HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2441Kenai
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Summary
Comprehensive
Conservation
Plan
Environmental
Impact
Statement
Wilderness
Review
r"'
!
I I ,
r
!
l.
!"'""' I ,
I
l '
l:
[,
r
I
r
I_ '
l.
~
r
1. '
r
l '
'"""' I
l
I
I
ARLIS
AlasbR.esources llbrary & Informatl.on~
Library Building, Suite 111
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508-461~J
KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SUMMARY DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
WILDERNESS REVIEW
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service
Region 7, 1 0 11 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
DECEMBER 1983
Figure 1. Location of National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
1 ALASKA MARITIME
2 ALASKA PENINSULA
3 ARCTIC
4 BECHAROF
5 INNOKO
8 IZEMBEK
7 KANUTI
8 KENAI
9 KODIAK
10 KOYUKUK
11 NOWITNA
12 SELAWIK ~ 13 TETLIN
14 TOGIAK
15 YUKON DELTA
18 YUKON FLATS
'
1
,u;A~~~:Y•·~ ' 501 '
.S. ~JB~f-:.IdF~n TEIUOB tf!/3 i'\:1 I ~ I '
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA K SIS"
~.tm . --
This summary <te·stti6c(s five / tf-93
alternative strategies for -
management of the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, the process used in
their development, and the
environmental consequences of
implementing each alternative. The
alternatives range from the Maximum
Use Alternative (that allows the
greatest diversity of uses, and
involves the most habitat
manipulation) to the Wilderness
Alternative (that manages a
substantial portion of the refuge to
protect wilderness values). The
Current Situation (No Action
Alternative), the Service's
Preferred Alternative, and the
Minimum Use Alternative occupy
intermediate positions within the
range of alternatives.
The plan evaluates refuge lands not
previously designated as wilderness
as to their suitability or
non-suitability for designation ~s
wilderness as required by section
1317 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Each alternative identifies lands
suitable for wilderness designation
under the management strategy for
that alternative.
In order to.be considered in
development of the final plan,
comments must be received by March
31, 1984. Those wishing to review
the complete environmental impact
statement or needing further
information should contact:
William Knauer
Environmental Specialist
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
(907)786-3399
Kenai National Moose Range
The Kenai National Moose Range was
established by Franklin D. Roosevelt
on December 16, 1941 for the purpose
of 11 ••• protecting the natural
breeding and feeding range of the
giant Kenai moose on the Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska, which in this
area presents a unique wildlife
feature and an unusual opportunity
for the study in its natural
environment of the practical
management of a big game species
that has considerable local economic
value ••• 11 (Executive Order 8979).
Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA)
The ANILCA affected the Moose Range
by broadening its purposes from
moose conservation to protection and
conservation of a broad array of
fish, wildlife, habitats, other
resources, and educational and
recreational opportunities. The act
also changed the name of the Moose
Range to Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge, added nearly a quarter of a
million acres and designated 1.35(
million acres as wildernes~
The purposes of the refuge specified
in ANILCA are to:
o conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in
their natural diversity,
including but not limited to
moose, bears, mountain goats,
Dall sheep, wolves and other
furbearers, salmonoids and other
fish, and waterfowl and other
birds;
Sl<
~5b1' .. --
·-i-:,.:'· .,. :r.tt.tl.. . _
I~··~:·)!~:~~.:·.·~.:·.: .. ~~~~·
:11.:_~
Figure 2. Map of the Kenai vicinity.
o fulfill international treaty
obligations (relating primarily
to migratory waterfowl);
o ensure water quality and
quantity;
2
o provide opportunities for
research, interpretation,
environmental education, and
land management training; and
o provide opportunities for fish
and wildlife-oriented recreation.
J
.J
i
I ......
.J
.....
1
I
.J
I u
I
I
I
I -
I
_l
.,_J
i
....J
i
-.I
I
I ......
. ....;
,_
,.....
r
I
r
i ' '
r
l :
l
r
I ' '
r
l
r
I ,
r
I '
r
[,
r
I
'
r
Figure 3. Landforms and water resources on the Kenai Refuge.
3
The Planning Process
One of the first steps in the
planning process was to design a
public participation and interagency
coordination program to assist in
identifying special values and
significant problems of the refuge
and issues that needed to be
addressed in the plan.
Natural resource and public use
information was gathered from field
inventories, through satellite
technology, refuge files, other
resource agencies, standard
technical references, and current
technical literature. The
information was then analyzed by
resource specialists from government
agencies and the private sector to
identify special values, significant
problems, and issues as required by
ANILCA.
Land Status
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.97 million acres within refuge
boundaries (1.35 million acres
of designated wilderness)
137,000 acres of subsurface
estate--oil, gas and coal--
conveyed to Cook Inlet Region,
Inc. (CIRI) with an additional
83,000 acres pending conveyance
65,513 acres of land conveyed to
Native associations or village
corporations with an additional
9,775 acres pending conveyance
291 acres of pre-1941 recreation
or residen,tial inholdings
470,000 acres of non-wilderness
lands open to oil and gas leasing
12,000 acres of oil and gas
leases or pipeline rights-of-way
Landscape Characteristic.s
0
0
0
0
one-third of the refuge lies
within the Kenai MOuntains
(elevation 3,000 to 6,600 feet)
two-thirds of the refuge lies
within the Kenai Lowlands
(containing over 4,600 lakes)
54% of the Kenai River watershed
is located within the refuge
vegetation includes humid
coastal forests dominated by
Sitka Spruce; interior forests
of white and black spruce mixed
with birch; and mountain tundra,
glaciers, and snowfields
Figure 4. Land status on the Kenai Refuge, 1983.
Native Association Surface
CIRI Subsurface/Native Association Surface
• Pre-1941 lnholdlngs (9)
• Native Allotments (4)
• 14.h.1 Historic Sites (5)
4
'-.J
' I I I
LJ
.......
i ......
..J
' ' i
: i
.....J
I
.J
.....)
1
J
l
I
LJ
: 1
..J
' 1
~
' 1
I
. I .....,
,-.
I
r
i. '
r
i
r
!
I
'
r
I
l '
r
r
r-
l
r
' l
I
'
;-
r
i
I
I"""'
Figure 5. Terrestrial habitats on the Kenai Refuge.
· Snow and Ice ~
Water ~
Mudllals, Bare
ffi:J Rock, Gravel,
GraveiWallhoul ..
Alpine Schrub-[ill Lichen
'
Lowland Subalpl.ne
Mature Foreal
C70-200 yrl,)
lnlennadlall Forest
(40-70 yre.)
lnlennadlale Forest
(20-40 yrs.) ,
E•:llf For;~; (0. .,.,,
5
Fish and Wildlife
OVer 200 species of amphibians,
birds, mammals, and fishes
permanently reside in, seasonally
use, or are casual visitors to the
refuge. These include:
o bald eagles
o marten
o black and brown bear
o moose
0 wolves
0 mountain goats
0 caribou
0 Dall sheep
0 Peregrine falcon
0 trumpeter swans
o chinook, coho, pink and sockeye
salmon
0 lake and rainbow trout
o Dolly Varden and arctic char
Public Uses
In 1981 over 168,000 people visited
the refuge to:
o fish for salmon in the Russian
River
o hunt moose. along Mystery Creek
o canoe the Swanson River or Swan
Lake Canoe Routes
0 raft the Kenai Canyon
0 hike the Skyline Trail
0 snowmobile in the Caribou Hills
0 camp on Dolly Varden Lake
o observe and photograph wildlife
Another 500,000 people enjoyed the
refuge's wildlands and wildlife as
they drove the Sterling Highway to
other destinations on the peninsula.
Economic Uses
During 1981 the refuge accounted for
over:
o 3 million barrels of crude oil
0
0
0
0
3,000 cords of firewood
27,000 passengers on the Russian
River Ferry
3,000 users at commercial fly-in
tent camps
1,700 users on Kenai River float
trips
Areas of oil and gas leasing on the Kenai Refuge.
~ At <::: UMd:WU-:mmmm &--« ,;;:;;;.;;:;;ro;:;;:;:;;:..q:;;;;;;;;.xww '\ < :X
• Current OR and ·Gas Operations
~ . Land Currently Open to 011 and Gas Leeslng
~ ~ Kenai Wilderness Areas
10
6
l
' 1
i
-.....)
I ......
!
,_!
1
!
:.....;
' '
......
' '1 !
j
j
.J
J
' l
I
'--'
' 1
I
I ._;
r ~
!
'-'
u
' '
r
l
r:
i
l '
l
:-
1
r
I
r
I
l
I
r I .
i
,_...
Special Values
During the planning process the
following special values of the
Kenai Refuge were identified:
o the Harding Ice Field, a
reservoir of ice for glaciers
that cQntinue to carve valleys
through the Kenai Mountains and
feed the peninsula's rivers.
o the Tustumena-Skilak Benchlands,
a unique ecological area
consisting of mountain and
glacier formations, habitats for
Dall sheep, mountain goats, and
brown bear, timberline moose
ranges, and adjacent foothills.
o the Kenai River and its
tributaries that provide
priceless spawning and rearing
habitat for millions of chinook,
sockeye, pink, and coho salmon.
o the diversity of resources and
uses of the refuge--the wide
variety of landforms, habitats,
fish and wildlife, and mix of
human uses combine to produce an
area unique in Alaska.
Significant Problems
In accordance with ANILCA, the plan
identifies the following significant
problems that may adversely affect
·refuge fish and wildlife populations
and habitats.
o Effects of intensive public use
on fish and wildlife populations
and habitats. Fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in
subarctic environments are
particularly sensitive to
disturbance. Populations of
bald eagles, trumpeter swans,
mountain goats, Dall sheep,
caribou, marten, wolves, lynx,
brown bear, and beaver have been
or are now depressed apparently
due to human activities.
o Off-Refuge Commercial and Sport
Harvest of Adult Salmon.
Although carefully regulated to
ensure escapement, heavy
commercial harvests
significantly reduce the number
of fish entering rivers to
spawn. This decreases sport
fishing opportunities, reduces
the number of fish available to
predators, and the nilinber of
carcasses available to
scavengers, as well as for
nutrient recycling.
7
o Lack of Resource Data. 'There is
too little information available
on the resources of the refuge,
the uses people make of them, or
the effects of uses upon
continued productivity of the
resources. Management of the
refuge is handicapped and
achievement of its purposes
uncertain without this
information.
o Development and Use of Adjacent
Private Lands. Many wildlife
species range on and off refuge
lands. The use of adjacent
private lands can adversely
affect these species.
o Refuge Inholdings. Activities
on private inholdings may
conflict with refuge management
programs and values on adjacent
lands.
o Oil and Gas Development.
Existing laws recognize the need
for energy development as well
as wildlife, wilderness, and
resource protection. Refuge
management will be challenged to
meet the requirements of
sometimes conflictlng management
goals.
Issues
The following are issues that the
Service considers significant. The
list does not include all the issues
identified during the scoping
process.
o increased moose production
through intensive habitat
manipulati'on
o artificial enhancement of
fisheries resources
o management for the benefit of
all species
o management of large predators
(wolves and bears)
o protection of critical wildlite
areas
o development of resources (e.g.,
oil, gas, timber)
0
0
0
impacts of resource development
on fish and wildlife
personal use of refuge resources
(e.g., firewood, logs)
establishment of wildlife
viewing areas
o continuation of hunting,
fishing, and trapping
opportunities
o conflicts between motorized and
non-motorized recreational users
o need for more law enforcement
o lack of public information on
recreational opportunities
o limiting fish and wildlife
enhancement activities in
wilderness
o limiting motorized access in
wildl!rness
o restrictive management of
wildl!rness
o maintaining traditional access
o liberalizing access
0
0
0
restricting motorized access
need for greater federal/state
coordination
need for additional fish and
wildll.ife data
8
Alternatives
The development of alternatives
began with an extensive inventory of
refuge resources. Information,
opinions, and suggestions were
solicited from individuals, special
interests, and public agencies.
Through this process it soon became
clear there were conflicting demands
for refuge resources.
Refuge management must comply with
laws and regulations although the
lands may be managed for many uses.
For example, congressional
designation of 1,350,000 acres as
wildernes:s restricts the types of
facilities that may be built and
equipment used in that area.
Ensuring protection of sensitive
habitats such as wetlands and
riparian areas for wildlife limits
the potential for other uses.
Therefore, it was necessary to place
areas of the refuge that have
different resources and uses into
different management categories. A
management category is a set of
refuge management strategies applied
to an area (in light of resources,
existing and potential uses, and
compatibility) to enhance management
and the accomplishment of refuge
purposes.
The five alternatives reflect a
spectrum of management philosophies
in response to comments from the
public and other agencies. This was
accomplished by varying the size and
location of management categories
under each alternative.
'-'
' 1
.....,;
r ,
' 1 -
' 1
....!
.....,;
I ~
J
J
' --
' I ' I
J
J
j
..J
r--
1
I
r
!
r
i
l
-
r
r--
-
r--
1
:
r
-
i '
I
l '
r
r--
Management Categories
o Intensive Management is
characterized by areas of high
public and economic use.
Natural processes are modified
and the influence of human
activities is evident. Public
facilities, administrative
sites, economic development, and
transportation systems are
allowed.
o Moderate Management is
characterized by areas easily
accessible to the public and in
which a significant amount of
habitat could be manipulated to
benefit populations of selected
species (principally moose).
Although some natural processes
are altered, habitat management
is designed to maintain natural
landscapes. Permanent
facilities may be provided for
resource protection or public
safety.
o Traditional Management is
characterized by undeveloped
areas where habitat and public
use are managed to provide a
mixture of benefits in a natural
setting. No roads occur within
this category. Management of
forest habitats relies on
natural tools such as prescribed
burning with no mechanical
manipulation or commercial
timber harvest.
o Minimal Management is
characterized by areas that have
high wilderness values but that
have not been designated as
wilderness. The pristine
character of these areas is
maintained pending action by the
President and Congress.
Restrictions are place,d on
motorized access, recr,eation,
and economic uses.
o Accessible Wilderness is a
category applicable only to
designated wilderness. It
permits limited use of
snowmobiles, motorboats,
aircraft, and· non-motorized
surface transportation methods
for traditional activities.
o Primitive Wilderness preserves
the primitive character of
designated wilderness areas not
accessible by aircraft or
motorbo&ts. Natural fish and
wildlife population dynamics and
habitats are emphasized although
regulated hunting, fishing, and
trapping is allowed. This is
the most restrictive of the
categor:i.es.
9
Table 1 compar~s the six management
categories·. The range of physical
settings includes those "noticeably
altered and dominated by the works
of man" to those that are "pristine
and unmodified." The works of man
that could aominate a physical
setting include permanent facilities
such as campgrounds, roads, and
cabins (Table 2). Under Primitive
Wilderness only temporary facilities
are allowed with physical settings
urunodified.
Natural processes may be
"substantially altered through
habitat manipulation" as in
Intensive Management or unaltered
and "dominant" as in Primitive
Wilderness. As shown in Table 3,
fire is the primary influence in
forest succession throughout the
refuge, and wildfires the only means
of establishing early-stage forests
within wilderness areas. Prescribed
burning, mechanical manipulation,
and commercial timber harvest can be
used to alter succession in areas
under Intensive Management.
Table 1. Comparison of management categories.
The Physical
Setting would
be ••••
Natural
Processes
would ••••
Fish & Wildlife
Populations
would ••••
Recreational
Experiences
focus on ••••
Intensive
Management
noticeably
altered and
dominated by the
works of man
be substantially
altered through
habitat manipu-
lation
emphasize species
of high public
interest
affiliation with
individuals or
groups, with
convenience of
both access and
sites
Moderate
Management
natural appearing,
balancing the
works of man and
nature
be occasionally
altered through
habitat manipu-
lation
balance species
of high public
interest and
natural popula-
tion dynamics
equal opportunity
for either group
involvement or
isolation, with
convenience of
access
Traditional
Management
natural and
dominated by the
works of nature
play a primary
role
emphasize natural
population
dynamics ·
solitude, risk,
challenge, and
reliance on out-
door skills, in
an accessible
setting
Minimal
Management
natural
or
pristine and
unmodified
play a primary
role
or
be dominart
emphasize
or
be dominared by
natural popula-
tion dynamics
solitude, risk
challenge, and
reliance on out-
door skills,
possibly in an
accessible setting
Accessible
Wilderness
natural and
dominated by the
works of nature
play a primary
role
emphasize natural
population
dynamics
solitude, risk,
challenge, and
reliance on out-
door skills, in
an accessible
setting
Table 2. Comparison of the effects of management polii.cies on the physical setting.
The Physical
Setting would
he ••••
•••• and the
permanent
facilities
present may
include ••••
Intensive
Management
noticeably
altered and
dominated by the
works of man
Visitor Center
Campgrounds
Access Areas
All-weather Roads
Moderate
Management
natural appearing,
balancing the
works of man and
nature
Unimproved Roads-----------------------~
Traditional
Management
natural and
dominated by the
works of nature
Oil Fields---------------------------------------------------~
Minimal
Management
natural
or
pristine and
unmodified
Accessible
Wilderness
natural and
dominated by the
works of nature
Navagation Aids---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Public Safety Cabins--------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------~
Fly-in Tent Camps-----------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------~
10
Primitive
Wilderness
pristine and
unmodified
he dominant
he dominated by
natural popula-
tion dynamics
solitude, risk,
challenge, and
reliance on out-
door skills
Primitive
Wilderness
pristine and
unmodified
J
:...J
.....
,
l
:......;
,
' ' ..J
' l
. ..J
i
j
1
J
I
i
..J
i .....
I
i ·...,;
I
J
.......
..J
I
\ )
,....
I
r
l '
l
l
l
l
r
I
I
r
r
!
I
l
I
r
I
l
/"""
Table 3. Comparison of the effects of management policies on natural processes.
Natural
Processes
would ••••
Intensive
Manage11ent
be substantially
altered through
habitat manipu-
lation
Moderate
Management
be occasionally
altered through
habitat manipu-
lation
Traditional Minimal
Management Management
play a primary play a primary
role role
or
be dominant
Accessible
Wilderness
play a primary
role
Primitive
Wilderness
be dominant
Early Stage
Forest would
result from ••••
Man-caused Fires--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Lightening Strikes---------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------~
•••• or through
habitat manipu-
lation ••••
Prescribed Burns--------------------------------------------~
Mechanical Crushing----------------~
Timber Management------------------~
Table 4. Comparison of the effects of management policies on fish and wildlife populations.
Intensive
Management
Fish & Wildlife emphasize species
Populations of high public
would •••• interest
The average over-
winter densities 4-7 per sq. mile
for moose would
be ••••
Population
compos! tions
would be ••••
Large antlered
bulls would be ••
Trophy buJ'Is
would be ••••
20-30 bulls per
100 cows
rare
absent
Moderate
Management
balance species
of high public
interest and
natural popula-
tion dynamics
4-10 per sq. mile
30-50 bulls per
100 cows
common
rare
Traditional Minimal Accessible
Management Management Wilderness
emphasize natural emphasize emphasize natural
population or population
dynamics be dominated by dynamics
natural popula-__
tion dynamics
2-10 per sq. mile 1-10 per sq. mile 1-10 per sq. mile
50·-90 bulls per so-100 bulls per 50-90 bulls per
100 cows 100 cows 100 cows
abundant moose up to 20 abundant
years old present
common abundant common
Primitive
Wilderness
be dominate<! by
natural popula-
tion dynamics
1-10 per sq. mile
75-100 bulls per
100 COWS
moose up to 20
years old present
abundant
Note: Overwinter densities reflect mid-winter conditions in high quality moose habitat, 50 sq. miles or larger in size, located between
sea level and 400 feet in elevation. The narrower density ranges reflect increased population stability brought about by regularly
scheduled habitat manipulation.
11
In terms of fish and wildlife
populations, Intensive Management
emphasizes high-interest species
while Primitive Wilderness stresses
natural diversity and processes.
Table 4 shows how populations of
moose (the main high-interest
species on the refuge) would respond
to population management under the
various management categories.
Moose populations in Intensive or
Moderate Management areas can remain
relatively stable through a regular
program of habitat manipulation.
Changes in forest successional
stages in Primitive Wilderness areas
can be abrupt and cause populations
to fluctuate considerably. Moose
populations, in such areas, however,
would contain more bulls including
older, trophy-class bulls. In
addition, other wildlife such as
wolves, wolverines, or brown bears
are more likely to be present in
Primitive Wilderness than in
Intensive Management areas.
Table 5 shows the social
characteristics of the six
categories that range from
"affiliation with individuals or
groups, with convenience of both
access and sites". to "solitude,
challenge, risk, and reliance on
Table 5. Comparison of the effects of management poHcies on recreational opportunities.
Intensive Moderate Traditional Minimal
Management Management Management Management
Recreational affiliation with equal opportunity solitude, risk, solitude, risk
Experiences individuals or for either group challenge, and challenge, and
focus on •••• groups, with involvement or reliance on out-reliance on out-
convenience of isolation, with door skills, in door skills,
both access and convenience of an accessible possibly in an
sites access setting accessible setting
outdoor skills." Recreational
opportunities associated with groups
and easy access include
environmental education and
interpretation, camping at
established campgrounds, and driving
for pleasure. Such activities
require permanent facilities and the
use of motor vehicles to reach
them. Hunting, fishing, and
trapping can occur in all management
categories; only the means of access
differ. For example, a moose hunter
can use a 4-wheel-drive vehicle on
an unimproved road in a Moderate
Management area, fly into a remote
lake in a Traditional Management
Accessible Primitive
Wilderness Wilderness
solitude, risk, solitude, risk,
challenge, and challenge, and
reliance on out-reliance on out-
door skills, in door skills
an accessible
setting
Activities would
include ••••
Hunting-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Fishing----------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~
Trapping--------------------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Canoeing----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Hiking------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Viewing Wildlife--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
•••• with access
by ••••
Environmental Ed.
Auto Canping
Driving for
Pleasure
Licensed Highway Vehicles--------------~
Airplane------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------~
Motorboat--------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------·~
snowmobile------------------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Non-motorized Boat---------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------~
Horseback---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Foot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
12
' '
j
....!
' ....;
J
1 ~
1
I '-'
' .I
I
._j
' )
....J
_j
, I
_j
....;
i
i
-..1
i
J
i
_)
'--'
r I .
[,
I
l '
I
l.'
I
l '
r
I
I ,
r
I
r
I
I I ,
r
I
i
\ '
r
l '
[,
r
I I ,
r
l
area, or travel by horseback in a
Primitive Wilderness area.
categories without appropriate
controls (e.g., seasons, bag limits,
and special permit requirements).
Lakes occupied by nesting trumpeter
swans and within Traditional
Management areas are seasonally
closed to aircraft. Vehicles are
restricted to all-weather or
unimproved roads. Conditions on
activities are promulgated through
the Service's regulatory procedures.
'Table 6 identifies important public
and economic uses and management
policies which may be compatible
with refuge purposes under each
management category. Some of the
uses would be compatible only under
certain conditions. For example,
hunting may not be compatible in all
Table 6. Comparison of the. effects of management policies on public and economic uses and access.
Public uses ••••
Economic Uses •••
Access ••••
Resource
Management ••••
Intensive
Manage11ent
Moderate
Management
Traditional
Management
Minimal
Management
Accessible
Wilderness
Primitive
Wilderness
Hunting-------------subject to State and Federal regulations-~----------------------------------------------------------~
Fishing-------------subject to State and Federal regulations------------------------------------------------------------~
Trapping------------subject to State and Federal regulations----------------------------------------------------------~-~
Canoeing----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Hiking------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Tent Camping------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Auto Camping
Environmental Ed.
Timber Harvest-------------------------~
Firewood Removal-----------------------~
Sand/Gravel Removal-----------------------------------------~
Oil and Gas Leasing-----------------------------------------·~·
Fly-in Tent Camps-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Guiding------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------·~
Float Trips-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Licensed Highway
Vehicles----on designated roads--~
Aircraft-------------------------------in designated areas---------------------------------------·-----~
Motorboats-----------------------------in designated areas---•----------------------------------------~
Snowmobil~s----------------------------in designated areas--------------------------------------------------------------~
Non-motorized Boat------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·~
Foot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Egg Takes (fish)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Natural Fires Let Burn--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Stocking (fish)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Prescribed Burns--------------------------------------------~
Timber MAnagement------------------~
Mechanical Manipulation------------~
Fertilization----------------------~
13
Management Directions
Common to All Alternatives
Management of the refuge under any
of the alternatives is governed by
federal laws, Service policies, and
principles of sound resource
management--all of which restrict
the range of potential activities.
Accordingly, the five alternatives
share a set of common management ·
policies. These include:
o to avoid duplication of effort
and focus on increased
management efficiency,
coordination with other resource
management agencies will
continue
o recommending acquisition of
inholdings to consolidate refuge
management authority and to
reduce conflicts
o permanent snow, icefields,
glaciers, mudflats, gravel and
rock habitats will not be
disturbed
o forests will be the only
terrestrial habitats actively·
manipulated to benefit wildlife
o refuge management programs will
stress native wildlife and the
role of natural processes and
ecological relationships in
order to maintain natural
diversity
o non-native species will not be
introduced
o native species will not be
allowed to decline to levels
that would threaten genetic
integrity or viability
o motorized access will be managed
to provide a full range of
compatible access to refuge
resources
o a full range of recreational
opportunities and facilities
will remain available
o existing public campgrounds,
primary and secondary roads,
access sites, waysides, and
trailhead& will continue to be
maintained
o high-interest activities such as
auto·-camping, wildlife viewing,
hunting and fishing will be
favo•red to provide maximum
benefits from expenditures of
public funds
o the Kenai Wilderness will
continue to be managed to
preserve wilderness values
0 the Two Indians area will
rece:ive minimal management to
protect its wilderness values
14
o a full range of commercial
activities will continue on the
refuge, generating significant
benefits to the local economy
o oil and gas exploration and
leasing will be allowed when
compatible with refuge purposes
o fire will continue to be an
important management tool used
to increase wildlife and habitat
diversity
o cultural resources will be
preserved to benefit future
generations, as required by
state and federal laws
Although all five alternatives share
the policies discussed above, each
alternative has a distinct
management emphasis. Each
alternative would achieve refuge
purposes and comply with laws,
regulations, and Service policies.
The management policies and
estimated effects of their
implementation are discussed on the
maps that accompany this document.
1 : i
-1
u
: 1
_j
' 1
-1
'
J
J
r 1
J
J
' l
J
' ·• j
..J
' 1
J
J
' 1
..J
1
I
.....;
,.....
,...,
I
l :
......
i
l i
'
I"'"' i !
I
l I
l:
r
l '
r
I
l '
I
I '
n
I
r
I ,
r--
1
I
l '
r
r
l
Comparison of Alternatives
Each of the five alternatives
represents a different mix of
policies designed to achieve the
purposes for which the refuge was
established. Each would attain
those purposes to some degree and
provide a unique combination of uses
and access opportunities. The
components of each alternative must
be examined independently to
determine how each achieves the
purposes of the refuge. Several of
these components relate to key
public issues that are briefly
discussed to provide a basis for
comparing the five alternatives.
Table 7 displays the acreage and
percentage of refuge lands that
would be managed under each of the
six management categories in each
alternative. Together with Table 1,
it can be used to determine the
various combinations of uses and
access opportunities provided by
each alternative.
Table 7. Acreage of management categories under the five alternatives.
Intensive Moderate Traditional Minimal
Management Management Management Management
Alternative A 68,000 47,500 385,500 97,500
4% 2% 20% 5%
Alternative B 183,000 318,000 -97,500
9% 16% -% 5%
Alternative C 68,000 198,500 220,500 111,500
4% 10% 11% 6%
Alternative D 45,500 31,000 328,000 194,000
2% 1% 17% 10%
Alternative E 44,000 -174,000 380,500
2% -% 9% 1~~
Accessible
Wilderness
225,000
11%
706,000
36%
223,500
11%
93,500
5%
-
-%
Primitive
Wilderness
1,125,000
57%
644,000
33%
1,126,500
57%
1,256,500
64%
1,350,000
69%
Private
In holdings
21,500
1%
21,500
1%
21,500
1%
21,500
1%
21,500
1%
Note: Private in-holdings includes 14,073 acres conveyed to the Solamatof NatiVE! Corporation and 7,040 acres conveyed to Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., over which the provisions of Section 22(g) of ANSCA do~ apply,
15
Moose
Moose were identified as a key issue
because they are important for both
consumptive and non-consumptive
purposes. Much attention is focused
on the potential manipulation of
forests to increase moose numbers.
Table 8 displays the impact of each
alternative on moose populations.
The present refuge moose population
of about 5,000 animals would peak at
6,000-7,000 under Alternatives Band
C because of the intensive program
of habitat manipulation in those
alternatives. The lowest number
(3,000 animals) would be found in
Alternative E which emphasizes
natural population dynamics.
Table 8. Projected populations of
moose under the five alternatives.
A "5 thouancl• of-. ••
B rt,
c w6
D rt 4.5
E tt-3
Habitat Manipulation
Habitat manipulation is a key issue
of public concern. Manipulating
habitats to make them more suitable
for certain species is favo.red by
people interested primarily in moose
and opposed by those who favor
management designed to benefit all
species. Table 9 shows how much of
the non-wilderness land on the
refuge would be available for
manipulation either by mechanical
means or prescribed burning.
Alternative B provides the greatest
opportunity for manipulation while
Alternative E provides the least.
Alternatives A, B, and C would
maintain current levels of
prescribed burning. The amount of
land on which mechanical
manipulation could be used varies
from 76% of all non-wilderness land
in Alternative B to 7% in
Alternative E.
Table 9. Proportion of
non-wilderness refuge lands open to
habitat manipulation under the five
alternatives.
A
B
c
D
E
Timber Harvest
Timber harvest is an effective means
of habitat manipulation for managing
moose. Timber harvesting can also
serve as a commercial use. Table 10
displays .the proportion of refuge
non-wilderness lands that would be
available for timber and firewood
harvesting. Alternative B provides
the greatest opportunity for timber
16
harvest while Alternative E
eliminates timber harvesting
altogether. Conversely, Alternative
E is least likely to damage habitats
and populations while Alternative B
has the most potential for such
damage.
Table 10. Proportion of
non-wilderness refuge lands open to
timber harvest under the five
alternatives.
A 19 1
B
c
D
E
Oil and Gas Leasing
The extraction of oil and gas and
the potential impacts of these
activities on fish and wildlife are
key issues. Table 11 displays the
percentage of non-wilderness land
open to oil and gas leasing under
each alternative. Under Alternative
A, the Current Situation, 76% of
these lands would be open to
leasing. Alternatives B and C would
maintain this level. Alternative E
significantly reduces the area
available for leasing but would be
least likely to adversely affect
habitats and populations.
Alternatives A, B, and C have the
greatest potential for adverse
effects.
I
J
. !
l -
i .....
J r
I
j
I J
'
i --
I
J
I
J
-i
J
• !
i
i
.....i
.J
......
~
l ' J
r
' I '
r
l ~
r
I ,
roo-:
I"'""'
I
r
r
l '
r
l '
r
I
c '
r
l
Table 11. Proportion of
non-wilderness refuge lands open to
oil and gas leasing under the five
alternatives.
A 4 761
B 476' I
c 4 741 I
D 4631
E 4331
Access
Access to refuge lands was one of
several key issues identified by the
public. This concern relates both
to maintaining traditional means of
access and to restricting motorized
access in the Kenai Wilderness. The
five alternatives provide a broad
range of access opportunities.
Table 12 displays the percentage of
refuge lands that would be
accessible in each alternative by
snowmobile, aircraft, and
automobile. Alternatives A, B, C,
and D maintain current snowmobile
opportunities on 62-67% of the
refuge while Alternative E severely
curtails that use. Aircraft are
allowed at current levels on 43% of
the refuge in Alternatives A and C
while Alternative B significantly
increases the open areas to 64% of
the refuge. The use of aircraft is
reduced in Alternatives D and E with
the greatest. reduction occurring in
E. Differences in automobile access
result from the way in which
industrial or· utility roads are
handled following completion of the
projects for which they were
originally built. Alternative B
maintains these roads and opens most
of them to public use; Alternative C
removes most roads, while
Alternatives D and E remove all such
roads. Overall, Alternative B
provides the greatest opportunity
for motorized access while
Alternative E is the most
restrictive.
Table 12. Proportion of the refuge
open to snowmobiles, aircraft, and
automobiles under the five
alternatives.
.... 64 1
A ~31
I
I
I
I I
...... 61 j
lllllllt..671
B ~41
~25 1
~64 1
c ~43 1 .......... ,
: ..... 621 J D ~36 1 I .......... , I
I
....... Ill
E -:Jf!41zs
......... zs
17
Minimal Management
This category of management would be
applied to areas outside designated
wilderness that have been identified
through the wilderness review
process as having values that make
them especially suitable for
designation. Such areas are managed
to protect wilderness values pending
action by the President and
Congress. Table 13 shows the
proportion of non-wilderness lands
placed in this management category
in each alternative. The amount
varies from 16% in Alternatives A
and B to 61% in Alternative E.
Table 13. Proportion of
non-wilderness refuge lands under
Minimal Management in the five
alternatives.
A ~te.6 1
B -fe 16 1
c -t~l8 1
~
D fe3~~
E f~6P
Staffing and
Management Costs
Table 14 displays the increases in
full-time staff positions and costs
necessary to implement each
alternative relative to Alternative
A, the Current Situation.
Alternative B would be the most
costly of all the alternatives to
implement. It would require a
staffing level and annual budget
200% greater than Alternative A.
Alternative E would be the least
costly with an increase of 40% over
current levels. Alternatives B, C,
D, and E would each cost
significantly more than Alternative
A, the Current Situat·ion with 12
full-time staff-members and a $1
million annual operations and
maintenance budget.
Table 14. Staffing needs and
management costs under the five
alternatives.
A tt® Currenl Levell
B tt®zoo•
c tt® 100 1
D .. tt®,o•
E .tt®4o• ' I
Selection of the
Preferred Alternative
Table 15 ranks each alternative
according to its ability to achieve
the purposes for which the refuge
was established. The evaluation is
based on a scale of 1 to 5. A rank
of "1" represents the alternative
that most fully achieves a purpose
while a "5" represents the worst
alternative for that purpose. Every
effort was made to objectively
analyze each alternative based on
available information, although an
element of subjective judgment is
inevitable in such ranking.
The preferred alternative was not
selected by adding the scores
together or seeking the smallest
total. It was determined by
deciding .which alternative was
uniformly acceptable in meeting as
many purposes as possible. For the
first three purposes (all of which
deal with fish and wildlife
populations and ha~itats),
Alternative E provides most
protection while Alternative B
offers the most potential for
degradation. Alternative C provides
the best balance between these two
extremes. In considering the
remaining two purposes that deal
with research and recreation,
Alternative C provides the greatest
opportunity for achieving these
purposes while Alternative E
provides the least opportunity and
Alternative B assumes a moderate
18
position.
Alternative C was chosen as the
preferred alternative because it
balances conservation of fish and
wildlife habitats and populations
with enhanced opportunities for fish
and wildlife-oriented recreation.
Table 15. Evalua,tion of
alternatives by refuge purpose.
Refuge purpose
To conserve fish and wild-
life populatioms and
habitats in their natural
diversity.
To fulfill international
treaty obligations.
To ensure water quality
and quantity
To provide opportunities
for scientific research
and land management
training.
To provide opportunities
for fish and wildlife-
oriented recreation.
Alternative
A B C D E
4 5 3 2 1
4 5 3 2 1
4 5 3 2 1
2 3 1 4 5
2 4 1 3 5
Note: 1 most fully meets purpose
5 least fully meets purpose
J
I u
1
I
I
r_,J
I
~
' I I
I
1...1
j
J
l
J
' l
I ~
J
J
J
j
j
l
r..,
~~
n
\ J
n
'
n I '
l. J
n
lJ
0
n : ,
l.J
n
lJ
n
n
l J
n : I
I ·'
"""' I !
' I l j
n
I
l
r
i
I
;
.c
.c u
·Ill ..
'tJ
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Response Form
Alternative D
A~ternative E
Additional Comments
----------------------------detach here ----------------------------
staple or tape here
·----------------------------fold here . ..---------------------------·
Attention: William Knauer
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service
1 0 11 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
.. place
stamp
here
-----------------------------fold here -----------------------------·
I wish to be placed/retained on the mailing list to receive information about comprehensive
planning for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I understand that names and
addresses on U.S. Government mailing ·lists may be released to the public upon request, under
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act of 1974.
Name: --------------------------------------------------------------
Mailing address: ___________________________________________________ _
City: ________________________________ ___
State: ____________________ _ Zip code: ________ _
Signature: ___________________ _ Date: _________ _