Record of Decision 

for 

Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and 

Environmental Impact Statement

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 7 

February 2006 
I. Introduction and Background 

This record of decision (ROD) documents my decision for approving the Revised 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuges (Revised Conservation Plan) and the rationale for making that decision. The Revised 

Conservation Plan is based on the Preferred Alternative in the Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuges, released via Federal Register notice on October 13, 2005. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notice of availability was published in the Federal 

Register October 28, 2005. 

The Revised Conservation Plan is part of the planning requirements for National Wildlife 

Refuges in Alaska set forth in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

of 1980. The ANILCA requires that the Secretary of the Interior prepare and, from time to time, 

revise a comprehensive conservation plan. Service planning policy requires that conservation 

plans be revised every 15 years or sooner if necessary. The Revised Conservation Plan was 

developed under direction of ANILCA Section 304(g) and the planning requirement in the 

Service Manual 602 FW 1-3. The Revised Conservation Plan and this ROD will guide the 

management of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges for the next 15 

years or until it is revised. 

Refuge Setting 

The area affected by this Revised Conservation Plan includes the Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Ugashik and Chignik units of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, and 

the Seal Cape portion of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, hereafter collectively 

referred to as the Refuges. The Pavlov and North Creek Units of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge 

are administered as part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and are not covered by this 

decision. The planning area covers 4,932,600 acres of federal land, of which 502,900 acres are 

designated Wilderness. 

The northern boundary of the Refuges lies approximately 10 miles south of King Salmon and 

extends roughly 250 miles along the peninsula. The Ugashik and Chignik units are separated by 

the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. 

Original Conservation Plans 

The original conservation plans for the Refuges were completed between 1985 and 1988. While 

the management direction in those plans was fairly similar, there were some differences. 

Activities addressed in one plan were sometimes missing from another, and there was sometimes 

different direction for the same activity. For example, while surface geophysical studies are 

allowed throughout the Refuges, seismic surveying techniques are allowed throughout the 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge but not allowed on the Becharof Refuge. The 1985 Becharof Refuge 

and 1987 Alaska Peninsula Refuge plans included 880,200 acres recommended for Wilderness 

designation. The 9,900-acre Seal Cape Unit of the Alaska Maritime Refuge was also 

recommended for Wilderness designation in its 1988 plan. As I will explain later, the 

Wilderness recommendations were not revisited during revision. 

1 
II. Decision and Rationale 

It is my decision to select the Preferred Alternative, as described in the Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuges, published in October 2005. This decision and adoption of the 

Preferred Alternative supersedes and replaces the 1985 and 1988 Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans and ROD for the areas covered by this plan. It also updates and replaces the 1994 Public 

Use Management Plan. 

The management direction in the Preferred Alternative reflects my intent to manage the refuges 

in Alaska to meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) while also 

meeting the refuge purposes set forth in ANILCA. The Revised Conservation Plan facilitates 

public use, subsistence, and recreation opportunities in settings that emphasize natural and 

unaltered appearing landscapes. 

We received overwhelming support from local users and interested publics to continue managing 

the Refuges much as they have been managed since they were created. I fully intend to honor 

that request by ensuring that the Refuges will be managed consistent with the ANILCA purposes 

for which they were designated. My vision for the Refuges is that the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges will remain as they are today with healthy, natural populations of fish and 

wildlife living in primarily unaltered habitats. The Refuges will continue to provide local 

residents opportunities for subsistence use of resources. The Refuges will be open to all people 

to engage in a variety of wildlife-dependent activities and to enjoy the spectacular setting and 

resources. 

We heard from the State of Alaska that we should maintain flexibility in evaluating and 

approving new uses. I believe that I have accomplished that by adopting the direction provided 

in the Preferred Alternative. The vision statement, goals, and objectives in the Revised 

Conservation Plan provide the basis for managing the Refuges to meet current and future fish 

and wildlife habitat needs and visitor wildlife-dependent activities. It is not possible or 

necessary to anticipate every conceivable activity or use that may arise in the future. As 

technology, scientific knowledge, and public uses evolve, management direction will also need 

to evolve. 

ANILCA Conservation Plan Requirements 

The ANILCA requires that each plan designate areas within the Refuges according to their 

resources and values; set forth the programs for conserving fish and wildlife and the programs 

for maintaining the values of the Refuges; specify the uses that may be compatible with the 

major purposes of the Refuges; and set forth the opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreation, ecological research, environmental education, and interpretation of the Refuges’ 

resources and values. 

Designate Areas According to Their Resources and Values 

The Preferred Alternative divides the Refuges into three management categories that reflect my

management intent and the resources and values inherent in those areas. The Congressionally 

designated Becharof Wilderness is in the Wilderness Management category. This area will be

2 
managed to maintain its wilderness character as well as to meet the other purposes of the 

Refuges. The Yantarni Bay area is placed in a Moderate Management category. This reflects 

my intent to continue to provide for off-road vehicle (ORV) use on designated trails within this 

area. The rest of the lands within the Refuges are placed in the Minimal Management category. 

This management category focuses on providing fish and wildlife habitat and recreational 

opportunities in a natural environment with very little evidence of human-caused change. 

Programs for Conserving Fish and Wildlife and Maintaining the Refuges Values 

The goals and objectives in the Preferred Alternative provide the framework for addressing 

current and future challenges to managing the fish and wildlife and their habitats within the 

Refuges. It is my intent to implement the objectives in the Revised Conservation Plan within 

budgetary constraints and to provide fish and wildlife programs and public use opportunities that 

complement my vision for the Refuges. As the Refuges implement the objective to gather 

information on pre-ANILCA traditional subsistence access it should collect all useful 

information on pre-ANILCA uses and activities, not just those related to subsistence. 

The Preferred Alternative provides management direction for a large variety of activities and 

uses that are or could be conducted on the Refuges. By managing those uses within the direction 

provided, all refuge values will be adequately protected. 

I do not anticipate all the activities discussed in the management direction will be conducted on 

the Refuges. Some of them may never be proposed and some are not allowed within the 

management categories selected for implementation unless the plan is amended. I do think it is 

important that this range of activities and actions is displayed so that future refuge managers, and 

the public, can understand the basis for decisions made on requests or applications for activities 

not currently authorized on the Refuges. 

Uses Compatible With the Refuges 

The management direction in the Preferred Alternative provides direction for managing the uses 

of the Refuges. Some uses may be conducted with no further authorization. Some uses require a 

special-use permit or other authorization before they may be conducted, and some uses may not 

be conducted under this Revised Conservation Plan. Appendix H of the Revised Conservation 

Plan contains compatibility determinations for the current uses of the Refuges. They include 

recreational fishing; recreational hunting; wildlife viewing, photography, environmental 

education, and environmental interpretation; commercially guided recreational fishing services; 

commercially guided big-game hunting services; commercial transporter services; subsistence 

activities; reburial of archaeological human remains; scientific research; and State of Alaska 

management activities. Associated activities such as methods of access by motorboat, airplane, 

snowmachine, all-terrain vehicle (ATV), and nonmotorized access; use of camps and field 

equipment are also covered in the compatibility determinations. 

Should the uses covered by these compatibility determinations change significantly, new 

compatibility determinations will need to be prepared. Activities and uses not covered by these 

compatibility determinations will need a site-specific analysis and separate compatibility 

determination before the use is authorized. 

3 
Opportunities for Fish and Wildlife Oriented Recreation 

Opportunities for fish and wildlife oriented recreation are abundant throughout the Refuges. All 

areas within the Refuges are open to hunting and fishing, consistent with State of Alaska hunting 

and fishing regulations and federal subsistence regulations. 

Goal 8 is “to conduct interpretive and environmental education programs that increase 

understanding and support for the System; development of a sense of stewardship for wildlife, 

cultural resources, and the environment; and enhanced visitor experiences.” The objectives 

associated with this goal build on the work in environmental education and interpretation 

currently being carried out by the Refuges staff. 

Opportunities for Ecological Research, Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation 

The goals and objectives adopted by this Plan provide direction for conducting ecological 

research, environmental education, and interpretation. Goal 2 is “to improve knowledge of fish 

and wildlife population and their habitats in order to conserve species in their natural diversity, 

especially those that are identified in the refuge purposes, that have restricted populations, or that 

have been identified as species or populations of ecological interest.” The objectives associated 

with this goal will further our knowledge of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the Refuges 

and help us understand the changes to the environment associated with global warming. 

Issues and Alternatives Considered 

The Preferred Alternative in the Revised Conservation Plan differs from the one identified in the 

Draft Plan (published in February 2004) in two areas. First, the management direction in 

Sections 2.4 through 2.24 has been rewritten to remove extraneous material. Second, I further 

modified the Preferred Alternative to allow for evaluation of future applications for helicopter 

permits to transport recreation users onto the Refuges. While most public comments on this 

subject favored not allowing permits for helicopter use, the State of Alaska requested we 

continue to keep the option open to allow evaluation of future proposals. I respect the public 

comments but am persuaded by the State’s argument that precluding any consideration of future 

proposals for helicopter-based recreational access is not necessary at this time. 

Public Involvement 

A notice of intent to revise the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 1998, beginning the formal public 

comment and involvement period. We followed up with two planning updates discussing the 

opportunity for public involvement and the results of the comments we received. We held 10 

public meetings in the communities within or adjacent to the Refuges. Comments received at

this stage were used to identify the issues that needed to be addressed in the environmental 

impact statement (EIS) and the alternative approaches to respond to the issues. 

After developing the preliminary alternatives, we again went out to the public with a planning 

update asking for comments on the preliminary alternatives. We also created a planning web site 

and posted the alternatives there. 

4 
The Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges (Draft Revised Conservation Plan) 

was released for public review in February 2004. The public comment period ran through May 

31, 2004. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register and provided a summary 

of the alternatives in a planning update. Copies of the Draft Revised Conservation Plan were 

mailed to interested individuals, organizations, and government agencies. We held public 

meetings in eight communities to receive comments on the Draft Revised Conservation Plan. 

We received almost 11,600 comments on the Draft Revised Conservation Plan. I have reviewed 

the public comments on the DEIS and responses to those comments presented in Appendix I of 

the final EIS. Based on the comments received, especially the compelling argument made by the 

State of Alaska, I directed the planning team to develop a revised preferred alternative. 

Development of Alternatives 

The planning team—consisting of the refuge manager, refuge and regional office staff, and state 

representatives from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources (ADNR)—analyzed the public comments collected during scoping and 

identified the major issues to be addressed in the Revised Conservation Plan. Different ways to 

respond to the two major issues were then developed. 

The public raised several issues that were determined to be outside the scope of the Revised 

Conservation Plan and were not included in alternatives. For example, several comments 

suggested the Refuges should be closed to recreational hunting. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended, identifies hunting as one of six priority public uses of 

the Refuge System. Providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation such 

as hunting is also specifically addressed in ANILCA. Hunting and fishing have occurred on the 

Refuges since they were created. As long as this activity is conducted consistent with State 

hunting regulations and Federal subsistence regulations, there is no need at this time to develop 

alternatives that would close all or parts of the Refuges to hunting. 

The Service received several comments during scoping that recommended conducting a 

wilderness review and making recommendations for additional Wilderness area designations part 

of the Revised Conservation Plan. We conducted a thorough analysis of ANILCA and Service 

planning policy requirements for planning and wilderness reviews. This included a legal review. 

Based on that analysis the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in a 

February 18, 2004, memorandum instructed that when preparing and revising comprehensive 

conservation plans for refuges in Alaska to ensure the region meet the planning requirements in 

Section 304(g) of ANILCA, but to not apply the wilderness review section of the Service 

Planning Policy 602 FW 3.4 C.(1)(c). The 1988 Wilderness recommendations developed during 

the first round of planning still stand. 

All alternatives are constrained by the purposes for which the Refuges were created. 

Alternatives that would deviate from meeting the purposes spelled out in ANILCA were not 

developed. 

5 
The planning team developed the alternatives by first developing a vision statement and goals 

and objectives for the Refuges. I articulated that vision for the Refuges earlier in this ROD. The 

management direction provided in the original Conservation Plans was reviewed and updated. 

The management direction in this Revised Conservation Plan was developed to be consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with other conservation plans for national wildlife refuges in 

Alaska. I am confident that the direction is appropriate for these Refuges. 

The team then addressed the two issues identified during scoping. The first issue—how should 

we address recreation access to remote and sensitive areas?— primarily deals with helicopter 

access for recreation activities. The team developed three approaches for dealing with this issue. 

The second issue—how can conflicts between refuge user groups be minimized?— is dealt with 

by developing objectives and a monitoring plan for addressing public use. These objectives and 

monitoring plan are applicable to all the action alternatives. Chapter 6 sets out a monitoring plan 

to track the progress of plan implementation. I am committed to implementing the monitoring 

set out in that section, within the constraints of budgets and available workforce. 

Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative 1 

This is the No-Action Alternative and represents current management. It is the 1985, 1987, and 

1988 Final Comprehensive Conservation Plans for the respective units of these Refuges. It 

includes the changes made to the final Alaska Peninsula Conservation Plan in the ROD and the 

management direction from the 1994 Public Use Management Plan. These plans provide 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and subsistence uses and allow traditional forms 

of access for traditional activities. The original plans identify five management categories: 

Intensive, Moderate, Minimal, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and Cooperative. None of 

the lands were placed in the Intensive Management or Wild and Scenic River categories. The 

Refuges contain 502,900 acres of Congressionally designated Wilderness and are managed 

accordingly. The plans specify the activities and actions that could be undertaken in each 

category, but the management direction varies among the different units. The original plans do 

not contain vision statements, goals and objectives, or a monitoring plan but do contain 

Wilderness recommendations. Requests for permits to allow helicopter access for recreation 

activities is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no management direction to proactively 

manage user conflicts. Additional information on the No-Action Alternative and the other 

alternatives is found in Section 2 of the final EIS. 

Alternative 2

This alternative contains a vision statement, goals and objectives, and a monitoring program to 

identify potential conflicts between user groups at an early stage. It uses three management 

categories from the original Conservation Plans: 9,100 acres are placed in Moderate 

Management, 3,728,300 acres are placed in Minimal Management, and 502,900 acres are placed 

in Wilderness Management. Direction for managing these categories has been strengthened and 

clarified to make it consistent among the different units of the Refuges. Requests for permits to 

allow helicopter access for recreation activities in non-wilderness areas would be evaluated after 

development of a separate plan to identify sensitive areas where helicopters would not be 

allowed. 

6 
Alternative 3

This alternative contains the same vision statement, goals and objectives, and monitoring 

program as does Alternative 2. The size of the Moderate Management category is reduced from

9,100 acres to 4,000 acres without affecting current uses of this area. The lands removed from

Moderate Management are placed in the Minimal Management category. Requests for permits 

to allow helicopter access for recreation activities would not be allowed. This is the only 

difference between this alternative and Alternative 3a. The vision statement, goals and 

objectives, updated Public Use Management Plan, and management direction from Chapter 2 of 

the Final Plan would guide the day-to-day management of the Refuges. Additional step-down 

plans would be developed with opportunities for public input. 

Alternative 3a

This is the Service’s Preferred Alternative. This alternative contains the same management 

direction as Alternative 3, except that requests for permits to allow helicopter access for 

recreation activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This alternative emphasizes 

natural processes across the Refuges. Large-scale changes to the landscape are not anticipated. 

All requests for activities and uses not specifically addressed in the compatibility determinations 

in Appendix H will undergo separate compatibility determinations. 

Four thousand acres in Yantarni Bay are designated Moderate Management to allow use of offroad vehicles on designated trails. All other lands not within the 502,900-acre Congressionally 

designated Becharof Wilderness are placed in the Minimal Management category. 

The Preferred Alternative strengthens the biological program of the Refuges by focusing 

scientific studies and management on understanding the natural and anthropogenic processes 

affecting resources important to the people using the Refuges. The wildlife and habitat inventory 

plans identified in the objectives under Goal 2 will refine the biological program and provide 

additional guidance on where and how the Refuges should focus its emphasis on inventory, 

survey, and monitoring work. 

Management of public use will continue very much as it has been in the past. Increased effort 

will be made to identify user conflicts and work toward resolution; law enforcement efforts will 

be improved. Access and uses that have been occurring since the Refuges were established will 

continue. If monitoring shows changes in conditions or use patterns that would be detrimental to 

the natural or other values of the Refuges, steps will be taken to protect those resources that are 

at risk. Increased education will be the first step; should those efforts not provide the needed 

results, however, other steps, including restrictions on human activities, will be considered. 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require that the ROD specify “the alternative or alternatives 

which were considered to be environmentally preferable” [40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. This is generally 

considered to be the alternative that causes the least potential damage to the biological and 

physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historical, cultural, and natural resources (CEQ “Forty Most-Asked Questions,” 46 FR 18026, 

7 
March 23, 1981). While the differences in environmental effects among the four alternatives are 

very small, Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferable alternative because it has the least 

potential for adverse effects to the biological and physical environments. 

III. Findings Required by Other Laws and Authorities 

This Revised Conservation Plan was developed in conformance with many federal laws. In this 

section, I consider each of the major laws involved in this decision. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare detailed statements on proposed actions that 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Service has completed a draft and 

final environmental impact statement that addresses the proposed action and major issues 

identified during scoping. I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process 

complies with all of the major elements of the requirements set forth by CEQ for implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). 

The final EIS considers a reasonable range of alternatives. The four alternatives considered in 

detail in the final EIS respond to the major issues raised during scoping. Substantive comments 

made on the DEIS are responded to in Appendix I of the final EIS. The comments, especially 

those from the State of Alaska, resulted in numerous changes and corrections to the alternatives 

and analysis and the creation of a new preferred alternative (Alternative 3a). 

The final EIS discloses cumulative effects of the alternatives by evaluating past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future action in the planning area. Potential actions or uses of the 

Refuges are discussed, and the ramifications of those actions are discussed to the degree 

appropriate for a programmatic NEPA document. 

ANILCA Pre-Planning Requirements 

The ANILCA requires the Service to identify, before developing the conservation plan, the 

resources, values, potential administrative sites and visitor facilities, access, and significant 

problems that may adversely affect the fish and wildlife populations and habitats. In this section, 

I discuss the information used to develop the Revised Conservation Plan. 

Populations and Habitats of Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Refuges 

The final EIS discusses the populations and habitats of the major fish and wildlife species that 

occur within the Refuges. Fish, especially salmon, are ecologically and economically significant 

resources. The refuge contains more than 1,000 salmon-producing streams, and annual 

production exceeds 30 million fish. Sockeye, Chinook, pink, coho, and chum salmon; rainbow, 

steelhead, and lake trout; Dolly Varden; Arctic char; Arctic grayling; whitefish; northern pike; 

and burbot inhabit the aquatic ecosystem. The commercial and ecological importance of sockeye 

salmon make it the most important fish species on the Refuges. 

More than 200 species of birds have been observed on or near the Refuges, of which 15 to 20 

species are year-round residents. The cliffs, bays, and lowlands of the Refuges provide abundant 

habitat for millions of birds, particularly pelagic birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds that use the 

8 
Refuges primarily as a staging area during migration to and from nesting grounds in the Arctic. 

Pelagic birds use the Refuges for breeding. Numerous ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands 

provide ample breeding habitat for a number of waterbirds. During summer, migratory 

songbirds and raptors make use of the abundant meadow and terrestrial environments on the 

Refuges. 

No formal surveys have been conducted for small mammals such as masked shrews, dusky 

shrews, meadow jumping mice, tundra voles, northern red-backed voles, brown lemmings, 

Arctic shrews, meadow voles, northern bog lemmings, and little brown bats. Porcupines, Arctic 

ground squirrels, and snowshoe and tundra hares are common throughout the Refuges. Hoary 

marmots are present in the mountains and muskrats are infrequently observed in the wetland 

areas of the Refuges. 

The Refuges provide habitat for gray wolves, coyotes, red fox, wolverines, river otters, mink, 

short-tailed weasels, least weasels, and beaver. Beaver dams and lodges are commonly 

observed. Coyotes have been observed more frequently over the past 15 years. Traditional 

methods of monitoring these animals (i.e., track counts) are difficult because of unreliable snow 

cover. 

The Alaska Peninsula supports some of the highest brown bear densities in the world. The 

ADF&G estimates for Game Management Unit (GMU) 9E, which contains most of the Refuges, 

is roughly 3,200 bears. Important bear habitat includes the east side of Becharof Lake, the east 

side of Ugashik Lakes, and the area around Black Lake. 

The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd ranges from Port Moller to north of the Naknek 

River. The majority of the caribou use the coastal plain outside the Refuges for calving. Since 

1994, 10 percent to 30 percent of the annual post-calving count has been found in the Aleutian 

Range, which includes most Refuges lands. Historically, the population has ranged from a high 

of 20,000 caribou to a low of 2,000, where the population stands today. 

Moose have been on the Alaska Peninsula since the early 1900s, but did not become abundant 

until the 1950s. In 1983, the population in GMU 9E was estimated at 2,500 moose. More recent 

trend surveys indicate the population remains stable; calf recruitment, however, continues to be 

low, and the number of moose the habitat can support is unknown. Winter moose concentration 

areas on the Refuges include the Kejulik River, Ugashik Lakes, the Dog Salmon River, Mother 

Goose Lake, the upper Meshik River valley, and Black Lake as well as on the Pacific coast 

drainages of Yantarni, Mitrofania, and Stepovak bays. 

Harbor seals, Steller (northern) sea lions, and sea otters often use the Pacific coastline of the 

Refuges. Harbor seals and sea lions migrate up and down the coast, frequently hauling out on 

the Refuge land and intertidal areas. Sea otters are common in coastal areas of the Alaska 

Peninsula, and the population is estimated at approximately 6,500. Gray, killer, humpback, and 

minke whales and an occasional fin whale inhabit the nearshore waters along the Pacific coast of 

the Refuges. 

9 
Special Values of the Refuges 

Public comments indicated that people valued the naturalness of the Refuges, their wildness and 

wilderness qualities, wildlife in its natural diversity, the naturally functioning ecosystems, and 

the associated wildlife-related recreation opportunities. 

Section 1.6 of the final EIS identifies areas containing special values and discusses the values 

within these areas. The areas include: 

• Becharof Wilderness Area 

• Becharof Ecosystem—Becharof Lake 

• Island Arm and Ruth Lake

• Becharof and Katmai Uplands

• Mt. Peulik and Gas Rocks Area

• King Salmon River Drainage (Egegik)

• Big Creek Drainage

• Kanatak Village

• Seabird Colonies

Pacific Coast

• Ugashik Lake

• Dog Salmon River, Mother Goose Lake, and King Salmon River (Ugashik)—

• Black Lake–Chignik Lake Area

• Castle Cape

• Mount Veniaminof

• Seal Cape

Areas That Are Suitable for Administrative Sites or Visitor Facilities 

The Refuges headquarters is located in King Salmon. It will continue there and will be upgraded 

as funds become available. The visitor center is located at the King Salmon airport and is run 

cooperatively with the National Park Service, Bristol Bay Borough, and Lake and Peninsula 

Borough. This outreach program, located in a leased building, will be expanded to provide 

outreach environmental education programs at off-refuge locations. 

The refuge manager has also identified the need for a subheadquarters for the Chignik Unit, but 

no suitable location for that facility has been evaluated. A needs assessment and evaluation of 

suitable sites will be completed within the next 15 years. 

10 
Present and Potential Requirements for Access as Provided for in Title XI 

The State of Alaska has identified four potential rights-of-way across the Refuges. Two of the 

corridors were identified in the draft 1984 Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and 

subsequent comprehensive conservation plans for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

One corridor connects Port Heiden with Kajulik Bay, the other one connects Pilot Point with 

Wide Bay. These corridors were originally identified as necessary to support oil and gas 

development off the Refuges. 

The State of Alaska “Southwest Alaska Area Transportation Plan: Alaska Peninsula Corridor” 

identifies two transportation corridors within the Refuges. One corridor connects Port Heiden 

with Chignik, and the second route links the Chignik villages with Perryville and Ivanof Bay. 

Appendix G in the final EIS discusses the four corridors and shows their general location. 

All four of these corridors fall within the Minimal Management category on the Refuges. Should 

an application for one of these transportation and utility corridors be filed, a separate NEPA 

compliance document and compatibility determination would have to be conducted. The 

Revised Conservation Plan would also have to be amended to remove the land from Minimal 

Management before any right-of-way permit could be issued. 

Significant Problems That May Adversely Affect the Populations and Habitats of 

Fish and Wildlife 

I am concerned that the Northern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd is below ADF&G population 

targets of 12,000 to 15,000 animals. The current low numbers appear to be within the range of 

natural variability but are below those needed to meet subsistence and recreation demand. The 

Refuges will continue coordinating with ADF&G on monitoring the caribou herd and habitat. 

No where in the world is the evidence of global climate change more evident than in the high 

latitudes. The effect increased temperatures is having on growing seasons, lake levels, 

precipitation, native plant and animal distributions, and introduction of nonnative species is not 

clear, but the long-term effects could be substantial. At the national and regional levels, the 

Service is coordinating efforts with the U.S. Geological Survey and others to look at strategies to 

understand and manage for the changes taking place. 

I am committed that the Refuges will cooperate with any larger efforts conducted to understand 

the ramifications of climate change. The management strategies outlined by this Revised 

Conservation Plan should put the Refuges in a good position to understand and react to changes 

that affect the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Refuges. 

Invasive species is another threat to native species and habitats that has worldwide implications. 

On the Alaska Peninsula, the potential for invasive species is much less than in more temperate 

and disturbed environments. However, invasive species are already on the peninsula, and the 

spread of established or new invasive species onto the Refuges is highly possible. In 

implementing this Plan, it is my intent that the Refuges staff will take aggressive action to 

prevent or remove invasive species from the Refuges. 

11 
ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Uses 

A subsistence use evaluation and determination is found in Section 4.9 of the final EIS. None of 

the alternatives contain actions that would reduce subsistence uses or change the availability of

resources by altering their distribution, migration, or location; or place any limitations on access 

to harvestable resources.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The ESA Section 7 consultation requirements were completed with the Ecological Services 

Division of the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Both agencies concluded that 

the Revised Conservation Plan is fully consistent with Section 7 of the ESA, and critical habitat 

for any endangered or threatened species would not likely be adversely affected by management 

under the Plan. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

The Revised Conservation Plan is fully consistent with the requirements of Section 307(c) of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the State of Alaska Coastal Management Program

state standards. It is also consistent with the enforceable policies of the Lake and Peninsula 

Borough Coastal Management Plan, the Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Program, 

and the Kodiak Island Coastal Management Program. 

Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act 

The types and level of activities covered by this plan are not anticipated to have any detrimental 

effect on state water-quality requirements or on state air-quality plans. Any actions that fall 

within this Revised Plan will be further analyzed at the project specific level to minimize or 

eliminate any potential water-quality or air-quality issues. Indeed, providing water quality and 

necessary water quantity is one of the purposes of the Refuges. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

Federal agencies are required to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income

populations. The communities associated with the Refuges are rural, contain many low-income

households, and rely on subsistence use of the natural resources. Chapter 4 in the final EIS 

contains a discussion of effects the Revised Conservation Plan could have on the local 

communities. It is my conclusion that the risk of disproportionate effects on minority or lowincome populations from implementing the Revised Conservation Plan is very low. 

Flood Plains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) 

These executive orders require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short-term and 

long-term effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of flood plains and the 

modification or destruction of wetlands. The management direction provided in this Plan does 

not envision any occupancy, modification, or destruction of wetlands by any of the actions 

undertaken to implement the Revised Conservation Plan. The Revised Conservation Plan’s 

intent is to fully protect these resources. 

12