th Congress, 94 Stat. 2371-2551 

BA Biological Assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS Geographic Information System 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

LRMP Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOA Notice of Availability 

ROD Record of Decision 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 
Kenai Winter Access 

206 Appendix D 

A 

Access: The opportunity to approach, enter, and make use of public lands. 

Alaska Historic Resource Survey (AHRS): The official list of documented cultural 

resources for the State of Alaska. The list is maintained by the Office of History and 

Archeology, Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. 

Anadromous Fish: Fish, which mature and spend much of their adult life in the ocean, 

returning to inland waters to spawn. Salmon and steelhead are examples. 

Analysis Area: The geographic area that was analyzed to predict the possible effect 

that may be associated with proposed alternatives. This area varies in scale depending 

on the discipline being discussed, or the relationship being described. 

Alternative: An option proposed for decision-making. 

ANCSA: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, Public Law 

92-203, 92nd Congress, 85 Stat. 688-716. 

ANILCA: The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980. 

Public Law 96-487, 96th Congress, 94 Stat. 2371-2551. 

Area of Potential Effect (related to Heritage Resources): The geographic area within 

which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if 

any such properties exist. 

B 

Bank: The continuous margin along a river or stream where all upland vegetation 

ceases. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Land management methods, measures or 

practices selected by an agency to meet its non-point source control needs. BMPs 

include, but are not limited to, structural and nonstructural controls and operation and 

maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollutionproducing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving 

waters. BMPs are selected based on site-specific conditions that reflect natural 

background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. BMPs 

are found in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22. 

Biological Assessment (BA): An evaluation conducted for Federal projects requiring 

an environmental impact statement in accordance with the legal requirements under 

Section 7(e) of the Endangered Species Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). The 

purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect 

any endangered, threatened, or proposed species or critical habitat. 

Biological Evaluation (BE): A documented Forest Service review of Forest Service 

programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action 

may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D 207 

BMPs: See Best Management Practices.

C 

Cabins: (Forest Service recreation cabins and safety shelters). Cabins and shelters for 

recreation cabin system. 

Channel: A natural waterway of perceptible extent that periodically or continuously 

contains moving water. It has a definite bed and banks, which serve to confine the water. 

Conservation System Unit: “The term ‘conservation system unit’ means any unit in 

Alaska of the National Park system, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails System, National Wilderness Preservation 

System, or a National Forest Monument including existing units, units established, 

designated, or expanded by or under the provisions of this Act, additions to such units, 

and any such unit established, designated, or expanded hereafter (ANILCA, Sec. 102).” 

Core Area: Core areas are identified in the forest plan to manage habitat and meet 

population objectives for brown bears, and to reduce dangerous encounters between 

humans and bears (USDA- FS, 2002b, pg 4-54). 

Corridor (transportation): A linear strip of land defined for the present or future location 

of transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. For planning purposes, 

potential and proposed corridors are depicted on the Plan map to show approximate 

corridor routes and widths. Actual corridor routes and boundaries for new systems will 

be identified through site-specific transportation and/or utility project planning. 

Cratering: Digging by animals.

Critical habitat: Specific areas designated as critical by the Secretary of Interior or 

Commerce for the survival and recovery of species listed as Threatened or Endangered 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.

Cultural resources: See Heritage resources. 

Cumulative effects: See Effects. 

D 

Decision Maker: The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to 

make a specific decision. 

Degradation: The general lowering of the surface of the land by erosive processes, 

especially by the removal of material through erosion and transportation by flowing 

water. 

Demographic: Pertaining to the study of the characteristics of populations, such as size, 

growth, density, distribution, and vital statistics. 
Kenai Winter Access 

208 Appendix D 

Disturbance: A force that results in changes in the structure and composition through 

natural events such as wind, fire, flood, avalanche, or mortality caused by insect or 

disease outbreaks or by human caused events (e.g., timber harvest). 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The version of the statement of 

environmental effects required for major Federal actions under Section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies 

for review and comment. 

E 

Ecosystem: A complete, interacting system of organisms considered together with their 

environment (e.g., a marsh, a watershed, or a lake). 

Effects: include the following: 

Direct - Results of an action occurring when and where that action takes place. 

Indirect - Results of an action occurring at a location other than where the action 

takes place and/or later in time, but in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Cumulative - Results of collective past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

Endangered Species: Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species must be 

designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior. Disturbance of the 

habitat of endangered species is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, 1973, as 

amended. 

Environmental Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable shortand long-term environmental effects, incorporating the physical, biological, economic, 

social and environmental design arts and their interactions. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document prepared by a Federal agency in 

which anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development 

are evaluated. A Federal statute (Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969) requires that such statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or review 

form, and then in a final form. 

Environmental Justice: Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority 

populations and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898, February 11, 1994; 59 

Federal Register, 7629, February 16, 1994. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative: An alternative that best meets the goals of 

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act and required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b) 

to be identified in the record of decision. Ordinarily, this is the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, 

and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. In some situations, there may 

be more than one environmentally preferable alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D 209 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity or 

other geological activities. 

Executive Order: An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative 

authority under his direction. 

F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): A Final Environmental Impact 

Statement document. A FEIS is prepared after review and comment by the public on the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Forbs: A grouping/category of herbaceous plants that are not included in the grass, 

shrub, or tree groupings/categories; generally smaller flowering plants. 

Forest Plan: See National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Forestwide standards and guidelines: A set of rules and guidance that directs 

management activities and establishes the environmental quality, natural renewable and 

depletable resource requirements, conservation potential, and mitigation measures that 

apply to several land use designations. 

Function: A term in ecology referring to the interactions and influences between plant 

and animal species within an area (how each species uses its environment), and to 

natural processes of change or disturbance (such as wind or aging). 

G 

Geographic Information System (GIS): Computer software that links geographic 

information (where things are) with descriptive information (what things are like). 

Guideline: A preferred or advisable course of action that may be followed to achieve 

National Forest goals but are optional. Deviations from guidelines would be analyzed 

during project level analysis and documented in a project decision document but do not 

require a Forest Plan amendment. 

H 

Habitat: The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a 

wildlife or plant species or a population of each species. 

Heritage Resources: The non-renewable physical remains of a district, site, structure, 

building, network, event, or objects used by humans in the past. They may be historic, 

prehistoric, architectural, or archival in nature. 

Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The term includes 

artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. 
Kenai Winter Access 

210 Appendix D 

I 

IDT: See Interdisciplinary Team. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT): A group of individuals with different training assembled to 

solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one 

scientific discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through 

interaction, participants bring different points of view and a broader range of expertise to 

bear on the problem. 

Irretrievable Commitments: Applies to losses of production or use of renewable natural 

resources for a period of time. For example, timber production from an area is 

irretrievably lost during the time an area is allocated to a no-harvest prescription. If the 

allocation is changed to allow timber harvest, timber production can be resumed. The 

production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible Commitments: Decisions causing changes, which cannot be reversed. 

Often applies to nonrenewable resources such as minerals and cultural resources. 

Issue: A point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed Action. 

J 

K 

L 

M 

Management Area: Combinations of adjacent Value Comparison Units having common 

management direction. 

Management Direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the 

associated land use prescriptions and standards and guidelines for attaining them. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): A representative group of species that are 

dependent on a specific habitat type. The health of the indicator species is used to 

gauge the function of the habitat on which it depends and, in turn, the health of other 

dependent species. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An agreement between the Forest Service 

and others agencies resulting from consultation between agencies that states specific 

measures the agencies will follow to accomplish a large or complex project. A 

memorandum of understanding is not a fund-obligating document. 

Mitigate: To lessen or make minimal the severity. For cultural resources, to lessen or 

minimize an adverse effect upon a cultural resource listed on or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. The two categories of mitigation most often used are project 

modification and data recovery. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D 211 

Monitoring: Gathering information and observing results of management activities to 

provide a bass for the periodic evaluation of the Forest Plan. 

Motorized access for subsistence: Access for customary and traditional activities for 

rural users. 

Motorized recreation: Recreation activities involving motorized methods for access and 

transport or in support of an activity. Examples include snowmachine use, ATV/OHV 

use, etc. 

MOU: See Memorandum of Understanding. 

N 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An Act declaring a National policy 

to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to 

promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the 

biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man, to enrich the understanding of 

the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation and to establish a 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: A plan developed to meet the 

requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 

as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 that guides all natural 

resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines 

for the National Forest System lands of a given National Forest. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 that amends the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and requires the preparation 

of Forest Plans. 

National Register of Historic Places: A register of cultural resources of national, State 

or local significance, maintained by the Department of the Interior. 

No Action Alternative: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current 

management direction were to continue unchanged. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice filed with the Federal Register informing the public that 

an environmental impact statement will be prepared and considered. 

O 

P 

Pollution: The presence of matter or energy whose nature, location, or quantity 

produces undesired environmental effects. 

Population: The actual number of animals or plants present in an area at a certain time 

that share a common gene pool. 
Kenai Winter Access 

212 Appendix D 

Preserve America: A White House initiative to direct Federal agencies to inventory and 

promote greater use of historical sites in partnership with State, Tribal and local 

governments. 

Public participation: Public meetings, collaborative workshops, interdisciplinary team 

meetings, public notices, written comments, responses to survey questionnaires, and 

similar activities designed and held to obtain comments from the public about Forest 

Service planning. 

Q 

R 

Rare plants: Plant species with potential conservation concerns, including all plants 

recognized by the Regional Forester as sensitive, plants designated by the Alaska 

Natural Heritage Program as G1-G3 S1-S2 that are known from or suspected on the 

Chugach National Forest, and plants that may be common elsewhere but are suspected 

to be at the edge of their range or disjunct on the Chugach National Forest. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A system for planning and managing 

recreation resources that categorizes recreation opportunities into eight classes. Each 

class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience 

needs based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the type 

of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area and the 

relative density of recreation use. 

Resident fish: Fish that are not migratory and complete their entire life cycle in fresh 

water. 

Riparian area: The area including a stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water 

itself, and the plants that grow in the water and on the land next to the water. 

Record of Decision (ROD): The ROD is the document signed by the decision maker 

recording a decision that was preceded by the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. 

ROS: see Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Russian River Land Act: Passed in 2002, ratifies an agreement to resolve the Native 

land claims of the Cook Inlet Region Incorporated regarding lands adjacent to the 

Russian River. 

S 

Scoping: The procedure the Forest Service uses to identify important issues and to 

determine the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed 

action. Scoping is an integral part of environmental analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D 213 

Sediment: Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being 

transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice and 

has come to rest on the earth’s surface either above or below sea level 

Sensitive Species: Plant or animal species, which are susceptible or vulnerable to 

habitat alterations or management activities resulting in a viability concern for the 

species long-term persistence. Sensitive species may be those species under 

consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species, that are on an 

official State list, or that are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing special 

consideration to assure viable populations and to prevent their listing on Federal or State 

lists. 

Standard: A course of action or level of attainment required by the Forest Plan to 

promote achievement of goals and objectives. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): The official appointed or designated 

pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, to administer the State Historic Preservation Program. 

Stream bank: The portion of the channel cross-section that restricts lateral movement of 

water at normal water levels. The bank often has a gradient steeper than 45 degrees 

and exhibits a distinct break in slope from the stream bottom. An obvious change in 

substrate may be a reliable delineation of the bank. 

Structure: A term in ecology referring to the arrangement of plant communities or 

ecosystems across a landscape and how they are connected, and to variations in tree 

heights and diameters within a stand or between stands. 

Subnivean: The subnivean zone is in or under the snow layer. Subnivean animals such 

as mice, voles, and shrews move under the snow in the winter for protection from heat 

loss and predators. For smaller animals the snow cover must be at least 6 inches deep 

before the small mammals can build tunnels through it. The temperature under the snow 

stays about 32°F no matter how cold the temperature above the snow pack. These 

areas can be crushed by both motorized and non-motorized winter recreationists. 

T 

Threatened Species: Any species of plant or animal which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. Threatened species are identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 

Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register by the Secretary of 

Interior. 

Tree well: The area surrounding the base of a tree which when covered with snow 

forms a depression that skiers can fall into. 

U 

Undertaking: In cultural resources, any project, activity or program that can result in 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties are located 
Kenai Winter Access 

214 Appendix D 

in the area of potential effects. The project, activity or program must be under the direct 

or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency or be licensed or assisted by a Federal 

agency. Undertakings include new and continuing projects, activities or programs and 

any of their elements not previously considered under Section 106, National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

V 

W 

Watershed: The area that contributes water to a drainage or stream. Portion of the 

forest in which all surface water drains to a common point. Watersheds can range from 

tens of acres that drain a single small intermittent stream to many thousands of acres for 

a stream that drains hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams.

Watershed Analysis: A systematic procedure for characterizing and evaluating 

ecological processes within a watershed, for use in ecosystem management and project 

planning. 

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency 

sufficient, under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic 

life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. Wetlands generally include peatlands, muskegs, marshes, bogs, sloughs, 

potholes, river overflows, mud flats, wet meadows, seeps, and springs. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers designated by congressional 

actions under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Wild and scenic rivers may be 

classified and administered under one or more of the following categories: 

• Wild River areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments 

and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines 

essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of 

primitive America. 

• Scenic River areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely 

undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

• Recreational River areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their 

shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in 

the past. 

X 

Y 

Z 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix E 215 

Appendix E – Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, Proposed, or Sensitive Species and 

other Wildlife Information 

Chugach National Forest - Biological Evaluation 

Date: 19 July, 2005 

Project Name: Kenai Winter Access for Winter Recreation 

District: Seward Districts 

Project Type: Recreation: Winter Motorized and Non-Motorized Use 

Location: Seward District. 

Project Actions: Allowances for motorized and non-motorized use in all areas from 12-15 

through 4-30 annually. 

Vegetation/Habitat Type: All habitats and vegetation types (see specialist report). 

Table E-1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive Species of the 

Chugach National Forest 

Species Scientific Name TEP SEN Analyzed 

Further 

Rational For No 

Additional Analysis 

Dusky Canada 

Goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

occidentalis 

X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Humpbacked Whale 

(Endangered) 

Megapteris 

novaeangliae 

X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Montague Island 

Tundra Vole 

Microtus 

oeconomus 

elymocetes 

X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Osprey Pandion 

haliaetus 

 X No Uncommon or absent 

during analysis time 

period 

Peale’s Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco pereginus X No Uncommon or absent 

during analysis time 

period 

Steller Sea Lion 

(Endangered) 

Eumetopias 

jubatus 

X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus 

buccinator 

X X No Uncommon or absent 

during analysis time 

period 

Steller’s Eider 

(Threatened) 

Somateria 

fischeri 

X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus 

brevirostrus 

 X No No habitat in analysis 

area 

Cook Inlet Beluga 

Whale (Candidate) 

Delphinapterus 

leucas 

 X No No habitat in analysis 

area 
Kenai Winter Access 

216 Appendix E 

Table E-2. Biological Evaluation 

I. Prior Biological Evaluation No Yes 

Prior Project BE: Sensitive Plants Date: Forest Plan X 

Prior Project BE: Wildlife Date: Forest Plan X 

I. Prior Biological Evaluation No Yes 

Prior Project BE: Sensitive Plants Date: X 

Prior Project BE: Wildlife Date: X 

II. Species and/or Habitat No Yes 

2. Previous Species Observation X 

3. Federally Listed Species Present X 

4. Habitat For Federally Listed Species Present X 

5. Sensitive Species Present X 

6. Habitat For Sensitive Species Present X 

III. Analysis of Effects No Yes 

1. Significant Habitat Alteration X 

2. Effects Outside Project Area X 

3. Cumulative Effects on Listed Species or Habitat X 

4. Cumulative Effects on Sensitive Species or Habitat X 

IV. Determination of Effects No Yes 

1. No Affect Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species X 

2 May Affect Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species X 

3. May Affect Individual Sensitive Species X 

4. May Affect Sensitive Species' Population Viability X 

V. Consultation Requirements No Yes 

1. Formal Consultation Required X 

2. Additional Informal Consultation Required X 

Based on the findings above and the size and effect of the proposed project, a detailed 

biological evaluation and further consultation are not required. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

HABITAT 

• Winter recreation occurs over a wide variety of habitat including forested, riparian, 

alpine, sub alpine, and snow and ice. The proposed alternatives are not expected to 

encounter several of the species of concern listed in Table E-1. 

WILDLIFE 

• The Dusky Canada Geese (Branta canadensis occidentalis) is a Region 10 sensitive 

species. The breeding distribution is restricted primarily to the Copper River Delta 

(Campbell et al., 1990). It winters primarily in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, and 

along the Columbia River in Washington (Comely et al., 1988; Bartonek et al., 1971). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix E 217 

The Dusky Canada goose does not occur in the project area. Determination of Effect: 

no adverse impacts to Dusky Canada geese are anticipated. 

• The Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is an endangered species that 

occurs in all oceans of the world. Humpback whales do not occur in the project area. 

Determination of Effect: no adverse impacts to humpback whales are anticipated. 

• The Steller’s Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is a threatened species with centers of 

abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. The Steller’s 

sea lion does not occur in the project area. Determination of Effect: no adverse 

impacts to Steller’s sea lions are anticipated. 

• Trumpeter Swans (Cygnus buccinator) are a Region 10 sensitive species. Trumpeter 

swans transit the Chugach National Forest during spring and fall migrations. They 

commonly nest on the Copper River Delta wetlands and are known to nest at Ingram 

pond (between Ingram Creek and Placer River), and potentially in Resurrection River, 

Snow River and Trail River. Trumpeter swans do not occur within the project area 

during the winter recreation season. Determination of Effect: no adverse impacts to 

trumpeter swans are anticipated. 

• Steller’s Eiders are threatened species, that do not breed on the Chugach National 

Forest. They may winter on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula, but not on the 

Seward Ranger District (personal communication with Bill Shuster, Seward Ranger 

District Resource Staff Officer). Determination of Effect: no adverse impacts to 

Steller’s eiders are anticipated. 

• The Osprey (Pandion haliaeetus) is a Region 10 sensitive species. The osprey is 

widely distributed across much of Alaska south of the Brooks Range, but localized in 

the vicinity of lakes, large rivers, and coastal bays. Osprey are rare to uncommon 

throughout Alaska (Palmer, 1988) and may only occur within the project area during 

spring and fall migrations; they are not considered to be winter residents. 

Determination of Effect: no adverse impacts to Osprey are anticipated. 

• The Peale’s peregrine falcon is a Region 10 sensitive species. The Peale’s peregrine 

falcon nests in Alaska along the Pacific coast from southeastern Alaska through the 

Gulf of Alaska and west to the end of the Aleutian Islands. Nesting habitat in Alaska 

includes ledges of vertical rocky cliffs in the vicinity of seabird colonies (Gabrielson 

and Lincoln, 1959). There are no known nest sites within the project area. The 

Peale’s peregrine falcon winters from the Queen Charlotte Islands and southwestern 

British Columbia, south along the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California rarely 

to northern Baja California. Peale’s peregrine falcons do not occur within the project 

area during the proposed operating season. Determination of Effect: no adverse 

impacts to Peale’s peregrine falcon are anticipated. 

• The Cook Inlet beluga whale has recently been added as a candidate for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Beluga whales are distributed throughout 

seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere 

(Gurevich, 1980). During spring and summer months, beluga whales in Cook Inlet 

typically concentrate near river mouths in northern Cook Inlet (Rugh et al., 2000). 

Although knowledge of the winter distribution of this stock is limited, there is evidence 

that some, if not all, of this population may inhabit Cook Inlet year-round (Hansen and 
Kenai Winter Access 

218 Appendix E 

Hubbard, 1999). A review of beluga distribution data suggest there has been a 

reduction in offshore sightings in upper Cook Inlet and a dramatic reduction in 

sightings in lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al., 2000). This species does not occur in the 

winter recreation use area, so there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects 

expected. 

• The Kittlitz’s Murrelet is a small diving seabird that inhabits Alaskan coastal waters. 

During the breeding season, this species prefers habitat near tidewater glaciers, and 

to a lesser extent, offshore of remnant high-elevation glaciers and deglaciated coastal 

mountains. Breeding habitat requirements are less well known. Available information 

indicates this species nests in unvegetated scree fields, coastal cliffs, barren ground, 

rock ledges, and talus above timberline in coastal mountains, generally in the vicinity 

of glaciers, cirques near glaciers, or recently glaciated areas. During the breeding 

season they are often found in mid-bay waters and within 200 m of shore. During the 

non-breeding season they often occur farther offshore. The Service and U.S. National 

Park Service conducted seabird surveys in the Kenai Fjords National Park and 

adjacent coastline in July of 1976, 1986, 1989, 1990, and 2002. Surveys were 

conducted in near shore waters only, with the shoreline divided into segments in 1986 

and in subsequent survey years. In 1989, only 25 percent of the shoreline segments 

were randomly selected for survey. Those segments were surveyed again in 2002. 

Population estimates from a July 2002 survey of the Kenai Fjords did not indicate 

large numbers of Kittlitz’s murrelets. Breeding and non-breeding habitat does not 

exist in the project area. The breeding season is May through August, so breeding 

birds are not expected to be present in the analysis areas during the winter recreation 

period. Winter habitat is “offshore waters”, so birds are not expected to be within the 

analysis area during the winter recreation period. Winter recreation should have no 

direct, indirect or cumulative effects on this species, or effects on individuals or 

populations. 

DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

• Winter recreation will not cause short or long-term changes to sensitive wildlife habitat 

as a direct result of recreational activities. 

• There should be no adverse cumulative effects on endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive species due to winter recreation activities. 

MITIGATING MEASURES REQUIRED FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES 

• If any previously undiscovered endangered, threatened or sensitive species are 

encountered during the implementation of this project, notify the Seward Wildlife 

Biologist for consultation and recommendation of appropriate mitigating measures to 

be enacted. 

CONCLUSION 

• None of the alternatives are expected to have an adverse effect on vertebrate 

endangered, threatened or endangered species or their habitats. 

• None of the alternatives are expected to impact sensitive species or their habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 219 

Appendix F – Response to Public Comments and 

Agency Letters Received 

Recreation Experience 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the DEIS Proposed Action does not adequately provide for 

natural quiet on the Seward Ranger District. Commenters felt that additional motorized 

closures were necessary in order to provide for an appropriate level of natural quiet. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes the importance of natural quiet to the quality of the non-motorized 

recreation experience, and treats natural quiet as an analysis issue (FEIS pp. 22 through 

23). The FEIS also recognizes that a non-motorized user’s recreation experience 

diminishes when they hear motorized noise (FEIS pg. 22). The FEIS further recognizes 

that generally opportunities for natural quiet increase as more acres or areas are closed 

to motorized use (See FEIS pp. 101 through 106). The FEIS displays these differences 

among the alternatives (FEIS pg. 64). However, the FEIS also recognizes that most 

units, motorized or non-motorized, have heavy timber or vegetation and non-motorized 

users can move beyond hearing snowmachine noise by traveling where snowmachines 

are not able to travel (FEIS pp. 101). 

The FEIS analyzes Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 that provide more opportunities for 

quiet recreation than the Proposed Action and the FEIS evaluates the benefit of these 

opportunities (FEIS pp. 64, 101 through 102, and 104 through 106). The FEIS Modified 

Preferred Alternative also responds to this issue by eliminating motorized use from the 

majority of the Snow River unit, prohibiting helicopter skiing in the Snow River unit, and 

expanding the non-motorized area in the Summit and Russian units. 

In addition, the FEIS also analyzes how non-motorized recreation opportunities and 

experiences will likely change under these alternatives as a result of increasing or 

decreasing opportunities for quiet recreation (FEIS pp. 62 through 64 and 72 through 

106). Although the FEIS recognizes the importance of natural quiet to non-motorized 

recreation and that additional motorized closures will benefit natural quiet; alternatives 

that proposed additional motorized closures were eliminated from detailed study 

because it would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan goal to maintain quality settings for 

motorized recreation opportunities (FEIS pg. 52). 

Comment

Some commenters specifically recommend a motorized closure of the Snow River Unit 

in its entirety and the southern half of the Ptarmigan/Grant Unit, particularly the area 

surrounding the upper North Fork of the Snow River. Commenters felt that closures in 

these areas will provide for additional opportunities for natural quiet. In addition, some 

commenters felt the Snow River Unit should be closed to motorized use because of its 

eligibility for inclusion as a “wild river” under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 
Kenai Winter Access 

220 Appendix F 

Response

The FEIS recognizes the effects of motorized closures on natural quiet (see response 

above). In particular, the FEIS discusses the Modified Preferred Alternative which closes 

the majority of the Snow River Unit to motorized uses while allowing for a motorized 

corridor (FEIS pg. 39). The FEIS recognizes that this alternative will increase natural 

quiet in the majority of the Snow River Unit, particularly along the North Fork of the Snow 

River and when snow conditions do not allow for motorized use of the corridor (FEIS pp. 

103 through 104). 

None of the alternatives contemplate any non-motorized closures in the Ptarmigan/Grant 

Lake Unit because this unit receives little use from either user group and there are little if 

any conflicts (FEIS pg. 53). Therefore, a motorized closure of this area would not result 

in any meaningful increase in natural quiet for non-motorized users. 

The Chugach Revised Forest Plan ROD recommends that the upper 18.7 miles of the 

north fork of the Snow River be classified “wild” and the lower 5.1 miles classified as 

“scenic.” The selection of any alternative will not affect the outstanding remarkable 

values that are the basis for this recommendation and will not result in these rivers 

becoming ineligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (See 

Forest Plan ROD pp. A-4 and A-5). 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the SEIS Preferred Alternative provided an inappropriate 

southern boundary for the Russian unit. Commenters felt that allowing motorized use on 

the Russian Lakes Trail would effectively remove any high quality non-motorized 

recreation experience in the Russian unit. 

Response

The majority of the Russian unit was closed to motorized use in the SEIS Preferred 

Alternative and also in the FEIS Modified Preferred Alternative to provide a large area for 

non-motorized quiet recreation. Public comment and Forest Service observations 

indicated that the Russian unit is not a particularly popular area for motorized use (FEIS 

pg. 76). In addition, as most non-motorized winter recreation occurs within 3.5 miles 

from trailheads or roads, this area does not receive frequent non-motorized recreation 

use either (FEIS pg. 70). 

The Russian Lakes Trail was chosen as the boundary for this unit because it provides an 

identifiable and enforceable boundary for this unit. There is no indication that motorized 

use is frequent along the Russian Lakes Trail and the selection of the Russian Lakes 

Trail as the southern boundary for this unit will not meaningfully reduce opportunities for 

quiet in this unit (FEIS pp. 101 through 106). 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the DEIS did not examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts of noise from snowmachines, helicopters, and over-the-snow machines (ATVs 

in winter) on those seeking a quiet recreation experience. Commenters were concerned 

that the EIS analysis on this issue is inconsistent with 36 CFR § 219.21. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 221 

Response

The FEIS discusses the effects of motorized uses on the opportunities for quiet and 

solitude (see responses above). This analysis includes an examination of the direct and 

indirect impacts and cumulative impacts on opportunities for quiet and solitude, including 

the effects of backcountry hut development in the Johnson Pass and Summit units and 

the future implementation of the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail 

(FEIS pp. 101 through 106). 

36 CFR § 219.21 lists social and economic elements the Responsible Official should 

consider when making forest planning decisions, including this Forest Plan amendment. 

The FEIS recognizes that the predominate effect on opportunities for quiet and solitude 

occurs from closure of areas to motorized use and from other reasonably foreseeable 

projects, such as the Mills Creek Iditarod Hut-to-Hut System and the Seward to 

Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail (FEIS pp. 101 through 106). The FEIS analysis 

focuses on those activities that have an important relationship to the opportunity for quiet 

recreation. 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the Snow River motorized access corridor in the SEIS 

Preferred Alternative would eliminate the opportunity for natural quiet in the South Fork 

of the Snow River. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes that natural quiet would not always be attainable with a motorized 

corridor along the South Fork of Snow River (FEIS pp. 103 through 104). 

Recreation Uses and Patterns 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the Forest Service does not possess sufficient information 

regarding past, present, or future recreation uses and patterns. Commenters felt that the 

EIS should disclose how information regarding winter recreational use patterns was 

obtained. 

Response

The FEIS states that the majority of the information on winter recreation uses and 

patterns is the result of Seward Ranger District observations and public input (FEIS pp. 

19 through 20, and 73). Based these observations and input, the FEIS recognizes that 

both motorized and non-motorized recreationists desire certain areas, terrain features, 

and recreation opportunities (FEIS pp. 76 through 77). In addition, the FEIS recognizes 

that recreation use can increase or decrease based upon weather and time of year 

(FEIS pp. 69 through 70). Further, the FEIS discloses recreation use assumptions, which 

were also the subject of public comment (FEIS pp. 60 through 61). 

Although a comprehensive winter recreation use study has not been completed, Forest 

Service observations and the public involvement for this analysis provide the best 

assessment of where winter recreation is occurring on the Seward Ranger District. 
Kenai Winter Access 

222 Appendix F 

Although some commenters feel that a comprehensive study should be completed 

before an informed decision can be made, Seward Ranger District observations of winter 

recreation use and public input is the best information available. 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the Forest Plan EIS predicts that cross-country skiing 

participation will increase in the near future and snowmachine recreation participation 

will remain constant on the Chugach National Forest. Commenters felt that more of the 

project area should be devoted to non-motorized use in order to accommodate 

increasing non-motorized participation. 

Response

The Chugach National Forest Plan EIS uses a population based model to project 

participation of Alaska adults in recreation activities out to 2020. This model projects that 

cross country skiing participation is expected to increase at a greater rate than 

snowmachine recreation participation (Forest Plan EIS 3-330 through 3-332). However, 

this model has two constraints that limit its applicability to this project. 

First, this model projects recreation participation among Alaskan adults and are not 

projections of the actual number of visits by cross country skiers and snowmachine 

users to the project area. Second, cross country skiing and snowmachine technology 

has increased in recent years and this model does not account for changes in 

participation or use due to new recreation technology. (See Forest Plan EIS 3-330 

through 3-332). 

Regardless of the applicability of the Forest Plan EIS recreation participation model, all 

action alternatives increase areas for non-motorized recreation and the FEIS discusses 

the effects of the alternatives on motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities 

and experiences (FEIS pp. 52 through 55 and 67 through 89). 

Comment

Some commenters felt that recreation allocation decisions were inappropriately based 

upon existing recreation use patterns and did not account for displacement of nonmotorized users from motorized units. Commenters felt that the EIS did not adequately 

recognize that non-motorized users value areas that are currently allocated to motorized 

use, but choose not to recreate in those areas because motorized use is permitted. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes that a quality recreation experience is important to both motorized 

and non-motorized users and that neither group wants their recreation experience 

impacted by conflict with other users (FEIS pp. 21 through 23, 70 through 72). The FEIS 

also recognizes that both user types desire a large contiguous area with a variety of low 

and high elevation terrain (FEIS pg. 75). In addition, the FEIS recognizes that certain 

units are valued by both user groups for these reasons; including, Carter Crescent unit, 

Lost Lake unit, Summit unit, Resurrection unit, and West Resurrection unit (FEIS pp. 66 

through 67). Further, the Forest Plan EIS recognizes that as motorized uses have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 223 

expanded, there has been a certain amount of displacement of non-motorized users 

from areas traditionally used (Forest Plan EIS 3-358). 

Although the FEIS recognizes that motorized and non-motorized users desire similar 

areas and that some displacement of non-motorized users may occur, public comment 

and District observations do not indicate that displacement is extensive. 

Alternatives 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the EIS inappropriately eliminated from detailed study an 

alternative to “maximize non-motorized areas” or only considered alternatives that were 

predominately motorized. 

Response

The FEIS eliminated from detailed study an alternative to “maximize non-motorized 

areas” because it does not respond to Forest Plan desired conditions for the Kenai 

Peninsula Geographic Area to provide winter motorized recreation over most of the 

Kenai Peninsula (FEIS pg. 52). 

Wildlife and Biological Resources 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the Forest Service cannot conduct a proper NEPA analysis 

due to inadequate baseline data for wildlife resources. 

Response

The Forest Plan ROD specifies that implementation of the Forest Plan will maintain 

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

provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species (Forest Plan ROD 

pp. 38 through 40). The Plan specifies management area prescriptions for the Chugach 

National Forest and standards and guidelines for species with concerns including; Brown 

Bear, Dall Sheep, Mountain Goat, Eagles, and goshawks, and all alternatives are 

consistent with the Forest Plan (Forest Plan pp. 3-28 through 3-31). In addition, the 

Forest Service monitors wildlife populations at the Forest level and the Forest Plan 

specifically mentions monitoring for brown bear, moose, wolves, wolverine, Townsend’s 

warbler, and goshawk (Forest Plan pp. 5-9 through 5-11). 

This FEIS more specifically discusses wildlife responses to motorized and nonmotorized winter recreation (FEIS pp. 107 through 124). The FEIS uses natural history, 

GIS, habitat models, consultation with State and Federal Biologists, Forest Plan 

direction, and scientific literature (FEIS pg. 109). The FEIS analyzes the effects of the 

alternatives on wildlife species by examining the percentage of motorized and nonmotorized uses within wildlife habitat and the level of effect and risk to populations for 

each species in the analysis area (FEIS pp. 109 through 123 and Section 3.2 of the 

FEIS). This analysis accounts for whether the current population trend is stable, 

increasing, declining, or unknown (FEIS pp. 107 and 109 through 111) Although, the 

Forest Service recognizes that there will always be a need to improve our wildlife 
Kenai Winter Access 

224 Appendix F 

knowledge, the FEIS analysis uses the best information available to evaluate the 

alternatives and discloses limitations (FEIS pp. 109 through 110). 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the EIS inappropriately displays effects to wildlife because 

effects are similar across all alternatives. Commenters felt that those alternatives with a 

greater percentage of motorized use should have greater effects to wildlife. 

Response

The FEIS evaluates the effects to wildlife resources (FEIS pp. 107 through 144). The 

FEIS explains that common effects include disturbance or displacement to individual 

animals and wildlife avoidance of areas (FEIS pg. 107). The FEIS also recognizes that 

alternatives with a greater percentage of motorized use can have greater effects to 

individual animals because a greater percentage of both motorized and non-motorized 

users and effects may be present (FEIS pg. 107). The FEIS uses a ranked approach to 

categorize impacts to wildlife species (FEIS pp. 110 through 111). Although the 

alternatives provide different allocations of motorized use, the differences do not result in 

effects of a magnitude that would cause the effects to that species to change categories. 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the EIS should recognize that brown bears are particularly 

sensitive to winter motorized recreation. Commenters were especially concerned with 

winter motorized recreation overlapping with den emergence. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes brown bears can be affected by winter motorized recreation and 

that effects to brown bears are specific to denning and post-denning time periods (FEIS 

pp. 124 through 126). The FEIS also recognizes that brown bears with cubs are 

particularly sensitive to winter recreation during the post denning time period (FEIS pg. 

124). However, winter recreation is not viewed as causing irreversible or permanent 

harm to the brown bear population (FEIS pg. 126). 

Comment

Some commenters felt the DEIS and SEIS did not accurately portray the adverse effects 

of snowmachine use on water quality and fish, particularly in the Snow River unit. 

Commenters felt that snowmachine use can adversely affect water quality causing 

physiological effects to fish and reducing their stamina. Commenters cite a 1975 study 

(Adams Study) on the effects of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on 

brook trout to support this contention (Adams 1975). 

Response

The FEIS recognizes that snowmachine engines generally bypass about 20 through 33 

percent of their gasoline/oil mixture unburned out the exhaust (FEIS pg. 170). Some of 

this unburned fuel is directly vaporized into the atmosphere, while the remainder is 

deposited as liquid droplets on the snowpack (FEIS pg. 170). The FEIS recognizes that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 225 

fuel deposition on the snowpack has the potential to concentrate in the snowpack and 

runoff into surface and ground water supplies during the spring snowmelt and can cause 

adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms if concentrations are high enough 

(FEIS pp. 168 and 174 through 175) 

The alternatives in the FEIS are expected to have negligible effects to water quality and 

fish, including the Snow River unit, because snowmachine use on the Seward Ranger 

District is widely dispersed, occurs over relatively large water bodies, and does not occur 

at concentrations that have been shown to cause adverse effects to water quality or 

aquatic organisms (FEIS pg. 174). The results of the Adams Study support this 

contention and state that the levels of hydrocarbons found in the study are “unrealistic 

for all but a few small lakes in well populated areas.” 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the ecological effects analysis is incomplete and does not 

adequately address soil compaction and its resulting effects on vegetation. 

Response

The Forest Plan specifies that the winter motorized use season is from December 1 

through April 30; however, the season can be extended or shortened to respond to snow 

conditions. (Forest Plan 3-35). The winter motorized use season is extended or 

shortened in order to ensure adequate snow cover and to ensure that winter motorized 

use does not adversely affect vegetation and degrade trails. The FEIS states that there 

is typically minimal or no affect by winter recreation vehicles on the soil or vegetation so 

long as there is adequate snow cover (one foot or greater) (FEIS pp. 159 and 164). 

Although there is typically no effect to soil resources from winter motorized recreation, 

the FEIS discloses that soil compaction can commonly occur in concentrated use areas, 

including trails, cabin sites, favored camp sites, and other destinations and location near 

parking areas (FEIS 160). In addition, vegetation can be damaged, at the small scale, 

when motorized use occurs during inadequate snow cover which can cause annual forbs 

to grow poorly and slow re-vegetation (FEIS pp. 159 through 160). 

Roadless Areas 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the Forest Service is legally required to analyze the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the KWA project on the wilderness character of the 

roadless areas. 

Response

The KWA project does not contemplate timber removal or road-building and will not alter 

existing roadless designations. In addition, the FEIS analyzes relevant roadless area 

characteristics, including habitat for wildlife species, motorized and non-motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation, and naturally appearing landscapes. The Forest Plan 

also requires that the Nellie Juan-College Fiord wilderness study area be managed to 

preserve its eligibility for the National Wilderness Preservation System (Forest Plan pg. 

3-11). 
Kenai Winter Access 

226 Appendix F 

ANILCA 

Comment

Some commenters requested the Forest Service to change the definition of “traditional 

activities” in the Forest Service Manual for Region 10 as it relates to ANILCA Section 

1110. 

Response

The decision to be made by the Responsible Official is to determine what areas should 

be available to motorized and non-motorized recreation use in the project area. The 

decision on whether to change the definition of “traditional activities” in the Forest 

Service Manual for Region 10 is outside the scope of the this decision. 

Boundaries and Enforcement 

Comment

Some commenters felt that motorized and non-motorized boundaries should be clearly 

identified. Commenters felt that clearly identified boundaries would assist enforcement 

and allow for a more effective separation of users. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes the importance of clearly identified unit boundaries and one of the 

stated goals of the decision to be made is to create closures or restrictions that are 

feasible to enforce (FEIS pg. 15). Two alternatives were eliminated from further analysis, 

in part, because unit boundaries would be unclear (FEIS pp. 50 and 52). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the cumulative effects analysis was generally not adequate. 

Commenters felt that the cumulative effects analysis should consider uses outside of the 

winter recreation season and consider impacts from motorized uses occurring adjacent 

to the project area. 

Response

The cumulative effects analysis includes relevant past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions that can affect winter recreation activities and overlap in time and 

space with those activities. These actions include backcountry hut development, guided 

helicopter skiing, Sterling Highway realignment, expansion of the parking area on Snug 

Harbor Road, construction of the Seward to Girdwood Iditarod National Historic Trail, 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments, and future public use cabin construction (FEIS pp. 

12 through 14). 

Actions that do not occur during the winter recreation season or do not affect winter 

recreation were not considered. This is because information about the cause-and-effect 

relationship between winter recreation access and related resources indicates that any 

potential cumulative environmental changes occur primarily in the winter. The FEIS 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 227 

analysis of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above 

overlap either spatially or temporally with the alternatives. 

Mitigation Measures 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the DEIS failed to provide mitigation measures to reduce the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of motorized uses on wildlife and opportunities 

for natural quiet. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes that motorized winter recreation can affect opportunities for natural 

quiet and that winter recreation can affect wildlife (FEIS pp. 100 through 108). The FEIS 

does not provide specific mitigation measures for natural quiet because unit boundaries 

and motorized and non-motorized allocations were designed to allow for different levels 

of natural quiet (FEIS pg. 64). The FEIS does not provide mitigation measures for wildlife 

because boundary enforcement would be impossible and existing Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines are adequate to protect wildlife population viability (FEIS pg. 54). 

Economics 

Comment

Some commenters felt that the economic effects analysis was generally inadequate. 

Response

Economic effects were evaluated for the alternatives (FEIS pp. 146 through 154). The 

economic effects of all alternatives are expected to be relatively small because: (1) the 

reduction in currently-used motorized acres is 21 percent or less across the alternatives; 

(2) non-local motorized use is only a fraction of the customers who frequent recreation 

and tourism related businesses in the project area; and (3) winter economic activity is a 

small percentage of total economic activity in the project area (EIS pg. 146). Although 

the Forest Service does not know precisely how many motorized or non-motorized users 

are currently visiting the project area and no comprehensive economic study has been 

completed for the project area, the best available information indicates that the majority 

of economic activity occurs outside of the winter recreation use season (FEIS pg. 148). 

For these reasons, the economic effects of the alternatives are expected to be relatively 

small. 

Safety 

Comment

Some commenters felt that it was important that motorized and non-motorized trail use 

be separate because of safety concerns. Commenters felt that when motorized and nonmotorized uses occur on the same trail at the same time, there is a risk that 

snowmachines can collide with skiers causing injury. 
Kenai Winter Access 

228 Appendix F 

Response

The FEIS recognizes that when motorized and non-motorized uses are occurring on the 

same trail, there can be safety concerns (FEIS pp. 91 through 92). The FEIS also 

recognizes that this is one of the several reasons that non-motorized users desire 

separate areas (FEIS pg. 92). Alternatives 1 and 2 respond to this concern by 

designating several units for non-motorized recreation, including their associated trails 

(FEIS pp. 40 through 48). In addition, the Proposed Action and the Modified Preferred 

Alternative provide for separate non-motorized access trails in the Carter/Crescent and 

Lost Lake units in part to alleviate safety concerns (FEIS pp. 94 through 95). 

Motorized and Non-Motorized Preferences 

Comment

Many commenters expressed a preference for a specific alternative, for a specific area 

to be motorized or non-motorized, or provided information on areas that were valued for 

motorized and non-motorized recreation. 

Response

The FEIS recognizes motorized and non-motorized preferences and the range of 

alternatives considered for this analysis contains a mix of motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities. Briefly summarized, these commenters expressed the following: 

• Some commenters felt that mid-season swap management of the Resurrection and 

West Resurrection units under the No Action Alternative was more appropriate than a 

year motorized/year non-motorized management proposed under the action 

alternatives. 

• Some commenters felt that the action alternatives should provide a motorized/nonmotorized unit or trail to alternate with the seasonal motorized/non-motorized 

management of the Resurrection and West Resurrection units. Commenters 

recommended the Carter Crescent or Snow River units or Russian Lakes Trail 

alternate with the Resurrection and West Resurrection units. 

• Non-motorized users especially commented on the value of the Snow River, Summit, 

Ptarmigan/Grant, Carter Crescent units, and the Trail River Campground. Motorized 

users especially commented on the value the Lost Lake, Carter/Crescent, Snow 

River, and Summit units. 

• Some commenters requested that in the Summit unit, the boundary between Mills 

Creek and Lower Summit Lake be moved from the top of Sugar Ridge to the top of 

Raven’s Ridge to accommodate non-motorized use in the area. Some commenters 

also suggested the Forest Service use the highway as the boundary between 

motorized and non-motorized users from Frenchy Creek to Fresno Creek and Summit 

creek to Colorado creek in the Summit unit in order to accommodate non-motorized 

use and reduce conflicts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 229 

Agency Letters Received 

December 18, 2006 

Reply To 

Attn. Of: ETPA-088 Ref: 05-024-AFS 

Joe Meade, Forest Supervisor 

Chugach National Forest 

3301 C Street, Suite 300 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Dear Mr. Meade, 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Supplement to the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for the proposed Kenai Winter 

Access project (CEQ No. 20060434) on the Seward Ranger District of the Chugach 

National Forest on Kenai Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska. Our review was conducted 

in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. 

The Draft SEIS assesses and discloses the potential environmental impacts of a new 

Preferred Alternative, which includes elements that were not fully analyzed in the original 

Draft EIS. According to the Draft SEIS, public comments on the Draft EIS for the project 

were used to create the new Preferred Alternative. The new Preferred Alternative would 

alter areas of motorized and non-motorized use within certain areas of the Chugach 

National Forest, which would result in a revised mix of opportunities for recreational 

motorized use, quiet recreation, potential encounters between motorized and quiet 

recreation, and wildlife impacts. According to information presented in the Draft SEIS, 

notable changes in environmental effects include an increase in potential encounters 

due to the expansion of the motorized terrain to the east of the Seward Highway and the 

area around Summit Lake, and a projected reduction in the percent of habitat affected by 

motorized use and potential affects to individuals of several wildlife species due to 

decreased motorized use in other areas. 

EPA’s written comments on the original Draft EIS included a rating of LO (Lack of 

Objections), recommendations for improving the descriptions of existing environmental 

conditions, the need for additional detail regarding mitigation measures and best 

management practices that would be implemented and monitored to avoid adverse 

impacts to soil, water, riparian and wetlands habitats, and the need to revise conclusions 

on cumulative effects. According to the Draft SEIS, the comments we submitted 

previously will continue to be used in the Kenai Winter Access analysis. 

On the basis of our review of the draft SEIS, EPA has no further comments and has 

assigned the document a rating of LO. This rating and a summary of our comments will 

be published in the Federal Register. 
Kenai Winter Access 

230 Appendix F 

EPA appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Kenai Winter 

Access Draft SEIS. If you have any questions or comments concerning this review, 

please contact me at (206) 553-1601. Please also feel free to contact Colleen Burgh in 

our Alaska Operations Office at (907) 271-1481. 

Sincerely, 

 /s/ 

Christine B. Reichgott, Manager 

NEPA Review Unit 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 231 

June 9, 2006 

Reply To 

Attn. Of: ETPA-088 Ref: 05-024-AFS 

Sharon Randall 

Chugach National Forest 

3301 C Street, Suite 300 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Dear Ms. Randall, 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Kenai Winter Access project (CEQ No. 

20060136) on the Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest on Kenai 

Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska. Our review was conducted in accordance with our 

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of 

the Clean Air Act. Section 309, independent of NEPA, specifically directs EPA to review 

and comment in writing on the environmental impacts associated with all major federal 

actions. Under our policies and procedures we evaluate the document’s adequacy in 

meeting NEPA requirements. 

EPA commends the Forest Service (FS) for the public outreach and participation 

opportunities it provided during the development of the Kenai Winter Access draft EIS 

and during its public review period. We were particularly pleased with the collaborative 

learning format used in the draft EIS review of workshops, which were held in Anchorage 

and in Kenai Peninsula communities. Based on our participation in the Anchorage 

workshop, the FS and the consultants did an excellent job of providing information about 

the proposed action and alternatives to the public, and fostering discussion, feedback 

and substantive comments from the public. 

The Draft EIS assesses and discloses the potential environmental impacts of a plan for 

winter access on the Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest that 

addresses the need for forest management, public access and recreation use. The plan 

was developed in response to the withdrawal of the 2002 Chugach National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) decision regarding winter motorized 

access for the Carter-Crescent Lakes unit; once a plan is adopted, it will amend the 

Forest Plan. 

The draft EIS includes a Proposed Action, No Action, and two action alternatives for the 

allocation of winter recreation use across the Seward Ranger District. Key features of 

the Proposed Action include designating two non-motorized access corridors, one in the 

Lost Lake unit and one in the Carter-Crescent unit, and a motorized access corridor 

along the South Fork of the Snow River. According to the draft EIS, the Proposed Action 
Kenai Winter Access 

232 Appendix F 

also includes a motorized corridor from Cooper Landing and Moose Pass to north of 

Summit Lake with the potential to tie in to Hope and Girdwood communities principally 

along established corridors. The Proposed Action and the two action alternatives would 

use a Season A/Season B scenario that alternates winter motorized and non-motorized 

use in different specific areas. Under the No Action alternative, the 2002 Forest Plan 

management strategy would apply; however, winter use of the Carter-Crescent unit 

would remain motorized, as outlined in the 1984 Forest Plan. The two action 

alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, include variations on motorized access for the 

planning area; Alternative 1 would more than double the existing percentage of the 

Seward Ranger District that would be designated non-motorized, including the entire 

Russian and West Resurrection units. Alternative 2 proposes a more complex structure 

for alternating motorized and non-motorized use, compared to the other alternatives. 

Trail construction or other site specific improvements (capital improvements) for 

corridors that are included in the Proposed Action or alternatives, other than clearing of 

access corridors and signing of corridors, would not be implemented by the draft EIS 

and would be subject to additional analysis before any improvements would be 

constructed. 

On the basis or our review, we have assigned a rating of LO (Lack of Objections) to the 

draft EIS. A summary of the rating system we used in conducting our review of the draft 

EIS is enclosed for your reference. 

Although EPA has no objections to the proposed action and the draft EIS document, the 

final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) should include revisions to some sections of the 

draft EIS as indicated below. 

Section 3.5 – Soil. EPA recommends that the final EIS include a more detailed 

description of soils and potential impacts to this resource soil from all alternatives. The 

draft EIS concludes that there would be minimal, if any, direct or indirect impacts to soil 

resources because the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be applied and 

because winter recreation would occur on snow. We recommend that Section 3.5 

describe which standards and guidelines would be used to protect soil resources, how 

compliance with the standards and guidelines would be monitored and enforced, and the 

mitigation measures that would be implemented if negative impacts to vegetation and 

soil do occur as a result of winter recreation activities, e.g. snomachine use and 

insufficient use and insufficient snow cover. 

Section 3.6 – Water, Riparian and Wetlands. Section 3.6.1 correctly states that 

motorized winter use in low snow conditions on unfrozed ground can cause considerable 

vegetation damage, soil erosion, and stream channel and bank disturbance in certain 

instances. EPA recommends that the Final EIS and ROD include additional detailed 

information regarding the specific best management practices (BMPs), standards or 

guidelines that the Forest Service would use to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

impacts to water, riparian and wetlands resources; the monitoring and enforcement that 

would be conduced; and mitigation measures that would be implemented if adverse 

impacts are documented. 

Cumulative Effects. EPA recommends that the discussions in Sections 3.5-3.8 

regarding cumulative effects to soil, water, riparian, wetlands, air quality and vegetation 

acknowledge that there is insufficient data necessary to concluded that there would be 

negligible impacts from the proposed project’s winter recreation activities in conjunction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F 233 

with past and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Significant adverse cumulative 

impacts would not be expected if winter recreation activities are dispersed and 

conducted with adequate snow and frozen ground cover, and if seasonal use schedules 

(Season A/Season B) are used. On the basis of information presented in the draft EIS 

and prior to monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed Season A/Season B schedules 

and other BMPs for managing motorized and non-motorized use, it is difficult to 

conclude that no cumulative impacts would occur, especially at trailheads and within 

narrow travel corridors and if increased, concentrated motorized use occurs over time. 

EPA appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Kenai Winter 

Access draft EIS. If you have any questions or comments concerning this review, please 

contact me at (206) 553-1601. Please also feel free to contact Colleen Burgh in our 

Alaska Operations Office at (907) 271-1481. 

Sincerely, 

Christine B. Reichgott, Manager 

NEPA Review Unit