U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

and

Environmental Impact Statement

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission Statement 

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

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

continuing benefit of the American people. 

Refuge Mission Statement 

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

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

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

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

generations of Americans. 

—National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

The comprehensive conservation plan details program planning levels that 

are substantially greater than current budget allocations and, as such, is for strategic 

planning and program prioritization purposes only. This plan does not constitute a 

commitment for staffing increases or funding for future refuge-specific land 

acquisitions, construction projects, or operational and maintenance increases. 

Photo credits: front cover—“Fox and Bear Go Walking,” © Heather Johnson, Kiak Arts & Images; back 

cover (eagle)—USFWS; (harlequin)—Denny Zwiefelhofer, USFWS; (brown bears)—Leslie Kerr, USFWS 
Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Kodiak 

 National Wildlife Refuge 

August 2006 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1390 Buskin River Road Region 7 

Kodiak, AK 99615 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-231 

 Anchorage, AK 99503 

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

 Regional Office, National Wildlife Refuge System-Alaska 

Division of Conservation Planning & Policy 

 1011 East Tudor Road 

 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

 (907) 786-3357

Dear Reader: 

The Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will 

guide management of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. This Plan outlines four 

management alternatives, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s preferred alternative, and presents 

the Service’s evaluation of the environmental consequences of each of those alternatives. 

To develop this final Plan, we analyzed and considered the comments received on the Draft Plan, which 

was released in October 2004. 

The Plan provides management direction for activities and uses of Kodiak Refuge, goals and objectives 

for refuge programs, and compatibility determinations for the current uses of the Refuge. The major 

change between the Draft Plan and this final Plan is that we modified the amount of refuge land proposed 

for reclassification to Minimal Management. Rather than only 12, 321 acres under Moderate 

Management, Alternative D (the Preferred Alternative) now includes 31, 521 acres under Moderate 

Management. We clarified the role of public use regulations under Alternatives B, C, and D if voluntary 

use guidelines are not effective; clarified the differences between current and proposed management 

related to introduction/reintroduction of fish and wildlife species; and added aquaculture support facilities 

to the list of possible uses of the Refuge (Tables 2-2 and 2-5). We have revised the language addressing 

Service jurisdiction over waters within the boundaries of Kodiak Refuge. 

We will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after release of this final Plan. The Record 

of Decision will present the rational for selecting the course of action that will be followed by the Refuge. 

Direct comments and requests for further information to: 

 Mikel R. Haase, Planning Team Leader 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-231 

 Anchorage, AK 99503 

 fw7_Kodiak_planning@fws.gov

 (907) 786-3402 

Request copies of the full document (on CD-ROM) or the Executive Summary (printed) through the same 

sources. You may also view the Plan online at http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/planning/plans.htm.

We thank everyone who participated in the planning and public involvement process. 

Your comments helped us prepare a better plan for the future of Kodiak Refuge. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan i 

Contents 

Lists of Tables and Figures.................................................................................................................... ix 

Abbreviations and Acronyms..............................................................................................................xiii

Glossary................................................................................................................................................xv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................S-1 

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................1-1 

1.2 Refuge Overview....................................................................................................................1-3 

1.2.1 Historical Perspective and Refuge Establishment.................................................1-3 

1.2.2 Purposes of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge......................................................1-5 

1.2.3 Refuge Environment .............................................................................................1-6 

1.2.4 Special Values of the Refuge................................................................................1-8 

 Kodiak Brown Bear ..............................................................................................1-8 

 Kodiak Refugium and Associated Glacial Lakes .................................................1-8 

 Ayakulik-Red, Karluk, Sturgeon, and Dog Salmon Drainages ............................1-9 

 Uganik Lake..........................................................................................................1-9 

 Three Saints Bay...................................................................................................1-9 

 Mount Glottof Research Natural Area..................................................................1-9 

 Afognak Island Sitka Spruce Forest ...................................................................1-10 

 Coastal Marine Habitats......................................................................................1-10 

1.3 Refuge Vision and Goals......................................................................................................1-10 

1.3.1 Refuge Vision Statement ....................................................................................1-10 

1.3.2 Refuge Goals.......................................................................................................1-11 

1.4 Legal and Policy Context and State Coordination ...............................................................1-12 

1.4.1 Legal Guidance ...................................................................................................1-12 

1.4.2 Policy Guidance ..................................................................................................1-13 

1.4.3 Coordination with the State of Alaska ................................................................1-13 

1.5 Planning Context ..................................................................................................................1-13 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife 

 Refuge System ....................................................................................................1-14 

 Fish & Wildlife Service and Refuge System Missions.......................................1-14 

 Principles for Managing the National Wildlife Refuge System..........................1-14 

 Ecosystem Approach to Refuge Management ....................................................1-15 

 International, National, and Regional Management Guidance ...........................1-15 

1.6 The Planning Process for Kodiak Refuge ............................................................................1-16 

1.6.1 Design the Planning Process (Preplanning) ........................................................1-16 

1.6.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping ............................................................1-17 

1.6.3 Determine Significant Planning Issues ...............................................................1-17 

1.6.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives .....................................................................1-18 

1.6.5 Prepare Draft Plan and Environmental Impact Statement ..................................1-19 

 Comments Received on the Draft Plan ...............................................................1-19 

1.6.6 Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement ..............1-19 

1.6.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate .............................................................1-19 

1.6.8 Review and Revise Plan......................................................................................1-20 

1.7 Significant Planning Issues ..................................................................................................1-20 
Contents 

ii Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

1.8 Changes from the Draft Kodiak Conservation Plan .............................................................1-26 

1.9 References Cited...................................................................................................................1-27 

2. Management Alternatives .............................................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Refuge Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Management Policies and Guidelines ..................................................................................2-33 

2.2.1 Management Emergencies ..................................................................................2-34 

2.2.2 Administrative Boundary Adjustments and Intra-Agency 

 Management Agreements ...................................................................................2-34 

2.2.3 Land Exchanges and Acquisitions ......................................................................2-39 

2.2.4 Land Conservation Planning...............................................................................2-39 

2.2.5 Compatibility Determinations.............................................................................2-39 

2.2.6 Mitigation............................................................................................................2-40 

2.2.7 Coastal Zone Consistency...................................................................................2-41 

2.2.8 Cooperation and Coordination with Others ........................................................2-42 

 Federal, State, and Local Government................................................................2-42 

 Tribes and Native American Organizations........................................................2-43 

 Owners of Refuge Inholdings and Adjacent Lands ............................................2-44 

 Service Jurisdiction over Waters within Kodiak Refuge ....................................2-44 

 Other Constituencies...........................................................................................2-45 

2.2.9 Ecosystem and Landscape Management.............................................................2-45 

Air Quality ..........................................................................................................2-45 

 Water Resources (Hydrology) Management.......................................................2-46 

 Visual Resource Management ............................................................................2-47 

 Cultural, Historic, and Paleontologic Resources ................................................2-47 

2.2.10 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management ..............................................................2-49 

 Habitat Management...........................................................................................2-49 

 Fire Management ................................................................................................2-50 

 Weed Control (Pest and Nonnative Plant Management) ....................................2-51 

2.2.11 Fish and Wildlife Population Management.........................................................2-52 

 Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan.............................................................2-52 

 Scientific Peer Review........................................................................................2-52 

 Compliance with the Animal Welfare Act..........................................................2-53 

 Marking and Banding .........................................................................................2-53 

 Threatened or Endangered Species.....................................................................2-53 

 Introductions and Reintroductions......................................................................2-53 

 Fish and Wildlife Control ...................................................................................2-54 

 Nonnative Species Management.........................................................................2-55 

 Fish, and Wildlife Pest Management and Disease Prevention and Control...... 2-55 

 Fishery Restoration .............................................................................................2-55 

 Fishery Enhancement........................................................................................ 2-56 

2.2.12 Subsistence Use Management.............................................................................2-56 

 Access for Subsistence Purposes ........................................................................2-57 

 Section 810 Evaluations......................................................................................2-58 

2.2.13 Public Access and Transportation Management .................................................2-58 

 Snowmachines, Motorboats, Airplanes, and Nonmotorized Surface 

 Transportation.....................................................................................................2-58 

 Off-Road Vehicles ..............................................................................................2-58 

 Helicopters ..........................................................................................................2-58 

 Access to Inholdings...........................................................................................2-59 

 Temporary Access ..............................................................................................2-59 

 Subsistence Access .............................................................................................2-59 
Contents 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii 

 Transportation and Utility Systems ....................................................................2-59 

 State Transportation Planning.............................................................................2-60 

 RS 2477 Rights-of-Way......................................................................................2-60 

 Section 17(b) Easements.....................................................................................2-61 

 Navigation Aids and Other Facilities..................................................................2-61 

2.2.14 Recreation and Other Public Use ........................................................................2-62 

2.2.15 Outreach..............................................................................................................2-63 

 Other Outreach Activities ...................................................................................2-63 

2.2.16 Recreation Facilities............................................................................................2-63 

 Cabins .................................................................................................................2-64 

 Temporary Facilities ...........................................................................................2-64 

2.2.17 Commercial Use Management............................................................................2-65 

 Mineral Exploration and Development...............................................................2-65 

 Commercial Recreation Services........................................................................2-67 

 Commercial Fishing and Related Facilities ........................................................2-68 

 Commercial Harvest of Timber and Firewood ...................................................2-68 

 Commercial Gathering of Other Resources........................................................2-68 

 Commercial Filming and Recording Activities ..................................................2-68 

 Other Commercial Uses......................................................................................2-69 

2.2.18 Environmental Contaminants Identification and Cleanup ..................................2-69 

2.2.19 Administration of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge..........................................2-70 

 Administrative Sites and Visitor Facilities .........................................................2-70 

 Refuge Management Plans .................................................................................2-71 

2.3 Management Categories .......................................................................................................2-72 

2.3.1 Moderate Management .......................................................................................2-72 

2.3.2 Minimal Management.........................................................................................2-73 

2.3.3 Special Management...........................................................................................2-73 

2.3.4 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Section 22(g) Lands ...............................2-74 

2.3.5 Activities, Uses, and Facilities by Management Category .................................2-74 

 Key for Table 2-2 Activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities 

 by management category ....................................................................................2-74 

2.4 Process Used to Develop Alternatives .................................................................................2-85 

2.5 Alternatives and Actions Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ........................2-87 

2.6 Elements Common to All Alternatives.................................................................................2-89 

2.6.1 The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan .................2-90 

2.6.2 Master Agreement for Protection of Certain Lands and Resources 

 Between Koniag, Inc., the United States of America, and the State 

 of Alaska (Koniag, Inc. Large Parcel Acquisition, Phase 2)...............................2-91 

2.7 Alternative A—Current Management ..................................................................................2-93 

2.7.1 General Management Direction..........................................................................2-93 

 Management Categories......................................................................................2-93 

 Activities, Public Uses, Commercial Uses, and Facilities 

 by Management Category...................................................................................2-94 

2.7.2 Management Direction by Program....................................................................2-97 

 Fish and Wildlife Management...........................................................................2-97 

 Public Use Management: Access........................................................................2-97 

 Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge................................2-102 

 Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge....................................2-103 

 Staffing and Budget Needs ..............................................................................2-104 

2.8 Alternative B ......................................................................................................................2-105 

2.8.1 General Management Direction........................................................................2-105 
Contents 

iv Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

 Management Categories....................................................................................2-105 

2.8.2 Management Direction by Program..................................................................2-107 

 Fish and Wildlife Management.........................................................................2-107 

 Public Use Management: Access......................................................................2-107 

 Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge................................2-108 

 Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge....................................2-110 

 Staffing and Budget Needs ...............................................................................2-111 

2.9 Alternative C ......................................................................................................................2-113 

2.9.1 General Management Direction........................................................................2-113 

 Management Categories....................................................................................2-113 

2.9.2 Management Direction by Program..................................................................2-115 

 Fish and Wildlife Management.........................................................................2-115 

 Public Use Management: Access......................................................................2-115 

 Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge................................2-116 

 Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge....................................2-117 

 Staffing and Budget Needs ...............................................................................2-118 

2.10 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) ...........................................................................2-120 

2.10.1 General Management Direction........................................................................2-120 

 Management Categories....................................................................................2-120 

2.10.2 Management Direction by Program..................................................................2-121 

 Fish and Wildlife Management.........................................................................2-121 

 Public Use Management: Access......................................................................2-123 

 Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge................................2-124 

 Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge....................................2-126 

 Staffing and Budget Needs ...............................................................................2-127 

2.11 Summary Comparison of the Alternatives.....................................................................2-128 

2.12 References Cited ............................................................................................................2-133 

3. Affected Environment...................................................................................................................3-1 

3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Setting........................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Land Status............................................................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Acquisitions and Exchanges .................................................................................3-5 

3.1.3 Environmental Contaminants................................................................................3-9 

3.1.4 Ecosystems..........................................................................................................3-10 

 Alaska Ecosystems .....................................................................................................................3-11 

3.1.5 Physical Environment .........................................................................................3-11 

3.1.6 Climate................................................................................................................3-12 

3.1.7 Landforms...........................................................................................................3-12 

3.1.8 Geology...............................................................................................................3-13 

3.1.9 Soils ....................................................................................................................3-14 

3.1.10 Oil and Gas Occurrences and Potential...............................................................3-14 

3.1.11 Minerals ..............................................................................................................3-15 

3.1.12 Water Resources .................................................................................................3-15 

 Unique Refuge-Specific Water Resources..........................................................3-18 

3.2 Biological Environment .......................................................................................................3-19 

3.2.1 Vegetation...........................................................................................................3-19

3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................................3-29 

 Fish......................................................................................................................3-30 

 Birds....................................................................................................................3-34

 Native Land Mammals........................................................................................3-37 

 Nonnative Land Mammals..................................................................................3-43 

 Marine Mammals................................................................................................3-47 
Contents 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan v 

 Threatened and Endangered Species—Plants and Animals................................3-48 

3.2.3 Concerns Regarding Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitats ......................3-48 

 Bear Concentration Areas...................................................................................3-49 

 Bear Viewing ......................................................................................................3-51 

 Effects of Introduced Species on Kodiak Refuge Habitats.................................3-53 

 Expansion of Introduced Elk to Kodiak Island...................................................3-54 

 Invasive Plants and Invertebrates........................................................................3-55 

 Coastal Resource Management...........................................................................3-55 

 Sea Otters............................................................................................................3-56 

 Karluk Habitat Protection Agreement.................................................................3-57 

3.3 Human Environment ............................................................................................................3-57 

3.3.1 History.................................................................................................................3-57 

3.3.2 Transportation and Access..................................................................................3-60 

3.3.3 Local Government and Institutions.....................................................................3-61 

3.3.4 Local Population and Economy ..........................................................................3-62 

 Population ...........................................................................................................3-62 

 Economy .............................................................................................................3-69 

 Employment and Income ....................................................................................3-74 

 Economic Significance of the Refuge.................................................................3-75 

3.3.5 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................3-77 

3.3.6 Subsistence..........................................................................................................3-79

3.3.7 Recreation Opportunities on Kodiak Refuge ......................................................3-83 

 Public Use Cabins...............................................................................................3-85 

 Karluk Habitat Protection Agreement.................................................................3-86 

 Hunting ...............................................................................................................3-88 

 Fishing ................................................................................................................3-91 

 Wildlife Viewing ................................................................................................3-96 

 Interpretation and Environmental Education ......................................................3-98 

 Trends in Recreation Uses ................................................................................3-100 

3.4 Wilderness Values..............................................................................................................3-101 

3.4.1 Ayakulik-Uyak Unit..........................................................................................3-103 

 Size....................................................................................................................3-103

 Naturalness and Wildness.................................................................................3-103 

 Opportunities for Primitive Recreation.............................................................3-104 

3.4.2 Zachar-Uganik Unit ..........................................................................................3-104 

 Size....................................................................................................................3-104

 Naturalness and Wildness.................................................................................3-104 

 Opportunities for Primitive Recreation.............................................................3-106 

3.4.3 Spiridon Peninsula-Uganik Island Unit ............................................................3-106 

 Size....................................................................................................................3-106

 Naturalness and Wildness.................................................................................3-106 

 Opportunities for Primitive Recreation.............................................................3-106 

3.4.4 Red Peaks–Ban Island Unit...............................................................................3-107 

 Size....................................................................................................................3-107

 Naturalness and Wildness.................................................................................3-107 

 Opportunities for Primitive Recreation.............................................................3-107 

3.4.5 Existing Wilderness Recommendation .............................................................3-107 

3.5 River Values.......................................................................................................................3-108 

3.5.1 Ayakulik River..................................................................................................3-108 

 Topography and Geology..................................................................................3-108 

 Fish and Wildlife Populations...........................................................................3-108 
Contents 

vi Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

 Recreation Opportunities ................................................................................. 3-110 

 Cultural History ................................................................................................3-110 

3.5.2 Spiridon River...................................................................................................3-110 

 Topography and Geology..................................................................................3-110 

 Fish and Wildlife Populations...........................................................................3-110 

 Recreation Opportunities ..................................................................................3-111 

 Cultural History ................................................................................................3-111 

3.5.3 Uganik River.....................................................................................................3-111 

 Topography and Geology .................................................................................3-111 

 Fish and Wildlife Populations...........................................................................3-111 

 Cultural History ................................................................................................3-112 

3.6 Refuge Infrastructure and Administration..........................................................................3-112 

3.6.1 Administrative Facilities...................................................................................3-112 

3.6.2 Refuge Staffing .................................................................................................3-113 

3.7 References Cited.................................................................................................................3-115 

4. Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................4-1 

4.1 Analyses .................................................................................................................................4-2 

4.1.1 Physical Environment ...........................................................................................4-2 

 Aquatic Habitats....................................................................................................4-2 

4.1.2 Biological Environment ........................................................................................4-2 

 Vegetation.............................................................................................................4-2 

 Fish Populations....................................................................................................4-4 

 Bird Populations ...................................................................................................4-4 

 Brown Bear Populations .......................................................................................4-6 

Nonnative Mammal Populations (Sitka Black-Tailed Deer, Roosevelt Elk, 

and Mountain Goat) ............................................................................................4-16 

 Marine Mammal Populations..............................................................................4-17 

4.1.3 Human Environment...........................................................................................4-18 

 Local Population and Economy ..........................................................................4-18 

 Subsistence..........................................................................................................4-21 

 Guides and other Commercial Service Providers ...............................................4-23 

 Bear Hunting.......................................................................................................4-26 

 Deer Hunting.......................................................................................................4-29 

 Recreational Fishing ...........................................................................................4-31 

 Wildlife-Viewing Opportunities .........................................................................4-34 

 Wilderness Values ..............................................................................................4-36 

 River Values .......................................................................................................4-39 

4.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 

 Long-Term Productivity.......................................................................................................4-41 

4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................................................4-41 

4.4 Environmental Justice ..........................................................................................................4-42 

4.5 Section 810 Evaluation.........................................................................................................4-42 

4.6 Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects.................................................................4-43 

4.7 References Cited...................................................................................................................4-47 

5. Evaluation of the Alternatives ......................................................................................................5-1 

5.1 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................5-1 

5.2 Response to Refuge Purposes.................................................................................................5-1 

5.3 Response to National Wildlife Refuge System Mission ........................................................5-2 

5.4 Response to Refuge Goals......................................................................................................5-2 

5.5 Response to Issues..................................................................................................................5-2 

5.5.1 Management of Public Use...................................................................................5-3 
Contents 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan vii 

 Management of Camping Areas ...................................................................................................5-3 

 Public Use Cabins.........................................................................................................................5-4 

5.5.2 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas ...............................................................5-4 

5.5.3 Management of O’Malley River ...........................................................................5-5 

5.6 Biological Integrity and Ecosystem Management..................................................................5-5 

5.7 Agreement with ADF&G Management Plans........................................................................5-6 

5.8 References Cited.....................................................................................................................5-6 

6. Implementation and Monitoring ...................................................................................................6-1 

6.1 Step-Down Plans ....................................................................................................................6-1 

6.2 Partnership Opportunities.......................................................................................................6-3 

6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation.....................................................................................................6-6 

6.4 Plan Amendment and Revision ..............................................................................................6-6 

7. Consultation and Coordination with Others..................................................................................7-1 

7.1 Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program.................................................7-1 

7.1.1 Alaska Coastal Management Program Policies (Condensed)...............................7-1 

 Coastal Development (6 AAC 80.040).................................................................7-2 

 Recreation (6 AAC 80.060) ..................................................................................7-2 

 Subsistence (6 AAC 80.120).................................................................................7-2 

 Habitats (6 AAC 80.130) ......................................................................................7-2 

 Air, Land, and Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140) ....................................................7-2 

7.1.2 Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program........................................7-2 

 Industrial Development.........................................................................................7-3 

 Commercial Development ....................................................................................7-3 

 Residential Development......................................................................................7-3 

 Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Setting.............................................................7-4 

 Energy Facilities ...................................................................................................7-4 

 Transportation and Utility Routes.........................................................................7-4 

 Fisheries and Seafood Processing.........................................................................7-4 

 Timber and Timber Processing.............................................................................7-5 

 Agriculture............................................................................................................7-5 

 Mining and Mineral Processing ............................................................................7-5 

 Subsistence............................................................................................................7-5 

 Geophysical Hazards ............................................................................................7-5 

 Coastal Access ......................................................................................................7-6 

 Resource Enhancement and Protection.................................................................7-6 

 Air and Water Quality...........................................................................................7-6 

 Archaeological and Historical Resources .............................................................7-6 

7.2 Section 7 Compliance (Endangered Species Act) ..................................................................7-7 

7.3 References Cited.....................................................................................................................7-7 

Appendix A: Legal and Planning Coordination ................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska ......................................................................... B-1 

Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan 

 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ C-1 

Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake 

 Hydroelectric Project ...................................................................................................................D-1 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations...................................................................................... E-1 

 Use: Commercial Fishing ............................................................................................................ E-1 

 Use: Commercially Guided and Outfitted Hunting Services....................................................... E-7 

 Use: Commercially Guided Recreational Fishing Services....................................................... E-17 

 Use: Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, 
Contents 

viii Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

 Environmental Education, and Interpretation...................................................................... E-27 

 Use: Commercial Transporter Services ..................................................................................... E-37

 Use: Fisheries Projects at Frazer Fish Pass, Hidden Lake, and Spiridon Lake.......................... E-45 

 Use: Helicopter Use to Support Authorized Activities by Other Federal, Tribal, 

 State, and Local Governments and for Maintenance of One Private 

 Radio Repeater Site............................................................................................................. E-49 

 Use: Limited Military Training Activities ................................................................................. E-55

 Use: Unguided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, 

 and Interpretation ................................................................................................................ E-61 

 Use: O’Malley River Bear-Viewing Program ........................................................................... E-67 

 Use: Other Public Uses .............................................................................................................. E-77 

 Use: Private Cabin and Temporary Camp Special Use Permits ................................................ E-81 

 Use: Public Use Cabins.............................................................................................................. E-87 

 Use: Reburial of Archaeological Human Remains per State and Federal Guidelines ............... E-91 

 Use: Recreational Fishing.......................................................................................................... E-97 

 Use: Recreational Hunting....................................................................................................... E-103 

 Use: Residence Permit ............................................................................................................. E-109 

 Use: Scientific Research .......................................................................................................... E-113 

 Use: Snowmachines (Snowmobiles)........................................................................................ E-119 

 Use: State of Alaska Management Activities .......................................................................... E-123 

 Use: Subsistence Activities...................................................................................................... E-127 

 Use: Trapping .......................................................................................................................... E-131 

Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way within the Kodiak 

 National Wildlife Refuge..............................................................................................................F-1 

Appendix G: Species Lists ................................................................................................................G-1 

Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge .........................H-1 

Appendix I: Preparers..........................................................................................................................I-1 

Appendix J: Mailing List.................................................................................................................... J-1 

Appendix K: Response to Comments................................................................................................K-1 
Tables and Figures 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan ix 

Tables 

Table S-1 Comparison of the alternatives.............................................................................. S-14

Table S-2 Comparison of impacts by alternative................................................................... S-16

Table 1-1 Issues raised during scoping...................................................................................1-22

Table 2-1 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge lands near Kodiak 

Refuge, February 19, 2003.....................................................................................2-35

Table 2-2 Activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities 

by management category........................................................................................2-76

Table 2-3 Management category designations in Alternative A ............................................2-94

Table 2-4 Differences between Minimal Management and Special River Management .......2-96

Table 2-5 Comparison of activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities by 

management category—current management from the 1987 

Comprehensive Plan (Alternative A) with management proposed in the 

draft revised Conservation Plan (Alternatives B, C, and D) ..................................2-98

Table 2-6 Staffing and budget needs for Alternative A........................................................2-104

Table 2-7 Management category designations in Alternative B...........................................2-107

Table 2-8 Additional staffing and budget needs for Alternative B.......................................2-112

Table 2-9 Management category designations in Alternative C...........................................2-115

Table 2-10 Additional staffing and budget needs for Alternative C.......................................2-119

Table 2-11 Management category designations in Alternative D ..........................................2-121

Table 2-12 Additional budget and staffing needs for Alternative D ......................................2-127

Table 2-13 Comparison of the alternatives.............................................................................2-129

Table 2-14 Comparison of impacts by alternative..................................................................2-131

Table 3-1 Land status within Kodiak Refuge ...........................................................................3-2

Table 3-2 ANCSA Native corporations and village relationships............................................3-5

Table 3-3 Summary of land-acquisition program on Kodiak Refuge.......................................3-6

Table 3-4 Summary of easements acquired by the Service on Kodiak Refuge........................3-6

Table 3-5 Existing stream-discharge data on or near Kodiak Refuge ....................................3-17

Table 3-6 Kodiak Archipelago vegetation communities ........................................................3-20

Table 3-7 Fire History on Kodiak Refuge, 1984-2002...........................................................3-29

Table 3-8 General information on fish species of Kodiak Refuge .........................................3-31

Table 3-9 Summary of documented level and sources of brown bear mortality 

averaged by time period, Kodiak Archipelago, July 1, 1960–June 30, 2003.........3-41

Table 3-10 History of mammal species introduction to Kodiak Archipelago ..........................3-44

Table 3-11 Population characteristics, Kodiak Island Borough ...............................................3-65
Tables and Figures 

x Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

Table 3-12 Commercial fishery landings and dollar value at Kodiak ......................................3-70

Table 3-13 Kodiak state water Pacific cod fishery results........................................................3-71

Table 3-14 Salmon harvest permits issued, permits fished, and ex-vessel value in 

millions of dollars...................................................................................................3-72

Table 3-15 Kodiak Island Borough annual average monthly employment by 

industry, 1990–2001 .......................................................................................3-76

Table 3-16 Employment and payroll attributable to on site and refuge-dependent 

activities .................................................................................................................3-78

Table 3-17 Estimated annual amount of wild food harvest by community..............................3-82

Table 3-18 Wild food harvests per individual for all Kodiak Island communities 

by resource .............................................................................................................3-83

Table 3-19 Nutritional contribution of annual subsistence food harvests by community ........3-83

Table 3-20 Recreation use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 .............................................3-84

Table 3-21 Total use-days by year at Kodiak Refuge public use cabins ..................................3-85

Table 3-22 Deer hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003..........................................3-90

Table 3-23 Bear hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 ..........................................3-90

Table 3-24 Goat hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003..........................................3-91

Table 3-25 Drainages within the boundary of Kodiak Refuge having good-to-fair 

access that attract recreational anglers ...................................................................3-92

Table 3-26 Recreational fishing use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003...............................3-94

Table 3-27 Wildlife viewing use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003....................................3-96

Table 3-28 Existing administrative facilities for Kodiak Refuge ...........................................3-114

Table 3-29 Additional facilities needed to support current refuge programs .........................3-115

Table 4-1 Summary comparison of effects of implementing the alternatives ........................4-44

Table5-1 Evaluation of alternatives based on significant issues .............................................5-3

Table 6-1 Monitoring indicators, standards, and possible actions for wildlife, fisheries, 

and habitat ................................................................................................................6-7

Table 6-2 Monitoring indicators, standards, and possible actions for public use 

activities .................................................................................................................6-10
Tables and Figures 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xi 

Figures 

Figure S-1 Figure S-1 Alaska national wildlife refuges and Kodiak Refuge 

location map ............................................................................................................ S-1

Figure 1-1 Alaska national wildlife refuges and Kodiak Refuge location map .........................1-2

Figure 2-1 Alaska Maritime NWR lands .................................................................................2-37

Figure 2-2 Alternative A—Current Management ....................................................................2-95

Figure 2-3 O’Malley River seasonal closure .........................................................................2-101

Figure 2-4 Alternative B ........................................................................................................2-106

Figure 2-5 Alternative C ........................................................................................................2-114

Figure 2-6 Alternative D—Preferred Alternative ..................................................................2-122

Figure 3-1 Generalized land status—Kodiak Refuge ................................................................3-3

Figure 3-2 Overview of land-acquisition program—Kodiak Refuge ........................................3-7

Figure 3-3 Distribution of vegetation communities on the Kodiak Archipelago.....................3-25

Figure 3-4 Percentage cover of terrestrial and fresh water vegetation types within 

Kodiak Refuge and the Kodiak Archipelago..........................................................3-28

Figure 3-5 Average monthly occupancy of freshwater and saltwater cabins, 1999-2003 .......3-86

Figure 3-6 Public use cabins and administrative facilities on Kodiak Refuge.........................3-87

Figure 3-7 Average monthly occupancy of high-use cabins (South Frazer and Uganik Lake) 

compared to average occupancy for all cabins, 1999–2003...................................3-88

Figure 3-8 Wilderness review units (1987 Conservation Plan) and rivers with 

exceptional values ................................................................................................3-105

Figure 3-9 Existing Wilderness recommendation..................................................................3-109

Figure F-1 17(b) easements and proposed RS-2477 routes on Kodiak Refuge ........................ F-2

Figure H-1 Overview of acquisition program in Akhiok-Kaguyak area ...................................H-2

Figure H-2 Overview of acquisition program in the Old Harbor area.......................................H-6

Figure H-3 Overview of acquisition program in Koniag, Inc., area ..........................................H-9

Figure H-4 Overview of acquisition program with Afognak Joint Venture ............................H-12
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xiii 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

AEIS Alaska Economic Information System 

AKI Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANHA Alaska Natural History Association 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

BLM/AFS Bureau of Land Management/Alaska Fire Service 

CAC Citizens Advisory Committee (for the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation 

and Management Plan) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs/mi2

 cubic feet per second per square mile 

DCED Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development 

DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO executive order 

EVOS Exxon Valdez oil spill 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GMU game management unit 

ISER Institute for Social and Economic Research (University of Alaska) 

KEA Kodiak Electric Association 

KMA Kodiak [Fishery] Management Area 

KRAA Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 

KUBS Kodiak Unified Bear Subcommittee 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

OHNC Old Harbor Native Corporation 

ORV off-road vehicle 

PLO public land order 

RAWS remote automated weather stations 

RIT refuge information technician 

RNA research natural area 

ROD record of decision 

RONS Refuge Operational Needs System 

Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

System National Wildlife Refuge System 

Trustee Council Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xv 

Glossary 

air taxi operator or air transporter A person who transports people, equipment, supplies, harvested 

fish and wildlife products, or other personal property by means of 

aircraft for compensation or with the intent or agreement to receive 

compensation; a transporter who provides commercial transportation 

services by means of aircraft. Must have a special use permit to 

operate on a refuge. 

allowed Activity, use, or facility is allowed under existing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, a specific compatibility 

determination, and compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations of the Service, other federal agencies and the State of 

Alaska. 

not allowed Activity, use, or facility is not allowed. 

alternatives Different ways to resolve issues, achieve refuge purposes, meet 

refuge goals, and contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Alternatives provide different options to respond to 

major issues identified during the planning process. 

No-Action Alternative In the context of a comprehensive conservation plan, this is the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from 

the current comprehensive conservation plan would be implemented. 

Preferred Alternative A proposed action in the NEPA document for the comprehensive 

conservation plan identifying the alternative that the Service believes 

best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill 

the Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; addresses the significant issues and mandates; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

angler Any person who participates in recreational fishing. 

angler hour One person fishing for one hour with recreational fishing gear (e.g., 

rod and reel). 

archaeological resource Any material remains of past human life or activities that are of 

archaeological interest. Materials that are capable of providing 

understanding of past human behavior, cultural adaptation, and 

related topics through the application of scholarly or scientific 

techniques. 

authorized Activity, use, or facility allowed upon issuance of a special use 

permit or other authorization. 

big-game guide See guide; a person who is licensed by the State of Alaska to provide 

services, equipment, or facilities to a big-game hunter in the field. A 

big-game guide accompanies or is present with, personally or through 

an assistant, the hunter in the field. Must have a special use permit to 

operate on a refuge. 
Glossary 

xvi Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

big-game outfitter See outfitter; provides said services to a big-game hunter in the field. 

Neither accompanies nor is present with the hunter in the field. Must 

have a special use permit to operate on a refuge. 

biological diversity The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the 

genetic differences among them, and the communities in which they 

occur (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

biological integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, 

organism, and community levels consistent with natural conditions, 

including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, 

organisms, and communities (USFWS, 602 FW 1.6). 

categorical exclusion 

(CE, CX, CATEX, CATX) A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

commercial recreational uses Recreational uses of lands, waters, and resources for business or 

financial gain; includes guided recreational fishing, guided 

recreational hunting, other guided recreation, and air taxi services. 

commercial visitor service Any service or activity made available for a fee, commission, 

brokerage, or other compensation to persons who visit a refuge, 

including such services as providing food, accommodations, 

transportation, tours, and guides. 

compatible use A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 

603 FW 2.6). 

compatibility determination A written determination signed and dated by the refuge manager and 

the Service regional chief signifying that a proposed or existing use 

of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible 

use. The director of the Service makes this delegation through the 

regional director (Service Manual 603 FW 2.6). 

comprehensive 

conservation plan A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; to help fulfill the 

mission of the Refuge System; to maintain and, where appropriate, 

restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; 

to help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System; and to meet other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

consumptive use Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge 

(e.g., killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting 

berries or plants, or removal of mineral or other specimens). 

cultural resources Fragile, nonrenewable properties, including any district, site, 

building, structure, or object significant in American history, 

architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. These resources 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xvii 

are significant for information they contain or the associations they 

have with past people, events, or life ways (USFWS 1992). 

ecological integrity The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, 

and environmental health; the replication of natural conditions 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

ecosystem A biological community functioning together with its environment as 

a unit. 

ecotourism Travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains 

the well-being of local people. 

effects (wildlife and habitat)

long-term effects Effects occurring after or lasting longer than five years after 

implementation of the action. 

major effects Affecting a regional or local population of a species, or its habitat, 

sufficiently to cause a change in abundance or a change in 

distribution beyond which natural recruitment is not likely to 

return the population to its former abundance within several 

generations. 

minor effects Affecting the survival, reproduction, distribution, or behavior of a 

specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for 

one generation or less without affecting the regional population. 

Habitat composition and structure remain unchanged; habitat 

quality, however, may be affected by indirect actions (e.g., 

disturbance or displacement affecting a specific group of 

individuals that may result in altered use of an area). 

moderate effects Affecting a local population, or habitat quality and composition in 

a localized area, sufficiently to cause a change in abundance or 

distribution for more than one generation, but unlikely to affect 

the integrity of the regional population over the long term. 

negligible effects Temporary effects that do not result in a change in the survival, 

reproduction, distribution, or behavior of individuals. The ability 

of the habitat to support populations would remain unchanged 

(e.g., temporary disturbance of a specific group of individuals that 

does not result in a change in use of an area). 

short-term effects Effects are anticipated to occur within five years from 

implementation of the action. 

environmental assessment A concise public document that provides a sufficient analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact. It also aids 

an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

environmental health Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic 

processes that shape the environment (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 
Glossary 

xviii Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

environmental impact 

statement A detailed written statement, required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), analyzing the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the 

project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, shortterm uses of the environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

escapement The number of adult fish returning to a stream that escape mortality 

from harvest and natural attrition and comprise a spawning 

population. 

field An area outside of established year-round dwellings, businesses, or 

other development usually associated with a city, town, or village; 

does not include permanent hotels or roadhouses on the state road 

system or state or federally maintained airports. Has the same 

meaning as used by the State of Alaska defined in Alaska Statute 

8.54.790. 

fishery enhancement The process of establishing a fish population of stock at levels above 

those that would exist solely from utilizing the available habitat; 

introducing a species that is not native to a river or drainage. 

fishery restoration Any management action that increases fishery resources to allow full 

use of available habitat or to reach a population level based on 

historical biological data. Although the goal of restoration is selfsustaining populations, situations may exist in which some form of 

fishery management or facilities could continue indefinitely. 

fishing guide See guide; provides said services to an angler engaged in fishing. 

floating facilities Floathomes, floatcamps, floating lodges, floating caretaker facilities 

(including mariculture), floating recreation facilities, and other 

floating residential or commercial facilities located on shorelands, 

tidelands, or submerged lands. 

goal A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys purposes but does not define 

measurable units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

guide A person who provides—for compensation or with the intent or 

agreement to receive compensation—assistance, services, equipment 

or facilities to a person engaged in any outdoor recreational activity 

and accompanies or is present with the visitor, either personally or 

through an assistant, during any portion of their trip. Has the same 

meaning as used by the State of Alaska as defined in Alaska Statute 

8.54.790. Must have a special use permit to operate on a refuge. 

habitat The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its 

survival and reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. 

Food and cover are major components of habitat and must extend 

beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population. 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xix 

haul-out A beach or other terrestrial coastal location used by marine mammals 

on a regular basis. 

helicopter use for 

recreation access Use of helicopters for other than official government management 

activities, search and rescue, or other authorized activities. 

human food-conditioning A behavior learned when an animal receives food, fish, or garbage 

from people. 

human habituation Decrease in natural responsiveness upon repeated exposure to a 

nonthreatening, human stimulus. 

hunting guide See guide; provides said services to a hunter in the field. 

issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a 

Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition) (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6). 

Kodiak Refugium The lowland area of the southwestern section of Kodiak Island is 

commonly referred to as the Kodiak Refugium, the only area of 

Kodiak Island that was not covered by glaciers during the Pleistocene 

Era, about 10,000 years ago. This area is considered unique to the 

Island, with vegetation similar to that found on the Arctic and Bering 

sea coasts. It is not known whether or not species endemic to the 

Island may be found there. 

land use permit An authorization issued by the State of Alaska for use of state land. 

Permits are issued by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Mining, Land, and Water. 

Leave No Trace Principles of outdoor recreation designed to minimize effects on the 

natural environment and other visitors. These principles are 

(1) plan ahead and prepare, (2) travel and camp on durable surfaces, 

(3) dispose of waste properly, (4) leave what you find, (5) minimize 

campfire impacts, (6) respect wildlife, and (7) be considerate of other 

visitors (http://www.lnt.org, accessed May 11, 2004). 

likelihood

low Effects are typically not expected, but could occur under unusual 

conditions. 

medium Effects are not expected to occur in the majority of instances. 

high Effects are anticipated to occur as a result of implementing the 

action. 

marine transporter See transporter; a vessel operator licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard 

who provides water transportation services for people. 

minimal requirements The concept of “minimum requirements”—the minimum action or 

instrument necessary to successfully, safely, and economically 

accomplish wilderness management objectives—applies to all 

activities, uses, and facilities allowed in designated Wilderness.
Glossary 

xx Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

national wildlife refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System; does not include 

coordination areas. Find a complete listing of all units of the Refuge 

System in the current Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2006). 

native species A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its 

natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the 

geographic area the species occupies naturally or would occupy in the 

absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). This definition recognizes that ecosystems and natural 

ranges are not static; they can and do evolve over time. Thus a 

species may naturally extend its range onto (or within) a refuge and 

still be considered native. 

navigable waters Under federal law, for the purpose of determining ownership of 

submerged lands beneath inland waterbodies not reserved at the date 

of statehood, navigable waters are waters used or susceptible to being 

used in their ordinary condition as highways of commerce over which 

trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of 

trade and travel on water. In situations where navigability and the 

ownership of submerged lands are disputed, the final authority for 

determining navigability rests with the federal courts. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all federal agencies to 

disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental 

decision-making (40 CFR 1500). The law also established the 

Council on Environmental Quality to implement the law and to 

monitor compliance with the law. 

nonconsumptive uses Recreation activities (e.g., hiking, photography, wildlife observation) 

that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other 

natural resources. 

noncommercial 

recreational uses Recreational uses of lands, waters, and resources not for business or 

financial gain, including recreational fishing and hunting, boating and 

floating, camping, hiking, photography, and sightseeing. 

nonnative species A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced 

by humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range 

or natural zone of potential dispersal. 

objective A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want 

to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide 

the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6). 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xxi 

ordinary high-water mark The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and 

indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line 

impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, 

destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, 

or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the 

surrounding area (33 CFR 328.3[e]). 

outfitter A person who provides—for compensation or with the intent or 

agreement to receive compensation—services, equipment or facilities 

to a person engaged in hunting, fishing, or any other outdoor 

recreational activity, but neither accompanies nor is present with the 

person in the field. Has the same meaning as used by the State of 

Alaska as defined in Alaska Statute 08.54.790. Must have a special 

use permit to operate on a refuge. 

permanent base camp A camp with permanent or semipermanent structures that serves as a 

base of operations for recreational fishing or hunting, research, or 

other uses. In general, permanent base camps are larger and provide 

more comfort and amenities than do temporary base camps. The 

facilities cannot be readily dismantled or moved and normally remain 

in place from year to year. 

primitive tent camps Portable camps, normally consisting of small tents, used by unguided 

and guided visitors. They usually remain in place when in use and 

then are disassembled and removed. 

proposed action The alternative that best achieves refuge purposes, vision and goals; 

helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains, and where 

appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of the refuge and the 

Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and mandates, and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

The proposed action is, for all practical purposes, the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge (Service Manual 

602 FW 3.4C). See also preferred alternative (under Alternatives). 

prospectus The document that the Service uses in soliciting competition to award 

permits for commercial visitor services on a refuge. 

public Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; Native organizations; and 

foreign nations. Public may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest 

in Service issues and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

public involvement A process that offers affected and interested individuals and 

organizations opportunities to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

public views are studied thoroughly and are thoughtfully considered 

in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public-use management 

plan (PUMP) A public-use management plan (also known as a visitor service plan) 

guides the management of public use on a refuge. Public use 

encompasses both recreation and subsistence uses and includes 
Glossary 

xxii Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

hunting, trapping, fishing, guiding, camping, photography, 

sightseeing, hiking, and wildlife viewing. A public use management 

plan summarizes how the public is involved in developing issues and 

alternatives and describes the alternatives developed to manage 

public use. 

purposes of the refuge The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding 

a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

quality recreation program A refuge quality recreation program promotes safety of participants, 

other visitors, and facilities; reliable and reasonable opportunities for 

the public to experience wildlife; refuge goals and objectives; 

resource stewardship and conservation; public understanding and 

increased public appreciation of America’s natural resources and the 

Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources; 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible 

behavior; accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the 

American people; facilities that blend into the natural setting; and the 

use of feedback from visitors to help define and evaluate programs 

(Service Manual 605 FW 1.6, in draft). 

record of decision (ROD) A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable 

for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

recreation guide A commercial operator who accompanies clients on the refuge for 

photography, sightseeing, or other activities not related to hunting or 

fishing, for either day or overnight trips. 

recreational fishing Taking or attempting to take for personal use, not for sale or barter, 

any fish by hook and line held in the hand or attached to a pole or rod 

that is held in the hand or is closely attended. 

recreational hunting Taking or attempting to take for personal use, not for sale or barter, a 

game animal (as defined by the regulatory agency) by any means 

allowed by the regulatory agency. 

recreational fishing or 

hunting guide A commercial operator who accompanies recreational fishing or 

hunting clients on the refuge for day or overnight trips. 

refuge information 

technician A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee who serves as a liaison 

between local communities and the Service. 

Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national database that 

contains a listing of the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xxiii 

We include projects required to implement approved plans and to 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

refugium An area of relatively unaltered climate that is inhabited by plants and 

animals during a period of continental climatic change (such as a 

glaciation) and remains as a center of relic forms from which a new 

dispersion and speciation may take place after climatic readjustment, 

such as the Kodiak Refugium. 

river classifications 

Wild Rivers Those 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 Rivers Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, 

with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

Recreational Rivers Those 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. 

salmon Any of the following five anadromous Pacific salmon species 

(Oncorhynchus sp.) native to Alaska: chinook or king (O. 

tschawtscha), sockeye or red (O. nerka), coho or silver (O. kisutch),

pink or humpy (O. gorbuscha), and chum or dog (O. keta). 

scoping An early and open process with the public for determining the scope 

of issues and the significant issues related to a proposed action (40 

CFR 1501.7). 

special use permit A U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service authorization required for all 

commercial uses of refuge lands and waters. 

sport fishing or hunting See “recreational fishing” or “recreational hunting.” 

step-down management plan A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting 

comprehensive conservation plan goals and objectives. 

subsistence uses The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, 

renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as 

food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making 

and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish 

and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for 

barter or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for 

customary trade (from Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act). 

temporary base camp Serves as a center of operations and overnight accommodations for 

guests and guides. A temporary base camp usually remains in place 

for the full season of use (90 to 120 days) but may be removed within 
Glossary 

xxiv Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 

48 hours. It generally consists of larger tents than do primitive camps 

and often has tent platforms or other rigid floors. A typical camp 

would include several large tents, a cook tent and a few smaller tents, 

showers, waste disposal, storage, etc. In some cases, smaller camps 

that include only four or five tents and related facilities are used for 

overnight visits of two to four days. The primary distinction between 

temporary base camps and primitive camps is the period of 

occupancy. The specific details of a temporary base camp located on 

refuge lands would be spelled out in the refuge special use permit. 

temporary tent platform A wooden floor used to support fabric tent. It is easy to assemble and 

disassemble, is used only for a short period of time, and is removed 

seasonally. It does not include supports that have been buried into the 

ground. The floor is typically leveled with rocks or boards. An 

example is a plywood floor used to support a “weatherport” tent. It is 

often referred to as a tent floor. 

tent platform A structure, usually made of manufactured wood products, 

constructed to provide a solid, level floor for a tent. Partial walls not 

exceeding three feet in height above the floor may be used. Only the 

tent fabric, the ridge pole, and its support structure may extend higher 

than three feet above the floor. 

transporter A person who transports people, equipment, supplies, harvested fish 

and wildlife products, or other personal property for compensation or 

with the intent or agreement to receive compensation. Must have a 

special use permit to operate on a refuge. Refuge transporter permits 

will authorize the specific modes of transportation used, i.e., aircraft, 

pack horses, boats, etc. 

unguided visitor A visitor who arranges, organizes, and conducts his or her own trip 

without the assistance of a guide. 

use day A period of one calendar day (24 hours), or portion thereof, for each 

entity using a resource. When employed as a measure of human use, 

it is called a visitor or visitor-use day. 

visitor-contact station A staffed or unstaffed facility where the public can learn about the 

refuge and its resources. 

vision statement A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning 

unit, based primarily on the System mission, specific refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

visitor day See “use day.” 

wilderness An area essentially undisturbed by human activity, together with its 

naturally developed life community. 

Wilderness A designated Wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and 

his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an 

area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by 

man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. A 

Wilderness area is further defined to mean, in this plan, an area of 

undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 
Glossary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan xxv 

which is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and 

which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 

acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired conditions; and (4) may also 

contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value (Wilderness Act 1964). 

Wilderness Area An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6). 

wilderness review The process we use to determine if we should recommend Refuge 

System lands and waters to Congress for Wilderness designation. 

wildlife-dependent 

recreation A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These 

are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, as established 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six 

priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. 

References Cited 

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics Web site: 

http://www.lnt.org. Accessed May 11, 2004. 

Service Manuals. Found at http://www.fws.gov/policy/ 

manuals

USFWS. 1992. “Cultural Resources Handbook.” Accessed June 4, 

2003. At http://www.policy.fws.gov/ 

614fw1.html on the World Wide Web, produced 

by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 2006. “Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2005.” 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Realty. 

PDF file at http://www.fws.gov/PDF_files/ 

2005%20Report.pdf 

U.S. Government. “Regulations for implementing the procedural 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR, 1500-1508). 

U.S. Government. 1964. “Wilderness Act.” At http://www. 

wilderness.net/nwps/legis/nwps_act.cfm

on the World Wide Web, produced by the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. (P.L 88-577, 78 

Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1 1 21 (note), 1 1 31-1136). 

Accessed September 12, 2003. 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-1 

1. Introduction 

This Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan 

or Plan) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge, Refuge) presents 

preferred management direction and three alternatives for Kodiak 

Refuge. The original conservation plan for Kodiak Refuge was 

adopted in 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established 

in 1941 and includes approximately 1.6 million acres of the Kodiak 

Archipelago (see Figure S-1). 

Figure S-1 Alaska national wildlife refuges and Kodiak Refuge location map 

1.1 Purpose and Need for 

Action 

The purpose of revising the Kodiak Conservation Plan is to ensure 

activities, actions, and management fulfill the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established and to provide clear direction to the public and 

managers on how we intend to meet those purposes. While the 

Conservation Plan has provided good general direction, changes in our 

understanding of the resources and uses on the Refuge, and changes in 

policies resulted in the plan being out of date. Following guidance in 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Executive Summary 

S-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Act of 1966, as amended, we are revising the Plan to provide direction 

for management of the Refuge for the next 15 years. 

In general, a comprehensive conservation plan serves to: 

 Ensure that the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System) are being fulfilled. 

 Ensure that national policy is incorporated into management of 

the Refuge. 

 Ensure that interested parties have the opportunity to participate 

in the development of management direction. 

 Provide a systematic process for making and documenting 

decisions about refuge resources. 

 Establish broad management direction for refuge programs and 

activities. 

 Provide continuity in refuge management. 

 Provide a basis for budget requests. 

 Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments. 

The Plan describes current management (Alternative A) and three 

“action alternatives” for managing the Refuge, including the 

Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative D). See Chapter 2 for 

details of the four management alternatives. The document includes 

a description of the existing environment on the Refuge (Chapter 3) 

and an assessment of the effects of implementing each of the 

alternatives (Chapter 4). Each alternative provides options to address 

issues identified during the planning process. 

1.2 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

1.2.1 Fish & Wildlife Service and Refuge System Missions 

The mission of the Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people 

(602 FW 1.6W). 

The mission of the Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and, where appropriate, 

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

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans [16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2)]. 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-3 

1.2.2 Principles for Managing the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, states that each 

refuge shall be managed to fulfill both the mission of the Refuge 

System and the purposes for which the individual refuge was 

established. It requires that any use of a refuge be a compatible use—

a use that will not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the 

refuge, based on sound professional judgment. 

2. Refuge Purposes, Vision, & 

Goals 

2.1 Refuge Purposes 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1941“. . . for the 

purpose of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the 

brown bears and other wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands, 

Alaska . . .” 

Under ANILCA, the purposes of Kodiak Refuge were further 

defined and expanded. Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge is established and shall be managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations (and) habitats 

in their natural diversity, including, but not limited to, 

Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the 

United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their 

habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes 

set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a 

manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph 

(i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the 

refuge.” 

2.2 Vision Statement 

Brown bear, fish, and other wildlife populations will continue to 

thrive on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge in their natural diversity, 

living in pristine habitats. Refuge management will blend public and 

private partners in a dynamic alliance that fulfills the purposes and 

goals of Kodiak Refuge. The Refuge will provide a lasting legacy of 

resource stewardship for the use and enjoyment of current and future 

generations. 
Executive Summary 

S-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.3 Refuge Goals 

The refuge vision statement and the refuge purposes provide the 

framework for developing goals and objectives for managing the 

Refuge. Goals are broad statements of desired future conditions, and 

reflect the contribution of the Refuge to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System as well as other key management responsibilities from law 

and policy. Objectives are concise statements of what the Refuge 

wants to accomplish. Objectives are found in section 2.1 (Chapter 2). 

The Conservation Plan must work toward meeting all of the goals 

and objectives. 

Goal 1: Increase our knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, 

their habitats, and their interrelationships. 

Goal 2: Ensure that Kodiak brown bears continue to flourish 

throughout the Refuge and congregate at traditional concentration 

areas. 

Goal 3: Manage nonnative species to minimize impacts on native 

resources, while continuing to provide opportunities for harvest. 

Goal 4: Continue to improve understanding and management of 

furbearing and nongame mammals that use Kodiak Refuge. 

Goal 5: Monitor populations of resident and migratory birds as 

indicators of ecosystem health. 

Goal 6: Maintain and restore native plant populations, communities, 

and habitats. 

Goal 7: Conserve the abundance of natural salmonid populations for 

continued human and wildlife use and to ensure the diversity of 

species as indicators of the health of the Refuge’s ecosystem. 

Goal 8: Provide the opportunity for local residents to continue their 

subsistence uses on the Refuge, consistent with the subsistence 

priority and with other refuge purposes. 

Goal 9: Improve baseline understanding of natural flowing waters on 

the Refuge and maintain the water quality and quantity necessary to 

conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural 

diversity. 

Goal 10: Provide opportunities for quality public use and enjoyment 

of refuge resources through compatible fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

and photography. 

Goal 11: Improve management of commercial use opportunities that 

are compatible with refuge purposes, provide quality public use 

opportunities, enhance visitor experiences, and ensure compliance 

with provisions of ANILCA. 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-5 

Goal 12: Provide outreach, environmental education, and 

interpretive programs that increase a sense of stewardship for 

wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment and that enhance 

visitor experiences on the Refuge. 

Goal 13: Conserve cultural and archaeological resources of the 

Refuge. 

Goal 14: Conserve special and unique features of the Kodiak 

Archipelago ecosystem within the Refuge. 

Goal 15: Promote close working relationships through effective 

coordination, interaction, and cooperation with other federal 

agencies, state agencies, local communities, tribes, organizations, 

industries, the general public, and the landowners within and 

adjacent to the Refuge whose programs affect or are affected by 

refuge management activities. 

3. Refuge Overview 

3.1 Refuge Establishment 

On August 19, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 

Executive Order 8857 establishing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, 

withdrawing nearly two million acres from unreserved public 

domain on Kodiak and Uganik islands. 

Interior Secretary Fred A. Seaton signed Public Land Order 1634 on 

May 9, 1958, revoking Executive Order 8857 in part. The 

Shearwater and Kupreanof peninsulas were removed from the 

Refuge and reclassified as unreserved public domain. The new 

refuge boundary, extending from Viekoda Bay along a mountainous 

ridge to the head of Kiliuda Bay, separated the Refuge from cattle 

grazing and other incompatible uses. The adjustment reduced the 

Refuge to about 1.8 million acres. 

As part of the settlement resulting from enactment of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA; 43 U.S.C. 1601–

1624), up to 345,600 acres of land within Kodiak Refuge were to be 

conveyed to Native village corporations. 

In 1980 ANILCA added about 50,000 acres of public lands on 

Afognak and Ban islands to the Refuge. Since 1994 nearly 280,000 

acres of valuable private wildlife habitat have been protected through 

direct purchase or donation of (1) fee title, (2) conservation 

easements, and (3) limited-development easements. Refuge 

boundaries currently encompass about 1.77 million acres; about 1.63 

millions acres are federal land. As funding becomes available, 

acquisition of valuable habitat from willing sellers continues. See 

section 1.1.1 (Chapter 1) and sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (Chapter 3) for 

more details. 
Executive Summary 

S-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3.2 Refuge Environment 

Kodiak Refuge encompasses nearly 1.8 million acres within its 

boundaries—the southwestern two-thirds of Kodiak Island, all of 

Uganik Island, and about 54,000 acres on Afognak and Ban islands. 

The islands, part of the Kodiak Archipelago, lie at the western edge 

of the Gulf of Alaska in southwestern Alaska. Kodiak Island has a 

rugged, irregular 930-mile coastline consisting of bays, inlets, and 

mountains. Spruce forests dominate Afognak Island. The 

mountainous interior of Kodiak Island, with several peaks over 4,000 

feet, is covered by lush, dense vegetation during the summer, with 

alpine plants on the highest slopes. The southwestern portion of the 

island is covered with tundra plants and grassy hummocks. Access to 

the Refuge is primarily by float plane and boat. 

Kodiak Refuge is characterized by a large range of habitats within a 

relatively small geographic area. Because of this, the Refuge 

supports some of the highest densities of brown bears, nesting bald 

eagles, and spawning salmon found anywhere in North America. The 

Refuge has an estimated population of 2,200 bears; an estimated 

2,890 bears inhabit the entire Kodiak Archipelago. The current bear 

population on the Archipelago supports an annual harvest of about 

160 bears. Bear viewing and photography are increasing in 

popularity, particularly over the past 10 to 15 years. 

Only five other mammals—red fox, river otter, short-tailed weasel, 

little brown bat, and tundra vole—are native to Kodiak Island. 

Several other species—including Sitka black-tailed deer, Roosevelt 

elk (introduced only on Afognak Island), snowshoe hare, beaver, 

mountain goat, and reindeer—have been introduced onto the 

Archipelago. Deer are the most popular quarry of recreational and 

subsistence hunters. Hunting of Roosevelt elk, small game, 

waterfowl, and upland game birds also occurs on the Refuge. 

Eleven large lakes and many rivers are major spawning grounds for 

five species of Pacific salmon which support subsistence users, 

recreational anglers, and the Kodiak commercial salmon fishery. 

Other fish species, including rainbow and steelhead trout, Dolly 

Varden, and Arctic char, are also found in refuge waters. 

More than 240 species of birds have been recorded in the Kodiak 

Archipelago. Bald eagles, with an estimated population of 2,250 

(including more than 500 nesting pairs), upwards of 2 million 

seabirds, and more than 150,000 ducks and geese are found on the 

Refuge and along its shoreline. 

Visitors participate in other recreation activities, including hiking, 

trapping, berry picking, beachcombing, sightseeing, and 

photography. These are often secondary activities to big game 

hunting or fishing. 

No developed camping areas are found on the Refuge, and weather 

conditions can make tent-camping difficult; thus, many recreational 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-7 

visitors base their activities out of privately owned lodges, temporary 

guide camps, or the seven public use cabins on the Refuge. 

A description of the physical environment, biological resources, and 

public use that occur on the Refuge is found in Chapter 3. 

4. The Planning Process 

The process we are using to revise the Kodiak Plan consists of eight 

steps: 

1. Design the planning process (also called preplanning). 

2. Initiate public involvement and scoping. 

3. Determine significant issues. 

4. Develop and analyze alternatives. 

5. Prepare draft conservation plan and environmental impact 

statement. 

6. Prepare and adopt a final plan and environmental impact 

statement. 

7. Implement the plan and monitor and evaluate it. 

8. Review and revise the plan. 

With publication of this Plan and Final EIS, we are part way through 

step 6. Following a 30-day period, the Service’s regional director 

will issue a record of decision (ROD) that will describe the 

alternative to be implemented. The Service will publish and 

distribute the ROD and a stand-alone Revised Kodiak Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (no alternatives and EIS 

documentation) after that decision is made. Implementation of the 

Plan will begin once the ROD is signed. Details of the Kodiak 

planning process are found in section 1.5 (Chapter 1). 

5. Issues 

Two significant planning issues were identified from comments 

received during the scoping process. These issues reflect problems or 

opportunities that the Refuge can address in a variety of ways. The 

alternatives described in Chapter 2 comprise different options for 

addressing these issues. The environmental analysis presented in 

Chapter 4 discusses the probable effects that implementing these 

options would have on the environment of the Refuge. 

The significant issues are (1) how to manage public use, given 

limited access and projected growth in demand, to continue 

providing opportunities for appropriate and quality use while 

preventing significant impacts to refuge resources; and (2) what 

types of bear viewing opportunities should be available on the 

Refuge and how should these opportunities be managed while 

protecting bears and their habitats. The EIS evaluates four 

alternatives for management of Kodiak NWR, primarily focusing on 

four areas related to these issues: (1) protection of bear concentration 
Executive Summary 

S-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

areas; (2) management of public use cabins; (3) management of 

camping areas; and (4) management of O’Malley River. 

5.1 Public Comments on the 

Draft Conservation 

Plan/EIS 

In response to comments on the Draft Conservation Plan/EIS by 

government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

general public, the Service has revised the document. The major 

changes that were made in the draft document include the following: 

 The proposed reduction in the Moderate Management category 

acreage in Alternative D (the Preferred Alternative) has been 

modified. Instead of 12,321 acres under Moderate Management, 

the Preferred Alternative now includes 31,521 acres under 

Moderate Management. All areas located on the Refuge’s west 

coast between Zachar Bay and Viekoda Bays (including Uganik 

Island) currently managed under the Moderate Management 

category have been removed from the lands proposed for 

Minimal Management in the preferred alternative. This includes 

the general area used by the set net fishery in this area, excluding 

the heads of bays. 

 Language has been incorporated into Alternatives B, C, and D 

clarifying how regulations could be adopted for managing use—

regulations seasonally restricting use in bear concentration areas 

could be adopted if voluntary use guidelines are not effective. 

 Tables 2-2 and 2-5, which list what activities are allowed in what 

management categories, have been revised to better reflect the 

differences between current and proposed management related to 

introduction/reintroduction of fish and wildlife species and better 

reflect current scientific understanding of population genetics. 

 At the request of the State of Alaska, language has been added 

which explains the mechanism allowing the Service to prohibit 

helicopter landings for recreational activities on Kodiak Refuge 

(section 2.2.13). 

 Aquaculture support facilities have been added to Table 2-2 and 

Table 2-5 as a possible use of the Refuge, although such 

facilities would only be allowed in Intensive Management areas 

(none occur in Kodiak Refuge). 

 Discussion of Service jurisdiction over waters within Kodiak 

Refuge (section 2.2.8) has been added to the final document. 

This discussion reflects the U.S. position that it owns most 

submerged lands beneath navigable and nonnavigable waters 

within the boundaries of the Refuge. The section discussing 

navigable waters (in section 2.2.9 of the Draft Plan) has been 

removed. 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-9 

6. Management Alternatives 

6.1 Elements Common 

to All Alternatives 

Each of the alternatives would do the following: 

 Contribute to achieving the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established, as set forth in Executive Order 8857 (August 19, 

1941), Public Land Order 1634 (May 9, 1958), and section 

303(5)(B) of ANILCA. 

 Ensure local rural residents have access to and priority use of 

refuge resources for purposes of subsistence, as determined by 

law. 

 Ensure that refuge management complies with all other federal 

laws and regulations that provide direction for managing units of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 Protect and maintain fish and wildlife in their natural diversity. 

 Maintain opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence 

activities, scientific research, and hunting, fishing, and other 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

 Maintain most of the Refuge in a relatively undeveloped state. 

 Minimize disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and 

populations. 

 Allow public use of the Refuge using traditional access methods 

provided use remains compatible with purposes of the Refuge. 

Goals and objectives are an integral part of each alternative. Goals 

describe broad general direction for refuge management and 

objectives provide specific measurable ways to achieve the goals. 

Refuge goals (presented in section 2.1) do not vary among 

alternatives; they are common to all. The objectives, which have 

been developed for each goal and are also presented in section 2.1, 

generally apply to all the alternatives. A few objectives may require 

modification, or new objectives may be incorporated into one or 

more alternatives, based on particular issue-driven actions under a 

specific alternative. 

The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002) was completed in 2002. As a primary land 

management agency on the Archipelago, the Refuge agreed to 

incorporate all relevant recommendations from the Bear 

Management Plan into the Conservation Plan. (See Appendix C.) 

In 2002, the Service, Koniag, Incorporated, and the State of Alaska 

signed a master agreement that ensures protection of and guarantees 

public access to nearly 57,000 acres of Koniag-owned land in 

western Kodiak Refuge. Provisions of this complex agreement apply 

to these lands regardless of which alternative is implemented under 

the Conservation Plan. This agreement is described in more detail in 

section 2.7.2 (Chapter 2). 
Executive Summary 

S-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

6.2 Alternative A—Current 

Management 

This alternative, the “no-action alternative,” describes current 

management of the Refuge and future management assuming present 

actions and initiatives are carried forward. It provides the baseline 

against which to compare the other alternatives. It is required by 

NEPA. Details of Alternative A are in section 2.7 (Chapter 2). 

Management of the Refuge would continue to follow the 1987 

Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan (USFWS 1987a) and Record of 

Decision (USFWS 1987b), as amended by the Refuge Public Use 

Management Plan (USFWS 1993). Public and commercial uses of 

the Refuge would change only as implementation of current 

management direction dictates. The Service would take the following 

actions: 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Adopt regulations 

to seasonally limit public use of nine bear concentration areas; 

maintain limits on commercial use of these areas until 

regulations are in place; and close two key bear denning areas to 

snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Maintain seven public use cabins, 

construct two additional cabins, and manage cabins on newly 

acquired lands as needed for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) would not be improved, 

and equipment or facilities such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences would not be provided unless other 

methods designed to reduce impacts in heavily used camping 

areas are not effective. Use impacts would be managed by 

restricting use through regulation. Regulations restricting 

camping near public use cabins and administrative facilities 

would be adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Continue seasonal closure of 

O’Malley River area to all users. No formal bear viewing 

program would be operated on the Refuge.

Under this alternative, three management categories—Moderate, 

Minimal, and Special River Management—would continue to be 

applied to lands within the Refuge. Moderate Management would be 

applied to 44,100 acres; Minimal Management would be applied to 

1,580,174 acres. The Special River Management category would 

apply to four river drainages—the Karluk, Sturgeon, Ayakulik, and 

Dog Salmon—only if river management plans were developed, thus 

no acreage figure has been applied to this category. Figure 2-2 

(Chapter 2) depicts this alternative. 

Table 2-5 (Chapter 2) highlights the significant changes in 

management direction between Alternative A—Current Management 

and the management direction proposed in the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B, C, and D) in the revised Conservation Plan. 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-11 

6.3 Alternative B 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative B. Management direction in Alternative B that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Do not promulgate 

regulations to seasonally limit use at bear concentration areas or 

to close two key bear denning areas to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear 

concentration areas; current seasonal use restrictions placed on 

commercial operators via their special use permits would be 

replaced with special conditions mirroring the voluntary 

guidelines. Regulations would be developed if the use of 

voluntary guidelines proved ineffective. 

 Public Use Cabins—Allow the public use cabin program to 

expand as demand increases, either through construction of new 

cabins or management of cabins on newly acquired lands as 

public use cabins. There would be no limit on the number of 

public use cabins on the Refuge. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) could be improved, and 

equipment or facilities—such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences—would be provided if needed to 

mitigate public use impacts. Regulations restricting camping 

near public use cabins or administrative facilities would not be 

adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

area closure regulations to allow operation of a bear viewing 

program operated by a qualified guide under special use permit 

awarded through a competitive process. 

Two management categories—Moderate and Minimal 

Management—would be applied to lands within Kodiak Refuge 

under this alternative. Moderate Management would be applied to 

44,100 acres; Minimal Management would be applied to 1,580,174 

acres. Figure 2-4 (Chapter 2) depicts this alternative.

6.4 Alternative C 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative C. Management direction in Alternative C that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 
Executive Summary 

S-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current 

seasonal use restrictions placed on commercial operators via 

their special use permits would be replaced with special 

conditions mirroring these guidelines. Regulations implementing 

seasonal closures or day-use only restrictions could be developed 

for some key areas based on the ongoing evaluation of these 

areas and the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. Close 

two key bear denning areas to snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Phase out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major maintenance projects, not constructing 

new cabins, and not managing cabins on newly acquired lands 

for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) would be managed as 

described in Alternative A. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

area closure regulations to allow operation of a bear viewing 

program run by the Service in cooperation with ADF&G. 

Permits would be allocated by lottery. 

Two management categories—Moderate and Minimal 

Management—would be applied to lands within Kodiak Refuge 

under this alternative. Moderate Management would be applied to 

32,738 acres; Minimal Management would be applied to 1,591,536 

acres. Figure 2-5 (Chapter 2) depicts this alternative.

6.5 Alternative D 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative D. Management direction in Alternative D that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current 

seasonal use restrictions placed on commercial operators via 

their special use permits would be replaced with special 

conditions mirroring these guidelines. Regulations implementing 

seasonal day-use only limits could be developed for some areas 

based on the ongoing evaluation of these areas and the 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-13 

effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. Close one key bear 

denning area to snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Maintain the seven public use cabins that 

currently exist, construct two additional cabins, and manage 

cabins on newly acquired lands, as needed, for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) could be improved and 

equipment and facilities—such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences—could be provided if they are the 

least-intrusive management needed to mitigate public use 

impacts. Regulations restricting camping near public use cabins 

and administrative facilities would be adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

closure regulations to allow operation of a bear viewing program 

combining agency-supervised use with guided use. Unguided 

and guided visitors would not be present on site at the same time. 

Permits for agency-supervised use would be allocated to the 

public by lottery. Qualified bear viewing guides would apply for 

the guided-use opportunity, which would then be available to 

their clients via private bookings. 

Two management categories—Moderate and Minimal 

Management—would be applied to lands within Kodiak Refuge 

under this alternative. Moderate Management would be applied to 

31,521 acres; Minimal Management would be applied to 1,592,753 

acres. Figure 2-6 (Chapter 2) depicts this alternative.

6.6 Summary 

Comparison of the 

Alternatives 

The following tables (Tables S-1 and S-2) compare the alternatives 

by major topic 
Executive Summary 

S-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table S-1 Comparison of the alternatives 

Category Alternative A— 

Current Management 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Pre

Protection of Bear Concentration Areas 

Implement public use management plan by adopting regulations to seasonally restrict all public access at nine bear concentration areas; continue to restrict commercial operators until regulations are in place. Close two areas of key bear denning habitat, Baumann Creek (2,240 acres) and Den Mountain (2,820 acres), to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current restrictions on commercial operators would be replaced with these guidelines. No regulations to seasonally restrict public access, as recommended in the public use management plan, would be 

proposed at this time. No denning areas closed to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current restrictions on commercial operators replaced with these guidelines. Seasonal closures and/or day-use-only restrictions may be proposed for some areas based on results of ongoing monitoring of these areas (may not be the same areas as in Alternative A). Close two denning areas to snowmachine use. 

Develop public uareas; cucommerreplaced Seasonamay be pbased on monitorinot be thA) Close acres) to 

Management of Public Use Cabins 

Allow nine public use cabins (seven exist now; could construct two more). Additionally, abandoned cabins or cabins on newly acquired lands could be managed as public use cabins. 

Allow more public use cabins as needed to meet demand (more than two new cabins could be constructed or acquired). Consult stakeholders prior to constructing, replacing, or relocating cabins. 

Allow natural attrition of public use cabins; eventually phase out cabin program. 

Same as stakeholreplacingmanaginlands for 

Management of Camping Areas1

Camping areas not improved; no facilities provided. Implement Kodiak public use management plan by adopting regulations prohibiting camping within one-quarter mile of public use cabins and 200 yards of administrative facilities. 

Improve camping areas and provide facilities if needed to mitigate impacts. No regulations restricting camping near cabins or administrative facilities. 

Same as Alternative A. Improve 

provide intrusive mitigate regulatiowithin ouse cabinfacilities

Management of O’Malley River 

Maintain seasonal closure of former bear viewing site at O’Malley River (2,560 acres). 

Reopen O’Malley site to bear viewing for a commercially guided bear viewing program similar to the 1992 program. 

Reopen O’Malley site to bear viewing for a government-run program similar to the 1992 program. 

Reopen viewing governmguided vdifferent 
Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Category Alternative A— 

Current Management 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Pre

Staffing and Budget Needs 

Current (FY 2004): 18 permanent full-time 2 permanent part-time 3 seasonal $1,545,000 (Base Funding)

Additional: 3 permanent full-time 0 permanent part-time 6 seasonal $697,000 + Base Funding 

Additional: 4 permanent full-time 0 permanent part-time 7 seasonal $734,000 + Base Funding 

Addition7 perman0 perman2 season$1,063,0

Management Categories (acres)2:  Moderate  Minimal  Special River

 44,100 

1,580,174  0 

 44,100 

1,580,174 

Category eliminated 

 32,738 

1,591,536 

Category eliminated 

C

1 Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the minimum development, equ

necessary for resource protection or public health and safety such as minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provtemporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 

2 Acreages were developed by Arc/Info analysis of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps. These areas have not been surveyed. Acreag

time as data sources improve. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps were derived from Bureau of Land Management Master Title Pla
Executive Summary 

S-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table S-2 Comparison of impacts by alternative

Resource or 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Brown bear populations 

No significant effects on size and productivity of bear population. 

Negative impacts affecting local population but not sufficient to affect integrity of refuge population in long term. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

Local economy Negligible effects overall on 

Kodiak economy. 

Negligible effects overall on Kodiak economy, but slight positive effect from increased bear viewing and cabins programs. 

Negligible effects overall, but slight positive effect from increased bear viewing perhaps offset by slight negative effect from elimination of cabins 

Same 

Subsistence Negligible effects. Same as Alternative A and 

increased opportunity for subsistence users to participate in refuge management through stakeholder planning for bear concentration areas. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Guides and commercial operators 

Negligible effects. Slight increase in guided bear 

viewing opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

Bear hunting Negligible effects; hunting 

regulated by state and Federal Subsistence Board. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future. 

Same 

Deer hunting No changes to deer-hunting 

opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future. 

Same 

Recreational fishing 

Negligible effects on recreation fishing opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to anglers in the future. 

Same 
Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Resource or 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Wildlife viewing 

If proposed regulations are implemented, would reduce wildlife-viewing opportunities because of closure of additional areas to general public access during bear viewing season, plus no O’Malley program. 

Greatest potential for providing viewing opportunities because of unregulated use in bear concentration areas, reopening O’Malley, and new public use cabins. 

Bear concentration area opportunities similar to Alternative A; O’Malley program may attract more viewers if lower cost than Alternatives B and D. Reduced opportunity for those who would use public use cabins. 

Managconcenprovidto thosincreaat O’Mpublic availab

Wilderness character 

Overall impact negligible. Addition of structures and not improving campsites could result in localized negative impacts. 

Long-term negative effect due to indefinite expansion of cabin program, improved camping areas, and guided bear viewing at O’Malley. However, lands would still retain overall wilderness character and be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Over time, elimination of the cabin program could result in localized positive effects on wilderness character; however, the effects on the overall wilderness character of the Refuge would be negligible. 

OveraAdditihave seffectswould effects offset physicenviro
Executive Summary 

S-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

7. Selection of the Preferred 

Alternative 

The Service has selected Alternative D as its preferred alternative for 

managing Kodiak Refuge. Although all the alternatives respond 

positively to the purposes of the Refuge—conserving fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, preserving 

water quality and quantity, meeting international treaty obligations, 

and providing opportunities for continued subsistence uses—and to 

the provision of quality wildlife dependent recreation opportunities, 

some relatively small differences would occur. Alternative D would 

provide a slightly higher level of conservation of natural habitats and 

wildland values on the Refuge by increasing the amount of land in 

the Minimal Management category more than any other alternative. 

The Service will not begin implementing the management direction 

in the Alternative D until a 30-day comment period following 

publication of the final Conservation Plan has elapsed, and a Record 

of Decision has been signed. 

8. Implementation, Monitoring, 

and Revision of the 

Conservation Plan 

Implementation and monitoring of the Kodiak Conservation Plan 

will depend on the availability of funds and personnel in any given 

year, and upon the coordination of many governmental activities. 

8.1 Implementation 

Implementation of the Kodiak Conservation Plan will be 

accomplished, in part, by means of various step-down plans 

described in section 6.1 (Chapter 6). Each step-down plan has its 

own program focus (e.g., fisheries management, environmental 

education, public use, and public use cabin management), identifying 

and directing the implementation of strategies (actions, techniques, 

and tools) designed to achieve programmatic objectives outlined in 

the Conservation Plan (Chapter 2, section 2.1). 

Another aspect of the implementation process includes identifying 

partnership opportunities (e.g., with Koniag, Inc., the State of 

Alaska, local communities, other federal agencies, universities and 

museums, and nongovernmental organizations) that result in 

implementing strategies and that accomplish refuge objectives, as 

discussed in section 6.2 (Chapter 6). 

8.2 Monitoring 

Monitoring helps the refuge staff track the progress of plan 

implementation. Results of monitoring show how objectives are 

being achieved and measure progress towards accomplishing goals. 

Monitoring the progress of plan implementation is accomplished by 

a variety of methods, including surveys, inventories, and creel 
Executive Summary 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-19 

censuses. (See Tables 6-1 and 6-2.) Evaluation of monitoring results 

may lead to amendment or revision of the Conservation Plan. 

8.3 Amendment and Revision 

Periodic review and change of this comprehensive conservation plan 

will be necessary. To allow the public to express their views on 

management of the Refuge, the Refuge will periodically hold 

meetings or use other techniques to solicit comments for evaluation 

purposes. This will allow the Refuge to better serve the public, 

determine potential problems, and take immediate action to resolve 

existing problems. 

Every three to five years, refuge staff will review public comments, 

local and state government recommendations, staff 

recommendations, research studies, and other sources to determine if 

revisions to the plan are necessary. If major changes are proposed, 

public meetings may be held, and a new environmental assessment 

or environmental impact statements may be necessary. Full review 

and updating of the conservation plan will occur every 15 years. 

9. References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 240 pp. 

USFWS. 1987a. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Wilderness 

Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 533 pp. 

USFWS. 1987b. “Record of Decision: Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness 

Review.” December 2, 1987. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 1993. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

Public Use Regulations.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service. 202 pp. 
Chapter 1 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-1 

1. Introduction 

This document describes four alternatives for revising the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for management of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge or Refuge) and assesses 

the effects of implementing each of the options. When this revised 

plan is finalized, it will replace the management direction for Kodiak 

Refuge described in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement/Wilderness Review (Kodiak Conservation Plan or 

Conservation Plan; USFWS 1987a) and associated Record of 

Decision (USFWS 1987b) adopted in 1987. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) administers 

approximately 1.6 million acres of land and water on the Kodiak 

Archipelago (Archipelago) as Kodiak Refuge. (See Figure 1-1.) The 

Refuge includes the southwestern two-thirds of Kodiak Island 

(Island), all of Uganik Island, and about 54,000 acres on Afognak 

and Ban islands. In addition, some 8,500 acres of land and more than 

400,000 acres of water on the Archipelago are included within the 

boundaries of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. 

Administrative responsibility for these lands and waters is shared by 

Alaska Maritime and Kodiak refuges. (See section 2.2.2, Chapter 2.) 

This chapter provides background information that establishes the 

framework used to develop this document, including (1) purpose of 

and need for the plan; (2) an overview of the Refuge, including 

historical perspective and refuge establishment; purposes, vision, and 

goals of the Refuge; and environmental setting; (3) the legal context 

of refuge management; and (4) the planning process, including the 

identification of significant planning issues addressed in the plan. 

1.1 Purpose of and Need for 

Action 

The purpose of revising the 1987 Kodiak Conservation Plan is to 

ensure activities, actions, and management fulfill the purposes for 

which the Refuge was established and to provide clear direction to 

the public and managers on how we intend to meet those purposes. 

While the 1987 Conservation Plan has provided good general 

direction, changes in our understanding of the resources and uses on 

the Refuge, and changes in both management and planning policies 

identify a need to update and revise the Conservation Plan. 

Federal statute, specifically Section 304(g) of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) as amended, 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare, and from time to time 

revise, a “. . . comprehensive conservation plan . . . for each refuge 

(in Alaska) . . . .” 

Following guidance found in ANILCA and other federal laws—

primarily the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (Refuge System Administration Act), as amended by the 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 1-1 Alaska national wildlife refuges and Kodiak Refuge location map 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge 

System Improvement Act); and the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended—the Service is revising the Kodiak 

Refuge Conservation Plan to provide direction for management of 

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

allows the Service to accomplish the following: 

 Evaluate management direction for about 174,000 acres of 

refuge lands acquired in fee since completion of the original 

Conservation Plan in 1987. 

 Update management direction related to national and regional 

policies and guidelines implementing federal laws governing 

refuge management. 

 Incorporate new scientific information on refuge resources. 

 Reevaluate current refuge management direction based on 

changing public demands for use of the Refuge and its resources, 

including public use management direction as defined in the 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Public Use Management 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Public Use Regulations

(USFWS 1993) and associated Decision Notice and Finding of 

No Significant Impact (USFWS 1994). 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-3 

This document includes a final environmental impact statement for 

the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan. It describes current 

management and three alternatives for managing the Refuge, 

including the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative D). Each 

alternative represents different options for addressing and resolving 

issues raised by the public and the Service. The document also 

includes an assessment of the effects on refuge resources of 

implementing each alternative and a description of the existing 

environment of the Refuge, including land status, physical and 

biological resources, and human use of the Refuge. 

In addition to the preceding requirements, a comprehensive 

conservation plan serves to do the following: 

 Ensure that the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System are being fulfilled. 

 Ensure that national policy is incorporated into management of 

the Refuge. 

 Ensure that interested parties have the opportunity to participate 

in the development of management direction. 

 Provide a systematic process for making and documenting 

decisions about refuge resources. 

 Establish broad management direction for refuge programs and 

activities. 

 Provide continuity in refuge management. 

 Provide a basis for budget requests. 

 Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments. 

1.2 Refuge Overview 

1.2.1 Historical Perspective and Refuge Establishment 

Beginning with the first clearly demonstrated human occupation 

approximately 7,500 years ago, the Kodiak Archipelago was home to 

what was most likely the densest human population in Alaska prior 

to European contact. The first European sighting of Kodiak Island 

occurred in 1741 when the Vitus Bering expedition passed by 

without attempting to land. The first permanent European presence 

on the island was the Russian village at Three Saints Bay, which was 

established in 1784. After being destroyed by a tidal wave, this 

settlement relocated to the present location of the City of Kodiak in 

1792, which became, and remains, the center of population on the 

Archipelago. Russians brought the first livestock to Kodiak soon 

after their arrival, and by the late 1790s, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs 

were common assets at settlement sites (Van Daele 2003). 

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, major changes began to affect the 

resources of the Archipelago. During this period, human activity and 

associated development increased significantly. Canneries were built 

to process fish; more and more ranching (cattle and sheep) was 

occurring on Kodiak Island. By the 1930s, interaction of native 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

brown bears with livestock was resulting in significant loss of 

livestock. In 1939, the Secretary of Agriculture allowed the Alaska 

Game Commission to kill up to 25 adult brown bears in the cattle 

country of northeast Kodiak Island in an attempt to reduce cattle 

losses. During that summer, a wildlife agent and two professional 

hunters came to Kodiak Island, interviewing residents, investigating 

all known cattle losses, and, in the end, killing seven bears (Van 

Daele 2003). During this same period, several large military 

withdrawals occurred in the Alaska Territory. Threats to brown bears 

and other natural resources resulting from these withdrawals and 

subsequent construction of military facilities were obvious to Dr. Ira 

N. Gabrielson, then chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, and to 

early conservation groups (e.g. the Boone and Crocket Club) who 

supported establishment of a refuge on Kodiak Island (Hensel 2005). 

On August 19, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive 

Order 8857 establishing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the 

purpose of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the 

brown bears and other wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak islands . . .” The 

Refuge thus became part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Refuge System now 

includes more than 540 units in 50 states and several territories. Sixteen 

refuges have been established in Alaska. (See Figure 1-1.) 

The original Executive Order withdrew nearly two million acres 

from unreserved public domain on Kodiak and Uganik islands. The 

Refuge encompassed all of Uganik Island and most of the 

southwestern portion of Kodiak Island except for the Karluk Indian 

Reservation. A one-mile-wide shoreline strip remained “. . . subject 

to settlement, location, sale, or other disposition under the public 

land laws applicable to Alaska or for classification . . .” and lease for 

fur farming or other purposes. Continued conflicts with grazing of 

livestock on other areas of Kodiak Island and concerns by 

commercial fishermen and biologists about reduced salmon 

populations resulting from bear predation led to additional controlled 

bear killings in the late 1940s and early 1950s, though numbers of 

bears killed were low (Van Daele 2003, USFWS 1951). To help 

resolve the bear-cattle conflict, Interior Secretary Fred A. Seaton 

signed Public Land Order 1634 on May 9, 1958. This order revoked 

Executive Order 8857 and closed the mile-wide shoreline strip to the 

land laws and other excepted purposes in exchange for reclassifying 

the Shearwater and Kupreanof peninsulas as unreserved public 

domain. The purposes of the new reservation continued to be “as a 

refuge and breeding ground for brown bears and other wildlife.” The 

new refuge boundary, extending from Viekoda Bay along a 

mountainous ridge to the head of Kiliuda Bay, separated the Refuge 

from cattle grazing and other incompatible uses. Excepted from the 

withdrawal was “an area one mile square surrounding each of the 

native villages of Old Harbor, Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Uganik, Uyak, 

Alitak, Ayakulik, and Kaguyak.” The adjustment reduced the Refuge 

to about 1.8 million acres. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-5 

Enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; 43 

U.S.C. 1601–1624) on December 18, 1971, had a major effect on the 

Refuge System in Alaska. As part of the settlement, up to 345,600 

acres of land within Kodiak Refuge were to be conveyed, under 

Section 12(a) and subject to Section 22(g) of ANCSA, to Native 

village corporations. 

On December 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 140hh3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784). This act, among other things, 

redesignated Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. It also added about 

50,000 acres of public lands on Afognak and Ban islands to the 

Refuge. These lands were previously part of the Afognak Forest and 

Fish Culture Reservation established by President Benjamin Harrison 

through Executive Proclamation No. 39 on December 24, 1892, 

under jurisdiction of the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 

President Theodore Roosevelt added the Reservation to the Chugach 

National Forest, by Executive Order 908 dated July 2, 1908. These 

lands, however, remained under joint jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest 

Service and the U.S. Fish Commission, with the dominant use of 

these lands being for fish culture, until 1925 when the Forest Service 

became the sole administrator (Rakestraw 1981). These lands 

remained under Forest Service jurisdiction until transferred to the 

Service by ANILCA. 

Since 1994, the Service has pursued a land acquisition program for 

Kodiak Refuge to return privately owned lands within refuge 

boundaries to the protection of refuge status. Nearly 280,000 acres of 

valuable wildlife habitat have been protected through direct purchase 

or donation of (1) fee title, (2) conservation easements, and (3) 

limited-development easements. Funding has come from the civil 

and criminal settlements resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 

from appropriated funds from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, and from private sources. As funding becomes available, 

acquisition of valuable habitat from willing sellers continues. The 

Refuge’s Land Protection Plan (USFWS 1992) guides this land 

acquisition program. 

1.2.2 Purposes of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

As stated in Executive Order 8857, dated August 19, 1941, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge was established “. . . for the purpose of 

protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown 

bears and other wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands, Alaska . . .” 

Under ANILCA, the purposes of Kodiak Refuge were further 

defined and expanded beyond the original purpose identified in the 

1941 establishing order (see Section 1.2.1). 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge is established and shall be managed include 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations (and) habitats 

in their natural diversity, including, but not limited to, 

Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the 

United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their 

habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes 

set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a 

manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph 

(i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the 

refuge.” 

1.2.3 Refuge Environment 

Kodiak Refuge encompasses nearly 1.8 million acres within its 

boundaries—the southwestern two-thirds of Kodiak Island, all of 

Uganik Island, and about 54,000 acres on Afognak and Ban islands. 

The islands, part of the Kodiak Archipelago, lie at the western edge 

of the Gulf of Alaska in southwestern Alaska. The approximately 

30-mile wide Shelikof Strait separates Kodiak Island from the 

Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula. The City of Kodiak, where 

refuge headquarters are located, is about 250 air miles south of 

Anchorage and about 21 miles northeast of the refuge boundary on 

Kodiak Island. 

Kodiak and adjacent islands have irregular coastlines of bays, inlets, 

and rugged mountains. Other landscapes found on the Refuge 

include glacial valleys, tundra uplands, lakes, wetlands, sand and 

gravel beaches, salt flats, and meadows. Spruce forests dominate 

Afognak Island, extending southward onto the northern end of 

Kodiak Island. The mountainous interior of Kodiak Island, with 

several peaks more than 4,000 feet in elevation, is covered by lush, 

dense vegetation during the summer, with alpine vegetation on the 

highest slopes. The southwestern portion of the island is covered 

with tundra plants and grassy hummocks. No place on the Refuge is 

more than 15 miles from the ocean. Access to the Refuge is primarily 

by float plane and boat. 

Kodiak Refuge is characterized by a large range of habitats within a 

relatively small geographic area. Because of this, the Refuge 

supports some of the highest densities of brown bears, nesting bald 

eagles, and spawning salmon found anywhere in North America. 

The 11 large lakes and many rivers on Kodiak Refuge are major 

spawning grounds for five species of Pacific salmon: pink, Chinook, 

chum, sockeye, and coho. The large runs of salmon fuel refuge 

ecosystems by enriching freshwater streams and lakes with nutrients 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-7 

from the ocean and serve as a source of food for many wildlife 

species. Salmon spawning on the Refuge are also important to 

people, supporting subsistence users, recreational anglers, and the 

Kodiak commercial salmon fishery. Rainbow trout, steelhead trout, 

Dolly Varden, and Arctic char are also found in waters on the 

Refuge. 

More than 240 species of birds have been recorded in the Kodiak 

Archipelago. With a total resident population estimated at 2,250, 

more than 500 pairs of bald eagles nest on the Refuge. This is one of 

the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles in the United States. 

As many as two million seabirds inhabit the refuge shoreline and 

adjacent bays and inlets. At least 150,000 ducks and geese also 

winter along the shoreline and on the refuge proper. 

Kodiak Refuge was established primarily to protect the brown bear. 

With an estimated population of 2,200 bears (an estimated 2,890 

bears inhabit the entire Archipelago), the Refuge contains some of 

the best brown bear habitat in the world, which supports some of the 

highest concentrations of brown bear found anywhere. These bears 

feed on spawning salmon and forage throughout most of the Refuge. 

The current bear population on the Archipelago supports an annual 

harvest of approximately 160 animals. Some 5,000 Alaska residents 

apply for 319 permits annually, while nonresidents (who are required 

to hire a professional guide or be accompanied by a family member 

who is a resident of Alaska) vie for 153 permits. As many as 11 

permits are issued for a federally authorized subsistence hunt. Bear 

viewing and photography are increasing in popularity as well, 

particularly over the past 10 to 15 years. 

Besides the brown bear, only five other mammals—red fox, river 

otter, short-tailed weasel, little brown bat, and tundra vole—are 

native to Kodiak Island. Several other species—including Sitka 

black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk (introduced only on Afognak 

Island), snowshoe hare, beaver, mountain goat, and reindeer 

(introduced for husbandry purposes)—have been introduced onto the 

Archipelago. Deer are the most popular quarry of recreational and 

subsistence hunters. Hunting of Sitka black-tailed deer reached peak 

levels during the late-1980s to mid-1990s when the deer population 

numbered more than 80,000 animals. During the 1987-1988 deerhunting season, it was estimated that more than 5,000 hunters 

harvested about 13,000 deer on the Archipelago. Populations fell 

through the 1990s, leaving an estimated population in 2001 of 

40,000 deer. Subsistence and recreational hunting effort has dropped 

significantly; estimated harvests have been as low as 2,000 animals 

in recent years. Hunting of Roosevelt elk, mountain goat, small 

game, waterfowl, and upland game birds also occurs on the Refuge. 

More limited numbers of visitors participate in other recreation 

activities, including hiking, trapping, berry picking, beachcombing, 

sightseeing, photography, and snowmachining. Most of these 

activities occur secondarily to big-game hunting or fishing trips, 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

although anecdotal evidence indicates that an increasing number of 

refuge visitors are participating exclusively in nonconsumptive 

activities. About one-third of refuge visitors pursue their activities 

with the help of guides who hold permits issued by the Refuge. 

There are no developed camping areas on the Refuge, and weather 

conditions can make tent-camping difficult; thus, many recreational 

visitors base their activities out of privately owned lodges, temporary 

guide camps, or the seven public use cabins on the Refuge. 

1.2.4 Special Values of the Refuge 

Section 304(g) of ANILCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

identify and describe “special values of the refuge, as well as any 

other archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, 

paleontological, scenic, or wilderness values of the refuge.” The 

following special values have been identified for Kodiak Refuge. 

Kodiak Brown Bear

The Kodiak brown bear, the largest brown bear in the world, is 

Kodiak Refuge’s most well-known resource. With a population 

estimated at 2,200 bears, areas of the Refuge support some of the 

highest known densities of brown bear in North America (Cowan 

1972, Troyer 1961). Hunters from around the globe come to Kodiak 

to hunt the largest brown bears in the world. Opportunities for 

viewing and photographing bears are also drawing an increasing 

number of people to the Refuge. 

Kodiak Refugium and Associated Glacial Lakes

The Kodiak Refugium1 and associated glacial lakes, some 300,000 

acres in the southwestern portion of the Refuge, have special 

scientific, education, and recreation values. The area’s distinctive 

flora and rolling landscape contrast with the rugged terrain found 

elsewhere on the Island. During the last glacial advance of the 

Pleistocene Era, some 20,000 years ago, only this area of Kodiak 

Island and the highest peaks on the Archipelago remained ice-free. 

The area supports a diversity of wildlife, including a large population 

of brown bears that congregate in high numbers during salmon runs, 

the highest density of nesting waterfowl (including tundra swans) on 

the Island, and the highest summer feeding concentration of bald 

eagles. Characteristics of the vegetation found in the area are 

representative of the Arctic, the Bering Sea coast, and the southern 

coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Several large glacial lakes in or near 

the refugium—Karluk, Frazer, Red, and Akalura—provide spawning 

habitat for salmon and key habitats for bears, eagles, and other 

wildlife. 

 

1

A refugium is an area of relatively unaltered climate that is inhabited by plants and animals during a period of 

continental climatic change (such as a glaciation) and remains as a center of relic forms from which a new 

dispersion and speciation may take place after climatic readjustment. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-9 

Ayakulik-Red, Karluk, Sturgeon, and Dog Salmon Drainages

Four important refuge drainages—the Ayakulik-Red, Karluk, and 

Sturgeon rivers and Dog Salmon (Frazer) Creek—are associated 

with the Kodiak Refugium. These rivers support large runs of Pacific 

salmon; support high concentrations of wildlife, particularly brown 

bear and eagles; and have high recreation and economic values. The 

Ayakulik-Red and Karluk support runs of the five species of Pacific 

salmon found in Alaska; they are the only drainages on the Refuge 

(and two of only a few within Alaska refuges) to support abundant 

populations of both Chinook and steelhead. Karluk Lake (about 

9,600 acres) and Frazer Lake (about 4,100 acres) are the largest lakes 

on the Kodiak Archipelago. The Sturgeon River drainage supports an 

early run of chum salmon. Peak aerial index counts (from 

information in ADF&G database) since 1976 have ranged from 

1,000 to 95,000 fish (K. Brennan, 2005). It is one of the earliest and 

most important chum salmon runs on the Refuge because it provides 

an early food source for high concentrations of bald eagles and of 

brown bears. 

Uganik Lake

Uganik Lake is a scenic mountain lake that provides spawning 

habitat for salmon and key habitat for bears and eagles. The lake also 

has high recreation values for deer and bear hunting, fishing, and 

sightseeing. These attributes contribute to making Uganik Lake one 

of the most popular recreation areas in the Refuge. 

Three Saints Bay

Three Saints Bay, located on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, 

is the site of the first European settlement in Alaska. Established by 

Russian business interests in 1784, the settlement was used primarily 

by Russian fur traders. The site is a designated National Historic 

Landmark and has been selected by Koniag, Inc., the Native regional 

corporation, as a historic site under Section 14(h)(1) of ANCSA. 

Although it is certified as a 14(h)(1) site, the Service retains 

custodial responsibilities for the site until it is conveyed to Koniag. 

Authorized excavation of the site has occurred in the past. 

Mount Glottof Research Natural Area

The 88,000-acre Mount Glottof Research Natural Area (RNA) was 

designated in 1975 to highlight important bear-habitat values and to 

provide a focal point for research activity in the primary mountain 

range of the Kodiak Archipelago. The RNA contains an array of 

mountain habitats, including rock outcrops, glaciers, cirque lakes, 

streams, and subalpine and alpine tundra, grassland, wetland, and 

shrubland. Within this matrix of habitats, large numbers of brown 

bears (two to seven bears per square mile) congregate to forage in 

two plant communities—sedge-forb meadow and willow-subalpine 

meadow—from late June to early August (Atwell et al. 1980). This 

high concentration of bears, more typical in the best salmon-foraging 

habitat, is unique because it involves a significant number of bears 

that exclusively focus on plant foraging activities over a large 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

subalpine area. Hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities occur, and are expected to continue, within the 

RNA. 

Afognak Island Sitka Spruce Forest

The Afognak unit of Kodiak Refuge, approximately 54,000 acres on 

Afognak and Ban islands, includes one of the few intact lowland 

coniferous forests comprising a single evergreen tree species known 

to exist in North America. Closed Sitka spruce forest makes up about 

45 percent of the land cover within this unit of the Refuge. This 

distinct habitat type provides unique educational and scientific 

opportunities to investigate old-growth forest ecosystems from a 

single-species perspective. 

The unit also includes Red Peak—at 2,425 feet the highest point on 

Afognak Island—allowing comparison of monotypic habitat 

succession over a range of elevations. Much of the old-growth forest 

on Afognak Island has been clearcut, increasing the scientific value 

of remaining spruce forest habitat, much of which is within the 

Refuge. 

Coastal Marine Habitats

The Gulf of Alaska coastal ocean currents and the upwelling of 

nutrient-rich marine waters surrounding the Kodiak Archipelago 

continually inject large amounts of marine-derived carbon and 

nitrogen into the coastal habitats bounded by these waters. The 

Refuge’s nearshore habitats support resident and migratory marine 

bird and mammal populations and provide key habitat during 

portions of the life cycles of many commercially or biologically 

valuable pelagic and forage fish species. Salmon accumulate marinederived nutrients during their one-to-five years of nearshore to openocean existence and annually transport them inland for deposition 

with completion of the spawning cycle and death. 

1.3 Refuge Vision and Goals 

1.3.1 Refuge Vision Statement 

Service Planning Policy (Service Manual 602 FW 3.4G) directs each 

national wildlife refuge to develop a vision statement for the refuge 

during the comprehensive conservation planning process. A vision 

statement is “[a] concise statement of what the planning unit (refuge) 

could be, or what we could do, in the next 10 to 15 years, based 

primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (USFWS, 602 FW 1.6S).” 

The staff of Kodiak has developed the following statement: 

Brown bear, fish, and other wildlife populations will continue 

to thrive on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge in their natural 

diversity, living in pristine habitats. Refuge management will 

blend public and private partners in a dynamic alliance that 

fulfills the purposes and goals of Kodiak Refuge. The Refuge 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-11 

will provide a lasting legacy of resource stewardship for the 

use and enjoyment of current and future generations. 

1.3.2 Refuge Goals 

Refuge goals are based on the purposes of Kodiak Refuge and the 

refuge vision statement. They reflect the contribution of the Refuge 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System as well as other key 

management responsibilities that stem from law and policy. The 

Conservation Plan adopted as a result of this planning process must 

work toward meeting all of these goals. 

Goal 1: Increase our knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, 

their habitats, and their interrelationships. 

Goal 2: Ensure that Kodiak brown bears continue to flourish 

throughout the Refuge and congregate at traditional concentration 

areas. 

Goal 3: Manage nonnative species to minimize impacts on native 

resources, while continuing to provide opportunities for harvest. 

Goal 4: Continue to improve understanding and management of 

furbearing and nongame mammals that use Kodiak Refuge. 

Goal 5: Monitor populations of resident and migratory birds as 

indicators of ecosystem health. 

Goal 6: Maintain and restore native plant populations, communities, 

and habitats. 

Goal 7: Conserve the abundance of natural salmonid populations for 

continued human and wildlife use and to ensure the diversity of 

species as indicators of the health of the Refuge’s ecosystem. 

Goal 8: Provide the opportunity for local residents to continue their 

subsistence uses on the Refuge, consistent with the subsistence 

priority and with other refuge purposes. 

Goal 9: Improve baseline understanding of natural flowing waters on 

the Refuge and maintain the water quality and quantity necessary to 

conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural 

diversity. 

Goal 10: Provide opportunities for quality public use and enjoyment 

of refuge resources through compatible fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

and photography. 

Goal 11: Improve management of commercial use opportunities that 

are compatible with refuge purposes, provide quality public use 

opportunities, enhance visitor experiences, and ensure compliance 

with provisions of ANILCA. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Goal 12: Provide outreach, environmental education, and 

interpretive programs that increase a sense of stewardship for 

wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment and that enhance 

visitor experiences on the Refuge. 

Goal 13: Conserve cultural and archaeological resources of the 

Refuge. 

Goal 14: Conserve special and unique features of the Kodiak 

Archipelago ecosystem within the Refuge. 

Goal 15: Promote close working relationships through effective 

coordination, interaction, and cooperation with other federal 

agencies, state agencies, local communities, tribes, organizations, 

industries, the general public, and the landowners within and 

adjacent to the Refuge whose programs affect or are affected by 

refuge management activities. 

1.4 Legal and Policy Context and 

State Coordination 

The Service manages national wildlife refuges pursuant to various 

legal and administrative requirements. Management of Kodiak 

Refuge is dictated, in large part, by ANILCA, which redesignated the 

Refuge and identified the purposes for which it was established. 

However, numerous other laws, treaties, executive orders, and 

agreements with other parties (e.g., the State of Alaska) also guide 

management of the Refuge. 

1.4.1 Legal Guidance 

Operation and management of the Refuge System are influenced by 

a wide array of laws, treaties, and executive orders and the 

regulations and policies developed to implement them. Among the 

most important are the Refuge System Administration Act as 

amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act, the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act. A brief description of these and other 

pertinent legal documents that influence management of Kodiak 

Refuge is found in Appendix A. 

For national wildlife refuges in Alaska, ANILCA, as amended, 

provides key management direction. ANILCA sets forth the purposes 

for each refuge and provides administrative direction for 

management of the refuges, including requiring development of 

comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge. Additional 

provisions authorize studies and programs related to wildlife and 

wildland resources, subsistence opportunities, and recreation and 

economic uses. How ANILCA influences management of the Refuge 

is reflected throughout this document. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-13 

1.4.2 Policy Guidance 

Policy documents provide additional direction for management of 

the Refuge System. These documents include the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Manual, director’s orders, national and regional 

policy issuances, handbooks, director’s memorandums, and regional 

directives. These documents are critical to management of Kodiak 

Refuge and the Refuge System as a whole. Much of the management 

direction described in Chapter 2, and in other parts of this Plan, is 

derived from these programmatic and policy documents. 

1.4.3 Coordination with the State of Alaska 

The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has the primary 

responsibility for managing fish and resident wildlife populations in 

the state. On refuge lands, the Service and ADF&G share a concern 

for all fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and both 

agencies are engaged in extensive fish and wildlife conservation, 

management, and protection programs. In 1982, the Service and 

ADF&G signed a Master Memorandum of Understanding (see 

Appendix B) that defines the cooperative management roles of each 

agency and sets the framework for cooperation between the two 

agencies. 

The State of Alaska establishes fishing, hunting, and trapping 

regulations throughout the state at the direction of the Alaska Boards 

of Fisheries and Game. These regulations apply to federal public 

lands. If Service restrictions on hunting were needed, they would be 

done through special refuge closures or restrictions under 50 CFR 

36.42 or through Federal Subsistence Board regulations under 50 

CFR 100.10(d)(4). The state is divided into 26 game management 

units (GMUs); most of these are further divided into subunits. 

Kodiak Refuge is entirely within GMU 8. ADF&G management 

objectives for big-game and fish populations on the Refuge are 

described in Chapter 3. 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its 

divisions are also key management partners. DNR manages all stateowned land, water and surface and subsurface resources except for 

fish and game. DNR’s Division of Mining, Land, and Water 

manages the state’s water and land interests within national wildlife 

refuges. Issues related to state interests will expand in the next 10 to 

15 years, especially with regard to water rights, navigable waters, 

ownership of submerged lands, and rights-of-way over refuge lands. 

Additional information about key state programs is provided in 

Appendix B. 

1.5 Planning Context 

Kodiak Refuge is part of a national system of more than 540 wildlife 

refuges. The current Conservation Plan for the Refuge was 

completed in 1987 following guidance in Section 304(g) of 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ANILCA. The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provides 

additional guidance on conservation planning. 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Part of the Department of the Interior, the Service is the principal 

federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing 

the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for the 

benefit of the American people. The Service has responsibilities for 

migratory birds and fish, endangered species, and certain marine 

mammals. 

Fish & Wildlife Service and Refuge System Missions

The mission of the Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people 

(602 FW 1.6W). 

The mission of the Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and, where appropriate, 

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

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans [16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2)]. 

Principles for Managing the National Wildlife Refuge System

The Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, states that each 

refuge shall be managed to fulfill both the mission of the Refuge 

System and the purposes for which the individual refuge was 

established. It also requires that any use of a refuge be a compatible 

use—a use that will not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the 

refuge, based on sound professional judgment. 

The 1997 amendments to the Refuge Administration Act identified a 

number of principles to guide management of the Refuge System: 

 Conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats 

within the Refuge System 

 Maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Refuge System 

 Carrying out the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes 

of each refuge (except that, if a conflict exists, refuge purposes 

are protected first) 

 Effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with 

adjacent landowners and state fish and wildlife agencies 

 Maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to 

meet refuge and system purposes and acquisition of necessary 

water rights under state law 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-15 

 Recognition of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation as 

the priority general public uses of the Refuge System 

 Provision of opportunities for compatible priority wildlifedependent public uses within the Refuge System 

 Provision of enhanced consideration for priority wildlifedependent uses over other general public uses in planning and 

management within the Refuge System 

 Provision of increased opportunities for families to experience 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly traditional 

outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting 

 Monitoring of the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants 

within each refuge 

 Ensuring that timely and effective cooperation and collaboration 

with and involvement of other federal agencies, state agencies, 

tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public will occur 

during the course of managing refuges 

Ecosystem Approach to Refuge Management

National wildlife refuges exist within larger ecological systems and 

land-ownership patterns. The Service’s goal for ecosystem 

management is conservation of biological diversity through 

perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems while carrying out its 

mission and mandates. To achieve this goal, the Service is working 

to (1) identify and meet fish and wildlife needs within the context of 

the environmental and socioeconomic landscape in which they 

occur; (2) increase collaboration within the agency; and (3) 

communicate, coordinate, and collaborate more frequently, 

consistently, and effectively with its partners, affected stakeholders, 

and the public. 

An ecosystem approach to management recognizes that institutions 

outside the Refuge System have responsibilities and authorities for 

resources that lie both within and outside refuges. For example, the 

Federal Subsistence Board establishes regulations for the harvest of 

fish and wildlife for subsistence purposes on federal public lands in 

Alaska, including refuges. The State of Alaska, including the 

departments of Fish and Game and Natural Resources, has many 

roles related to management of the fish, wildlife, and other resources 

on national wildlife refuges, including establishment of fishing, 

hunting, and trapping regulations; management of commercial 

salmon fisheries; and conservation and enhancement of Alaska’s 

wildlife to provide for a wide range of uses for the greatest benefit of 

current and future generations. 

International, National, and Regional Management Guidance

Nature is not constrained by governmental boundaries. Without 

physical barriers—and with available habitat—fish and wildlife roam 

through lands and waters regardless of ownership or management 

authority. To ensure conservation of the many species that migrate 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

across legal and political boundaries, a number of efforts—at scales 

ranging from local community and regional plans to national and 

international conservation programs—have been designed to monitor 

and protect these species. These plans were reviewed during the 

revision of the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan to ensure that the 

revised management direction is consistent. Appendix A includes a 

list and brief description of several of these documents, which, 

though not intended to be comprehensive, demonstrates the range of 

documents reviewed. When applicable, specific information from 

these plans is incorporated into this document. 

1.6 The Planning Process for 

Kodiak Refuge 

This section describes the process used to develop this Final 

Conservation Plan and environmental impact statement (EIS). The 

process is consistent with the planning requirements specified in 

Section 304(g) of ANILCA; the Refuge System Administration Act, 

as amended; the Service’s planning policy (602 FW 1 and 3); the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); and the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing 

the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1500–1508). The Service is using an eight-step planning 

process to revise the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan: 

1) Design the planning process (also called preplanning). 

2) Initiate public involvement and scoping. 

3) Determine significant issues. 

4) Develop and analyze alternatives. 

5) Prepare draft conservation plan and environmental impact 

statement. 

6) Prepare and adopt a final plan and environmental impact 

statement. 

7) Implement the plan and monitor and evaluate it. 

8) Review and revise the plan. 

1.6.1 Design the Planning Process (Preplanning) 

In late 1998, the Service began reviewing the Kodiak Refuge 

Conservation Plan to determine if it should be revised or a new plan 

should be prepared. The Service found that, in most cases, on-theground management actions were meeting refuge objectives. 

However, some management direction needed to be updated. New 

laws (such as the Refuge System Improvement Act), new regulations 

and policies, and other changes (such as federal management of 

subsistence on Alaska refuges) needed to be included in the 

Conservation Plan. Approximately 174,000 acres of land has been 

acquired in fee since the original plan was completed. Management 

direction for these lands needs to be incorporated into the revised 

plan. For these reasons, the Service decided that a revision of the 

Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan was necessary. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-17 

The Service then identified all relevant laws, regulations, policies, 

and other direction that would have to be considered during revision 

of the Conservation Plan. These are discussed in the legal and 

planning context sections earlier in this chapter, and additional detail 

can be found in Appendix A. The Service also reviewed data 

available on refuge resources and uses and identified some areas in 

which additional work was required. 

1.6.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping 

This step let people know that the conservation plan revision process 

was beginning and solicited ideas on what should be addressed in the 

revision. Formal scoping began with publication of a Notice of Intent 

to revise the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan and prepare an EIS, 

which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 1999 (Vol. 

64, No. 84). 

In May 1999, a newsletter announcing the revision and seeking 

comments was mailed to 1,100 individuals and organizations. Copies 

of the newsletter were sent to all post office box holders in Akhiok, 

Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions. The 

newsletter contained information about the Refuge, described issues 

identified by the refuge staff, and provided an opportunity for the 

public to identify other issues that should be addressed during 

revision of the Conservation Plan. 

Public meetings to gather input were held in communities adjacent to 

Kodiak Refuge and in Anchorage. Fifty-seven people attended the 

meetings, and 87 individuals or organizations provided written or 

oral comments (34 comments were from outside Alaska, 53 from 

within Alaska including 28 from the Kodiak Archipelago. Only 

12 comments were from government and nongovernment 

organizations—three representing national organizations, the 

remainder represented state-wide or local constituents). One hundred 

and thirty-one residents of the Kodiak Archipelago signed a petition 

requesting any changes to current management focus on maximizing 

access to the Refuge for public uses such as wildlife viewing, 

hunting, fishing, camping, and commercial fishing; that there be no 

designated Wilderness or other restrictive land classifications; and 

that there be no eradication of any nonnative animals such as Sitka 

black-tailed deer. A detailed summary of comments is on file at the 

USFWS regional office in Anchorage and is available upon request. 

Potential issues identified by the public included access, brown bears 

(population management and viewing opportunities), concessions 

and outfitter-guides, current management, hunting, land acquisition, 

special use permits, Wilderness and Wild River designations, 

subsistence, nonnative species, and consumptive and extractive uses. 

1.6.3 Determine Significant Planning Issues 

The planning team reviewed the issues raised by the public, refuge 

staff, and other Service divisions to determine the significant planning 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

issues to be addressed in the revised Comprehensive Plan. Significant 

planning issues are those issues where multiple approaches to 

resolving the issue will be evaluated as part of the planning process. 

Section 1.7 provides more detail on the process used to identify the 

significant planning issues and what those issues are. 

1.6.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives 

In January 2000, preliminary alternatives for management of the 

Refuge were presented in a newsletter sent to the public for review 

and comment. Public response to these preliminary alternatives made 

it clear that the Service needed to reevaluate and do a better job of 

involving the public in its process. 

At the same time, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 

was developing a bear-management plan for the Kodiak 

Archipelago. The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan (Bear Management Plan) was prepared by a 

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC developed 

recommendations presented during a series of meetings held in early 

2001. These meetings were open to the public. ADF&G and Kodiak 

Refuge personnel and other experts presented technical and resource 

information and served as support staff to the CAC. 

Because many of the topics addressed in the Bear Management Plan 

were relevant to the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan, the Refuge 

agreed to integrate all relevant recommendations from the Bear 

Management Plan into the Conservation Plan. (See Appendix C.) 

The refuge planning team was expanded to include members from 

ADF&G and DNR. Planning team meetings, open to the public, were 

held to develop components of alternatives for the Draft 

Conservation Plan. These meetings provided an opportunity for the 

public to see the Service’s planning process in action and to 

understand some of the constraints under which the Service must 

operate. At the last meeting in 2001, the team developed another set 

of draft alternatives. These alternatives were presented to the public 

in a July 2001 planning newsletter distributed to approximately 

1,500 interested individuals and organizations. 

Comments on the preliminary alternatives described in the July 2001 

newsletter and the comments received on the draft Bear Management 

Plan were used to revise the alternatives in an open team meeting 

held in January 2002. The alternatives were further revised after the 

Bear Management Plan was completed and as the planning team 

analyzed the preliminary alternatives during the next two years. The 

final set of alternatives is presented in Chapter 2, with analysis of the 

environmental effects displayed in Chapter 4 of this document. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-19 

1.6.5 Prepare Draft Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The Draft Plan and EIS were released in October 2004. It described 

four alternatives for managing Kodiak Refuge over the next 15 years, 

including one describing continuation of current management and 

one that was the Service’s preferred alternative. It included an 

analysis of the potential impacts of implementing each alternative 

and described how the Service determined its preferred alternative. 

Also included was a description of management common to all the 

alternatives—that management would remain the same no matter 

which alternative is implemented. A 90-day public review and 

comment period was held. During this period, the Service held 

public meetings in Anchorage, Kodiak, Port Lions, and Old Harbor. 

Comments Received on the Draft Plan

Comments were received at public meetings and in writing, by mail 

and via the internet. Thirty-four written comments were received: 27 

from Alaska and seven from outside Alaska. Agencies and 

organizations commenting included the State of Alaska, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Kodiak Island Convention and 

Visitors Bureau, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, Kodiak 

Unified Bear Subcommittee, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Defenders 

of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and The 

Wilderness Society. Twenty-four individuals, including five guides 

and two air taxi operators, commented. Public meetings in Kodiak, 

Anchorage, Port Lions, and Old Harbor were attended by 24 people. 

For a detailed presentation of results and our responses to comments, 

see Appendix K.

1.6.6 Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement 

The planning team reviewed and analyzed all comments received on 

the Draft Conservation Plan and EIS, and modified the draft as 

needed, including refining the preferred alternative (Alternative D). 

This Final Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EIS is the 

result of these changes. Following a 30-day period, the Service’s 

regional director will issue a record of decision (ROD) that will 

describe the alternative to be implemented. The ROD is a document 

that identifies the rationale the regional director used to make his 

decision on how to manage the Refuge for the next 15 years. The 

Service will publish and distribute the ROD and a stand-alone 

Revised Kodiak Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (without 

the alternatives and EIS documentation) after that decision is made. 

1.6.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate 

After the ROD and Final Comprehensive Plan are distributed, refuge 

staff will begin implementing any management changes called for in 

the revised plan. A critical component of management is 

monitoring—measuring resource and social conditions to make sure 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

that progress is being made toward meeting our purposes, goals, and 

objectives. Monitoring includes determining if the Refuge is 

implementing the plan and if actions being taken are effective in 

meeting the objectives. The Refuge will use an adaptive management 

approach, which means that information gained from monitoring will 

be used to evaluate and, as needed, modify refuge objectives. 

1.6.8 Review and Revise Plan 

Service policy directs that the Refuge review the Conservation Plan 

annually to assess the need for change. The Service revises the plan 

when important new information becomes available, when 

ecological conditions change, or when the need to do so is identified 

during a review. If major changes are proposed, public meetings may 

be held and new environmental assessments or environmental impact 

statements may be necessary. Consultation with appropriate state 

agencies and others would occur during any future revisions. Full 

review and revision of the plan will occur every 15 years, or more 

often if necessary. The Service will continue to inform and involve 

the public through appropriate means (such as reporting on activities 

at village meetings and via updates or other mailings) throughout the 

implementation and monitoring process. 

1.7 Significant Planning Issues 

Two significant planning issues were identified for consideration 

during revision of the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan. These 

issues reflect problems or opportunities that the Refuge can address 

in a variety of ways. The alternatives described in Chapter 2 

comprise different options for addressing these issues. The 

environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4 discusses the probable 

effects that implementing these options would have on the 

environment. 

As described previously in this chapter, a wide variety of issues were 

raised from public and agency comments during the scoping process. 

Several of the issues identified are outside the scope of the revision 

process. To identify issues that could be addressed in the plan versus 

those outside the scope of this plan, each issue was assigned to one 

of four categories describing how these issues will be addressed. 

These categories—and the issues falling under each category—are 

presented in Table 1-1. 

In addition to describing the significant planning issues, the table 

includes a brief summary of the public comments received on each 

issue. It is important to note that significant issues may be raised by 

only a few people familiar with a specific area or problem (either by 

the public or by staff) or they may be of national interest and 

generate a large number of comments from across the country. The 

Service’s role in identifying and analyzing the issues is to objectively 

consider a wide range of approaches that could be taken to address 

each issue. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-21 

Following each issue statement, examples are included of people’s 

comments on the issue using their own words. This provides the 

readers with a greater understanding of how people who care about 

the Refuge view each issue. Comments were selected to represent the 

broad range of approaches and opinions people bring to the issues. 

All comments received are available for the public to review upon 

request. 

Issue 1. Given potential for increasing demands by the public for 

use of the Refuge and a limited number of access opportunities, 

how should the Refuge manage public use activities to continue 

providing opportunities for appropriate uses while preventing 

significant impacts to the natural resources of the Refuge and the 

quality of the experience? 

The issue of access to and public use (including subsistence and 

commercial activities) of Kodiak Refuge is a complex topic. Certain 

forms of transportation (e.g., motorboats and snowmachines) are 

authorized under sections 811 and 1110 of ANILCA when use is for 

specific purposes such as subsistence, access to villages and 

homesites, and access for traditional activities, provided that refuge 

resources are protected. Hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and 

photography, and other wildlife-dependent recreation are also 

guaranteed by law and policy provided they are conducted in a 

compatible manner. 

Because people use the Refuge in different ways and for different 

reasons—coupled with limited methods of access and relatively few 

access points—conflict between users and user groups can arise. 

Although public use tends to be dispersed, higher concentrations 

occur in specific locations: e.g., on specific rivers during certain 

salmon runs and at primary access points. Crowding at some times 

and locations has been reported. Several areas of concern—including 

impacts to wildlife associated with potential displacement from key 

use areas, habituation to and food-conditioning associated with the 

presence of humans, impacts to sensitive habitats resulting from 

trampling, and other effects associated with potential overuse, 

possible conflicts between various user groups, and impacts to the 

quality of experience resulting from crowding and potential 

overuse—are elements of this issue that are being addressed, at least 

in part, through options presented in the alternatives addressing 

management of human use in key bear concentration areas, the scope 

of the public use cabin program, and how to manage impacts 

associated with public use of the Refuge. Other aspects of access to 

and public use of the Refuge are addressed in the regional 

management direction presented in Chapter 2, which is common to 

all alternatives. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table 1-1 Issues raised during scoping 

* Some issues consist of a number of elements that may be dealt with differently. 

Category Issues Example 

Issue is addressed by existing laws, regulations, or policies. 

Hunting (including brown bear hunting) Subsistence Access* Consumptive and extractive uses Commercial fishing* Regulation of 22(g) lands 

Hunting. Several comments related to subhunting on the Refuge, both in support of ANILCA guarantees that opportunities for recreational hunting will continue to be prwildlife refuges in Alaska (Section 101 [bdoes have authority to close an area to hunor people, both subsistence and recreationfound to be compatible with the purposes 

Issue is outside the scope of this Conservation Plan revision. 

Recommendations for Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River designations Land acquisition Coordination of uses on adjacent lands Commercial fishing* 

Recommendations for Wilderness and WDesignations. Comments focused on wherecommend additional areas for Wildernesfor inclusion in the National Wild & SceniSection 1317 of ANILCA required a reviesuitability of all lands in Alaska refuges noWilderness. This review was completed in Wilderness Act as part of the original ConROD for the Comprehensive Plan (USFWabout 1.08 million acres for designation. Tremain in effect until Congressional action Conservation Plan is amended to modify oreviewing the requirements for the WilderRiver reviews, the Service determined that planning requirements of Section 304(g) osatisfied by honoring the Wilderness recomcurrent plan and focusing on describing thvalues of the Refuge and providing better Refuge could be managed to protect these 
C

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

* Some issues consist of a number of elements that may be dealt with differently. 

Category Issues Example 

Issue is or will be addressed in same manner regardless of alternative selected. Management direction will be common to all alternatives. 

Regulation of use and law enforcement Concessionaires and guides-outfitters* Special use permits* Natural diversity (introduced species) Cooperation with others Hydroelectric development Visitor center 

Law Enforcement. People suggested that of existing refuge laws and regulations couidentified issues (current management, conoutfitter–guides, special use permits). The seeking ways to increase enforcement actiunder current management and will continrevised Conservation Plan. 

Significant planning issue; will be addressed in the alternatives 

Access* to and management of the Refuge for public use Protection of bear use areas and provision of bearviewing opportunities 

Brown Bear-Viewing Program. Whether viewing program should be developed on issue identified in many comments. Where located, who would operate the program, hbe selected, and other considerations provconsidered. Alternatives considered ranged viewing program to a program operated by private concessionaires, or some combinat
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Summary of Comments: A number of people expressed concern 

about access to and use of the Refuge for a variety of public uses. 

Some people, believing that current management was fine and that 

the Refuge should be kept open to all people, wanted to see no 

change in opportunities for access and use of the Refuge. Others 

thought that some methods of access and activities should be 

restricted in some areas of the Refuge. Some people were concerned 

about conflicts between people participating in different activities 

and stated that it may be necessary to restrict or limit the number of 

people using the Refuge. Still others thought that trails and additional 

cabins were necessary to facilitate public use. In general, most 

people commented that the Refuge should manage access to protect 

resources. Many residents in Kodiak commented that access to 

hunting, fishing, and other traditional activities should be 

maintained. 

Representative Comments

“I would like to see access limited with the primary focus on 

preservation.” 

“Rather than close portions of the refuge, I prefer limiting 

access. Make critical areas ‘walk-in only’ will rebuff much of 

the use the land now suffers.” 

“I would like the management to be more user-oriented. 

Sanitary facilities at designated camp sites—individuals 

should be restricted to designated overnight camping areas.” 

“. . . as more people visit (the) refuge the cabin program will 

need to expand and will give managers better control over use 

of (the) park. If there’s a cabin they’ll use it. If there is no 

cabin, they will camp out who knows where.” 

“Additional public use cabins and such associated amenities 

as meat caches should be constructed only if proven necessary 

to reduce human impacts on bears, not simply for the ‘comfort 

and convenience’ of refuge visitors.” 

Issue 2. What type of bear-viewing opportunities should be 

available on Kodiak Refuge and how should the Refuge make 

these opportunities available? How do we manage human 

activities within key bear use areas in order to ensure protection 

of the bears and the habitats they require? 

There is potential for increased wildlife viewing and photography on 

the Refuge, particularly that which is associated with the Kodiak 

brown bear. Increased use would increase the potential for impacts to 

bears. Potential impacts include (1) displacement of wildlife into less 

optimum habitat; (2) human-bear conflicts associated with 

habituation and food-conditioning of bears; (3) loss of habitat due to 

trampling; (4) conflicts between users; and (5) reduction in the 

quality of experience as a result of crowding and overuse. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-25 

Current management is directed at keeping these potential impacts at 

the lowest possible level through a variety of user-education 

opportunities; by requiring commercial guides to conduct wildlife 

viewing or photography excursions in a manner that “does not result 

in displacement of bears from the area or habituate the animals to 

human presence,” and by closing or establishing day-use-only 

restrictions at nine key bear concentration areas through refuge 

regulations. These regulations, when adopted, would apply to all 

refuge users. These restrictions are currently placed on all 

commercial operators through special conditions included on their 

permits. One area on the Refuge, O’Malley River, is closed by 

regulation to all access, occupancy, and use seasonally. The Refuge 

provided a bear-viewing program at the O’Malley River in 1992 and 

a concessionaire operated the program in 1994, allowing up-close 

viewing opportunities. A similar program was offered from 1995 to 

1999 by Koniag, Inc., on private lands within the refuge boundary. 

Other options for providing bear viewing on the Refuge are 

presented in the alternatives. 

Summary of Comments: Discussion of bear viewing and bear 

hunting dominated the comments. More than half of the comments 

received on this issue were in support of providing new bear-viewing 

opportunities on the Refuge, although the safety of both the bears 

and those viewing them was of concern to many people. People’s 

views differed on how hunting should be managed near bear-viewing 

areas. Comments ranged from the importance of continuing 

opportunities for bear hunting to those wanting all hunting banned 

near viewing areas. Other comments suggested that bears and key 

bear use areas were not being adequately protected and that research 

studies should be continued. 

Representative Comments:

“I think the Kodiak Refuge is probably one of the best brown bear 

habitats in Alaska. I think we may have to limit people use in some of 

these habitats if we are going to keep a healthy wild bear 

population.” 

“There should be an area of the refuge specifically designated for 

bear viewing, but which does not allow hunting as well.” 

“The refuge has traditionally limited bear viewing because of many 

reasons, and not all bear viewing has equal influence on bear habits. 

However, I believe that if the plan operators submit adhere to refuge 

guidelines that more opportunities should be given for bear 

viewing.” 

“. . . re-establishing structured bear viewing at Kodiak NWR can be 

most effectively accomplished through joint action by the FWS and 

the State of Alaska.” 

“I am writing to urge that a structured, federally administered and 

regulated brown bear viewing program be permanently established 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

on the Refuge, similar to the programs in place at Pack Creek on 

Admiralty Island and at McNeil River on the Alaska Peninsula.” 

“I do not like the current views on day use wildlife viewing (bears) 

or the closures to parts of the refuge, to discourage this activity. I 

feel that a standard procedure for each area could be developed that 

would minimize or prevent any impact. I feel that bear viewing and 

bear hunting can coexist.” 

1.8 Changes from the Draft 

Kodiak Conservation Plan 

As a result of the review process, the Service has modified the Draft 

Revised Kodiak Conservation Plan. A few sections have been 

modified in response to comments or to better fulfill planning 

requirements. In addition to editorial and factual changes made in the 

text and tables, the following substantive changes were made in the 

draft plan: 

 Moderate Management Acreage in Alternative D (Preferred 

Alternative)—The proposed reduction in the Moderate 

Management category acreage in Alternative D (the Preferred 

Alternative) has been modified. Instead of 12,321 acres under 

Moderate Management, the Preferred Alternative now includes 

31,521 acres under Moderate Management. All areas located on 

the Refuge’s west side between Zachar Bay and Viekoda Bay 

(including Uganik Island) currently managed under the Moderate 

Management category (as under Alternative A) have been 

removed from the lands proposed for Minimal Management in 

the preferred alternative. This includes the general area used by 

the set net fishery in this area, excluding the heads of bays. 

 Volunteer Use Guidelines and Use Regulations—Language has 

been incorporated into Alternatives B, C, and D clarifying how 

regulations could be adopted for managing use—regulations 

seasonally restricting use in bear concentration areas could be 

adopted if voluntary use guidelines are not effective. 

 Fish and Wildlife Species Introductions—Table 2-2 and Table 2-

5, which list what activities are allowed in what management 

categories, have been revised to better reflect the differences 

between current and proposed management related to 

introduction/reintroduction of fish and wildlife species and better 

reflect current scientific understanding of population genetics. 

 Helicopter Access—At the request of the State of Alaska, 

language has been added which explains the mechanism 

allowing the Service to prohibit helicopter landings for 

recreational activities on Kodiak Refuge (section 2.2.13). 

 Aquaculture Support Facilities—Aquaculture support facilities 

have been added to Table 2-2 (and Table 2-5) as a possible use 

of the Refuge, although such facilities would only be allowed in 

Intensive Management areas (none occur in Kodiak Refuge). 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-27 

 Service Jurisdiction over Waters within the Refuge—Discussion 

of Service jurisdiction over waters within Kodiak Refuge 

(section 2.2.8) has been added to the final document. This 

discussion reflects the U.S. position that it owns most submerged 

lands beneath navigable and nonnavigable waters within the 

boundaries of the Refuge. The section discussing navigable 

waters (in section 2.2.9 of the Draft Plan) has been removed. 

1.9 References Cited 

Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, and V.D. Berns. 1980. Brown 

bear summer use of alpine habitat on Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. In proceedings from It. 

Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:297–305. 

Brennan, Kevin. Kodiak Area salmon and herring biologist, 

ADF&G-Commercial Fishery Division. 2005. 

Conversation regarding contribution of Kodiak 

Refuge salmon stock to commercial fishery and 

other related information and data, to Kevin 

VanHatten, fishery biologist, Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. January 2005. 

Cowan, I.M. 1972. “The status and conservation of bears (Ursidae)

of the world, 1970.” In S. Herrero, ed. Bears—Their 

biology and management. Morges, Switzerland: 

IUCN New Series. Vol. 23. 

Hensel, Richard J. 2005. Comment letter on Draft Revised 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. Anchorage, AK. 5 pp. 

Rakestraw, L.W. 1981. “A history of the United Sates Forest Service 

in Alaska.” Anchorage, Alaska: A cooperative 

publication of the Alaska Historical Commission, 

Alaska Department of Education, and the Alaska 

Region USDA Forest Service. 219 pp. 

Troyer, W.A. 1961. The brown bear harvest in relation to 

management on the Kodiak Islands. In proceedings 

from Trans. Am. Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conf. 26:460–468. 

USFWS. “Service Manual.” Accessed June 4, 2003. At 

http://policy.fws.gov/manual.html on the 

World Wide Web, produced by U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 

USFWS. 1951. "Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Narrative ReportJanuary to April, 1951. Kodiak, Alaska: Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 1987a. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Final 

comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness 

review, and environmental impact statement. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 533 pp. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

1-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

USFWS. 1987b. “Record of Decision: Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness 

Review.” December 2, 1987. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 1992. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Land Protection 

Plan.” Options for the protection of fish & wildlife 

habitats. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 62 pp. 

USFWS. 1993. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Public Use Regulations.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 1994. “Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact: Final public use management plan and 

environmental assessment for public use 

regulations.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp. 

Van Daele, L.J. 2003. The history of bears on the Kodiak 

Archipelago. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Natural 

History Association. 88 pp. 
Chapter 2

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-1 

2. Management Alternatives 

This chapter presents four alternatives for managing Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge, Refuge), including continuation of 

current management and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s 

(Service) preferred alternative (Alternative D). The chapter is 

divided into 12 sections. The first four sections present information 

that applies to the three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and 

D); the remaining sections describe the process used to develop 

alternatives and the alternatives being considered. 

Goals and objectives, which provide focus for the management 

direction of the Refuge, are presented in section 2.1. They are 

followed by management policies and guidelines in section 2.2. 

Management categories describing the intensity of management and 

use of specific areas of the Refuge are presented in section 2.3. 

Section 2.3.5 is a list of management activities, public and 

commercial uses, and facilities by management category. The 

amount of the Refuge designated in a management category may 

vary by alternative; actions allowed within a given management 

category do not. 

The management direction in sections 2.2 through 2.3.5 is National 

Wildlife Refuge System–wide or Alaska regional management 

direction. It is the same for all Alaska refuges unless modified to 

meet specific management needs for Kodiak Refuge. The primary 

sources of this management direction are the laws governing the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System) and the regulations, 

policies, and other national and regional guidance developed to 

implement the laws. If specific regulations or other guidance change 

while this plan is in effect, management direction for the Refuge 

would be modified as necessary to comply with the changes. 

The process for developing the management alternatives is described 

in section 2.4, and a discussion of management options eliminated 

from detailed consideration is presented in section 2.5. Section 2.6 

contains some of the key elements that will be included in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan regardless of the alternative 

adopted. Sections 0 through 2.1 describe the four alternatives being 

analyzed and provide a summary comparison of the alternatives and 

the projected impacts associated with implementing each alternative. 

2.1 Refuge Goals and 

Objectives 

The refuge vision statement and the refuge purposes (see Chapter 1) 

provide the framework for developing goals and objectives for 

managing the Refuge. Goals are broad statements of desired future 

conditions. Objectives are concise statements of what the Refuge 

wants to accomplish. 

Objectives identified for one goal are often applicable to other goals. 

To avoid unnecessary duplication, each objective is listed only under 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the goal that represents the clearest connection. Objectives are 

numbered and organized in priority order under each goal. 

GOAL 1: Increase our knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, 

their habitats, and their interrelationships. 

1.1 Within two years of approval of this plan, complete a stepdown plan to integrate and direct inventory and monitoring of 

plants, fish, and wildlife. Subsequently, update the inventory 

and monitoring plan annually with a regional review and sign 

off by the Alaska Refuge Chief every five years. 

Rationale: The inventory and monitoring step-down plan is 

required by Service Manual 701 FW 2, Inventory and 

Monitoring of Populations. It is the tool to ensure that baseline 

data are collected on plants, fish, and wildlife and that this 

information is collected in a biologically and statistically 

sound manner. This step-down plan is key to translating the 

biological program of the Conservation Plan into a program of 

work that will be carried out annually on the Refuge. 

1.2 Collaborate with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

(ADF&G) when monitoring and conducting research on State 

of Alaska trust species within the Refuge. 

Rationale: ADF&G has primary responsibility for managing 

harvest in and around the Refuge. By working together, 

Kodiak Refuge and ADF&G are able to pool resources and 

share information to make the best management decisions 

possible. Currently, ADF&G and the Refuge collaborate on 

many projects, including intensive aerial surveys for bear, elk 

population monitoring, and deer mortality surveys. 

1.3 Curate wildlife study records using professional databasemanagement standards and methods so data and reports may 

be readily accessed and understood by future refuge biologists 

and others. 

Rationale: Wildlife study records and data must be stored so 

they will be available to current refuge staff, ADF&G 

biologists, and others now and in the future. Background 

information, study protocols, raw data, analysis, maps, and 

other information are all essential to comparison of data 

collected in the past with new data. 

1.4 In cooperation with ADF&G, monitor for fish, wildlife, and 

avian diseases that may affect the Kodiak ecosystem, 

including chronic wasting disease and West Nile virus. 

Rationale: Diseases, including chronic wasting disease and 

West Nile virus, are threatening populations of fish, wildlife, 

and birds throughout North America. Animal husbandry 

practices, movement of people and their pets, and natural 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-3 

migration of birds and fish all may bring diseases to the 

Kodiak Archipelago (Archipelago). As seen in 2002 and 

2003, outbreaks of diseases such as chronic wasting disease 

and West Nile virus in areas outside Alaska can be 

devastating to wild animal populations. With active 

monitoring, timely management actions can reduce the impact 

of these diseases. 

1.5 In cooperation with ADF&G, other external partners, and 

other programs within the Service, monitor for aquatic 

invasive species such as green crab, mitten crab, Atlantic 

salmon, New Zealand mudsnails, crayfish, amphibians, and 

aquatic weeds. With these same partners, participate in the 

development and distribution of effective education and 

outreach materials. 

Rationale: The introduction of nonnative species is second 

only to habitat alteration as a factor in the decline of native 

aquatic species in North America. Kodiak Refuge has 

extensive coastal and inland aquatic habitats that provide for 

an abundance of recreation and subsistence uses. Each of the 

varying routes of access to these refuge resources (e.g., float 

and wheeled planes, boats, foot traffic) presents unique risks 

for unintentional spread of invasive species. By working with 

ADF&G as it begins implementation of its Alaska Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Management Plan, the Refuge can increase 

prevention awareness by refuge users and improve combined 

capacity for detection and rapid response to new invaders. 

Atlantic salmon continue to escape from fish farms in British 

Columbia and to migrate to Alaska’s waters. They are a 

competitive threat to native species such as steelhead. 

European green crabs have thus far migrated as far north as 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. There was an 

unconfirmed sighting of green crabs in Alaska waters in 2003. 

They are a threat to commercial and subsistence crab fisheries 

(e.g., nearshore Dungeness and juveniles of offshore species). 

Chinese mitten crab is abundant in West Coast ports whose 

waters are often released as ballast in Alaska. They are a baitstealing bother to anglers and can prey directly on salmonid 

eggs in streams. New Zealand mudsnails have proliferated in 

the western United States, particularly in popular trout 

streams; if introduced to Alaska, they could threaten its worldclass trout fisheries. New Zealand mudsnails may “starve out” 

a stream by competing with insects (mayflies, caddis, etc.) 

that feed on the same things; New Zealand mudsnails cannot 

be digested and thus create a dead end for nutrients. Crayfish 

probably present a similar risk as do the mitten crabs. Aquatic 

weeds can be spread on personal gear and by boats and float 

planes. They present a risk from habitat alteration and as a 

danger to human health by creating dangerous conditions for 

float plane take-offs and landings on weed-choked lakes. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.6 Strive to publish results from refuge-sponsored research in 

peer-reviewed journals. Report routine fish and wildlife 

survey results regularly in publically accessible reports. 

Rationale: Peer review ensures that the research meets current 

scientific standards. Before a technical manuscript can be 

published, it is reviewed for sufficiency by a committee of 

scientists with specialized expertise in the study topic. This 

committee recommends publication if the manuscript is 

sufficient and rejection if it is not. Publication promotes 

understanding by disseminating results to the scientific 

community and the public. 

GOAL 2: Ensure that Kodiak brown bears continue to flourish 

throughout the Refuge and congregate at traditional 

concentration areas. 

To complement ADF&G objectives for brown bear populations, 

refuge objectives include the following: 

2.1 In cooperation with ADF&G, continue to use all available 

knowledge to monitor and evaluate trends in bear population 

size, composition, and mortality associated with recreation, 

subsistence, research, defense-of-life-or-property, and illegal 

kills. 

Rationale: While the State of Alaska manages bear harvest, 

the Service is obligated to manage bear habitat and to 

conserve brown bear populations in Kodiak Refuge. The state 

and the Refuge have a long history of cooperation on brown 

bear harvest and population management. By continuing this 

tradition and by continually using the best available 

information and wildlife population management tools, the 

state and the Refuge may ensure conservation of Kodiak 

brown bears and their appreciation by refuge users. 

2.2 In cooperation with ADF&G, maintain surveyed bear 

densities no lower than 10 percent below the lowest number 

within the following ranges: southeastern Kodiak and 

southwestern Kodiak 0.69–0.76 bears per square mile; 

northwestern Kodiak 0.64–0.72 bears per square mile. 

Rationale: Management of wildlife populations greatly 

benefits from knowledge of trends in animal density (Caughly 

and Sinclair 1994, p. 190). The U.S. Geological Survey, in 

cooperation with the Refuge and ADF&G, developed a 

method for monitoring trends in regional bear densities during 

the late-1980s and 1990s (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1998). To 

implement this objective, the Refuge and ADF&G would base 

management of refuge bear populations on results of regional 

density surveys in addition to results of traditionally acquired 

mortality data (i.e., mortality from hunting and other sources). 

Managers would strive to maintain bear densities at levels 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-5 

consistent with those documented in the 1990s. Management 

actions—such as adjustment of hunt allocations—would be 

triggered if survey results indicate that regional density level 

deviated by more than 10 percent from lowest level set in this 

objective. This objective is taken directly from the Kodiak 

Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan (Bear 

Management Plan) (ADF&G 2002). 

2.3 Increase frequency of bear density estimates to improve bear 

population–trend monitoring in areas of high public use or 

special management concern (e.g., Karluk Lake vicinity). 

Rationale: The Refuge and its cooperators surveyed bear 

density in nine areas of Kodiak Island (Island) during the 

1987–1997 period. Frequency of repeat surveys was limited 

by the large number of survey areas, narrow survey window 

(late May only), and availability of funds, survey planes, and 

trained personnel. To maximize bear conservation and to 

maintain a regime of intensive harvest management of bears, 

managers need to increase frequency of regional surveys to 

improve understanding of short-term trends in regional bear 

populations. Increased survey frequency would be achieved 

mainly by reduction in number of survey areas to those that 

are considered most representative of regions (Aliulik, 

Kiliuda-Shearwater, Spiridon, Southwest, Terror) and where 

special management concern exists (Karluk). This objective is 

consistent with recommendations of the Bear Management 

Plan (ADF&G 2002) and the Kodiak Refuge biological 

program review (Heglund 2002). 

2.4 Monitor and evaluate bear use, human use, and bear–human 

interactions at bear concentration areas that have established 

public use. Specifically study bear use, bear movements, and 

bear–human interactions in the O’Malley River area. Apply 

results to guide adaptive management in these bear 

concentration areas using an open planning process with 

ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement. 

Rationale: Human use of bear concentration areas is a focal 

management concern for the Refuge. The Bear Management 

Plan (ADF&G 2002) specifically recommended that the 

Service continue its monitoring and research of bear habitat 

use and bear–human interactions in bear concentration areas 

of the Refuge. To adaptively manage these areas in an 

atmosphere of trust, the Refuge and stakeholders must have 

the best available site-specific information. 

2.5 Evaluate the management utility of the bear stream surveys 

using appropriate cross-comparisons with bear density survey 

data, climatic data, fish escapement data, and biological 

modeling efforts. Complete evaluation with assistance of 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey by 

2007. 

Rationale: For the past 20 years, the Refuge has surveyed 

selected stream areas where bears congregate to feed on 

salmon during summer. Presently segments of 10 streams are 

surveyed to monitor trends in composition of the bear 

population on southwestern Kodiak Island and to monitor 

trends in level and extent of bear use of individual stream 

segments. Reliability and utility of survey results were 

recently called into question (Heglund 2002, ADF&G 2002) 

because survey purposes, survey area coverage, and sampling 

intensity and reporting of results has varied over time. To 

address these concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey agreed to 

analyze survey data, interpret results, develop 

recommendations, and report findings to the Refuge. In turn, 

the Refuge would evaluate the recommendations and decide 

upon an appropriate course of action. 

2.6 Investigate population size, movements, and habitat use of 

bears on Afognak Island. Develop a method for indexing 

trends in population size by 2008 and complete research on 

movements and habitat use four years after funding is 

obtained. 

Rationale: Harvest management of brown bears in the 

southern part of the Archipelago has benefited from state-ofthe art wildlife studies assessing population density and 

movement. Because of the dense forest vegetation of the 

northern Archipelago, these study methods could not be 

applied to the brown bears of Afognak. In the absence of 

scientific studies, understanding the effects of brown bear 

harvest and commercial logging on Afognak is guided only by 

harvest monitoring data and the best professional judgments 

of wildlife managers. 

2.7 By 2006, complete assessment of the genetic diversity of the 

Kodiak brown bear so as to understand gene flow between the 

southern and northern Archipelago, the vulnerability of 

Kodiak brown bears to wildlife diseases, environmental 

stresses, and parameters of population viability. 

Rationale: Previous research indicated that Kodiak brown 

bears have a surprisingly narrow genetic diversity for a 

population that is known for its vigor and abundance. This 

research implied that genetic diversity is less important for 

brown bear conservation than predicted by theory (Paetkau et 

al. 1998) and that genetic mark-recapture tools may not be 

applied to Kodiak bears (Waits et al. 1998). Validity of these 

results has been questioned because analysis performed by 

Paetkau et al. (1998) was based on a very limited number and 

distribution of samples. To better characterize the true genetic 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-7 

diversity of Kodiak brown bears, there is a need to collect a 

representative sample from animals distributed throughout the 

Archipelago, to prepare samples for genetic analysis, and to 

evaluate both neutral alleles1

 and alleles essential to the 

immune response. Commitments to research bear genetics in 

cooperation with ADF&G and the Alaska Science Center 

were established in 2003. 

2.8 By 2010, develop and implement a method of monitoring the 

supply of berries suspected of being essential to the welfare of 

the Refuge’s brown bear population. 

Rationale: Berries produced by different shrub species, 

especially salmonberry and elderberry, are considered a 

dietary staple of Kodiak Island’s brown bears. The annual 

berry supply may substantially influence bear movements, 

bear–human interactions, use of salmon by bears, and bear 

productivity (ADF&G 2002, Barnes Jr. 1990). A method of 

monitoring needs to be developed to explain how change in 

berry abundance influences summer bear use of stream areas 

frequented by bear viewers and to forecast times when the 

public needs to take special safety precautions because of 

shortages in bear food supply attributable to weather-induced 

failure of the berry crop. This objective is consistent with 

recommendations of the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 

2002) and the Kodiak Refuge biological program review 

(Heglund 2002). 

GOAL 3: Manage nonnative species to minimize impacts on 

native resources, while continuing to provide 

opportunities for harvest. 

3.1 To facilitate population and habitat management, monitor—in 

collaboration with ADF&G—trends in summer distribution, 

size, and productivity of the mountain goat population on the 

Refuge. By 2008, initiate monitoring of trends in winter 

distribution of the mountain goat population. 

Rationale: Mountain goats were introduced to Kodiak Island 

in 1952 (Burris and McKnight 1973). Since then, the 

population has grown to more than 1,500 animals (Van Daele 

2003). ADF&G manages the mountain goat hunt and monitors 

the population annually. Results from summer surveys 

provide a basis for monitoring trends in distribution, 

productivity, and population size. Most years, however, 

surveys cannot be completed over the entire primary range of 

goats on the Refuge because of time and budget restrictions. 

This has hindered understanding of population trends and 

constrained harvest allocation decisions. To address these 

limitations, the Refuge would collaborate with ADF&G to 

 

1

An allele is any one of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

complete summer surveys of goats on the Refuge; winter 

surveys to evaluate distribution of goats on winter ranges 

would eventually be initiated. Results would be used to 

evaluate trends in goat use of winter ranges and focus habitat 

studies on selected areas. Both Kodiak Refuge and ADF&G 

are concerned that the mountain goat population may become 

too large, damaging winter ranges and alpine summer habitat 

in areas where hunting pressure is light (USFWS 2000). 

3.2 By 2008, design and implement studies to evaluate habitat use 

and preference of deer on Kodiak Island to facilitate 

understanding of deer influence on the condition of winter 

range habitat. 

Rationale: Sitka black-tailed deer were first introduced to 

Kodiak Island in 1924 (Burris and McKnight 1973). By the 

1980s, the deer population had peaked at more than 100,000 

(Van Daele 2001a). Severe winters in the late 1990s resulted 

in high numbers of winter kills and a greatly decreased deer 

population. The Refuge and ADF&G have not studied the 

effects of deer on Kodiak Island habitats. Deer preferentially 

use lowland areas during heavy snow winters (Schoen and 

Kirchhoff 1990). It has been inferred that lowland areas may 

sustain heavy browse damage by concentrated groups of deer. 

Anecdotal reports indicate that highbush cranberry, a favorite 

deer food, may have mostly disappeared from the Island. This 

observation has led to concerns that deer may be 

overbrowsing some plant species and changing the plant 

composition of some lowland habitats. 

3.3 By 2008, develop methods, in partnership with ADF&G, to 

monitor deer population trends on Kodiak Island to facilitate 

harvest and habitat management. 

Rationale: Sitka black-tailed deer, introduced in 1924, have 

become the primary species harvested by recreational hunters 

in the Archipelago. Deer are a source of agency concern 

because of their potential impact to native vegetation. 

Population trend estimates have been based primarily on 

results of hunter questionnaires, field observations by 

biologists, and assessments of winter mortality (carcass 

surveys). Despite their importance, no statistically reliable 

direct methods have been developed for monitoring trend in 

population composition and abundance of Sitka black-tailed 

deer on Kodiak Island. To improve understanding, harvest 

management, and impacts on habitat, new methods need to be 

developed to provide a statistically reliable basis for 

evaluating deer population trends. This objective is supported 

by recommendations from ADF&G (2002) and the Introduced 

Species Workshop (USFWS 2000). 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-9 

3.4 By 2010, evaluate and report habitat use and preference of 

mountain goats to improve understanding of goat influence on 

habitat conditions. 

Rationale: Mountain goats were introduced to Kodiak Island 

in 1952 (Burris and McKnight 1973). The population has 

grown to more than 1,500 during the last 50 years (Van Daele 

2003). Once the population expanded, ADF&G provided 

recreational sport hunters with harvest opportunities, 

eventually becoming a routine and important use of the 

Refuge. While the Refuge acknowledges the importance of 

introduced goats, it also has concerns about their potential 

negative effects (USFWS 2000). In the Olympic Mountains of 

Washington, for example, an introduced and non-hunted 

population of goats has impacted composition of native 

vegetation and site erosion potential (Schreiner and 

Woodward 1994). On Kodiak Island, field observations 

indicate that concentrated goat use may be altering plant 

composition and erosion potential of some subalpine areas on 

State land adjacent to the Refuge (Spencer 2005). We suspect 

similar conditions may occur on some areas of the Refuge. 

However, no studies have documented patterns of goat habitat 

and condition of seasonal goat ranges. Such information is 

needed to increase our understanding of goat–habitat 

interactions and to refine management of the goat population. 

3.5 In cooperation with ADF&G, annually monitor trends in 

distribution, size, and composition of the elk population on 

Afognak Island. Maintain the sample of marked animals to 

enable this population monitoring by assisting with funding 

and logistics related to animal-capture operations. 

Rationale: Roosevelt elk were introduced to Afognak Island 

in 1929 (Burris and McKnight 1973). In the mid-1990s, the 

population peaked at more than 1,000 animals. Because of 

severe winter conditions and a late spring in 1998-1999, the 

population decreased to around 800 animals (Van Daele and 

Crye 2002). It has been stable since then. ADF&G is the 

primary managing agency and works cooperatively with the 

Refuge to monitor size of the elk herds. Individuals within 

each herd have been marked with radio collars to allow easier 

tracking. By continuing to collar elk within each herd, 

biologists can quickly locate herds and complete population 

surveys within limited weather windows. 

3.6 By 2012, develop an objective understanding of the effect of 

deer on supply of berry-producing shrubs of primary 

importance to brown bears of Kodiak Island. 

Rationale: The large populations of deer, elk, and goats may 

be changing the vegetation of Kodiak. Brown bears rely on 

vegetation, especially berry-producing shrubs, for much of 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

their annual caloric and protein needs. Kodiak Refuge is 

charged with protecting brown bears and their habitat and 

with minimizing the effects of introduced species. Currently 

the Refuge lacks a science-based understanding of use and 

availability of plants preferentially used by bears and the 

effect of deer on supply of these plant foods. 

GOAL 4: Continue to improve understanding and management of 

furbearing and nongame mammals that use Kodiak 

Refuge. 

4.1 By 2007, in cooperation with the Region 7 (Alaska) Marine 

Mammals Management Office, develop and implement a sea 

otter survey to annually index population trends. Provide staff 

support for periodic, Archipelago-wide surveys conducted by 

Marine Mammals Management Office staff. 

Rationale: Historically, Kodiak Refuge has assisted the 

Marine Mammals Management Office, Alaska Regional 

Office, in monitoring sea otter populations around 

Archipelago. During the past decade, a marked decrease in the 

number of sea otters has been seen in the southwestern Alaska 

stock (USFWS 2002). This stock was listed as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act in 2005. It is 

thought that some pocket populations of sea otters in the 

Kodiak area are not in decline, but are holding steady. 

Through annual assessment, clues may be uncovered for 

determining possible reasons for the overall population 

decline. Surveys done at broader intervals allow biologists to 

determine trends in population size. 

4.2 In cooperation with the Region 7 Marine Mammals 

Management Office, expand communication on sea otters 

with the Alaska Sea Otter Commission, village councils, and 

others. 

Rationale: Sea otters are used by Native peoples in the 

Kodiak area for traditional arts and crafts. The southwestern 

population of sea otters, of which the Kodiak population is a 

part, has been listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. Because current evidence does not 

indicate that subsistence harvest of sea otters is a reason for 

their decline, subsistence use of otters has not been curtailed 

at this time. If, in the future, evidence indicates otherwise, sea 

otter harvest could be reduced or curtailed. Despite continued 

communication with the Island villages, people continue to 

fear that subsistence harvest will be curtailed because of 

listing. More communication is needed to ensure that people 

understand the effects listing of the sea otter will or will not 

have on subsistence activities. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-11 

4.3 In cooperation with ADF&G, develop a method for 

monitoring trends in river otter populations, modify the 

existing ADF&G trapper questionnaire to capture information 

on refuge-specific furbearer harvest, and document estimated 

furbearer harvest and population trends in the annual refuge 

narrative report. 

Rationale: Common and widely distributed, native river otters 

are frequently targeted by trappers in the Archipelago (Van 

Daele 2001b). Presently, ADF&G bases otter management on 

records of harvested and sealed animals. Prompted by 

concerns about potential overharvest and increased trapping 

activity in the 1980s, ADF&G recommended actively 

monitoring population status and trends. In support of this 

recommendation, the Refuge would work jointly with 

ADF&G to study and establish capability to document and 

monitor otter harvest trends on the Refuge. 

Trapping on the Refuge requires a state trapping license and a 

refuge-issued trapping permit. The Refuge routinely issues 

trapping permits but it has not requested harvest reports. This 

objective would modify the existing ADF&G trapper 

questionnaire, document refuge-specific harvest, and improve 

the Service’s ability to monitor trapping activity and trends in 

level and pattern of harvest on the Refuge. 

4.4 Initiate study of habitat ecology of snowshoe hares by 2012. 

Rationale: Participants in a June 2000 introduced species 

workshop cited concern about long-term effects of snowshoe 

hare browsing on native shrubs and sapling trees in and 

adjacent to refuge riparian habitats (USFWS 2000). They 

recommended that the Refuge take action and address 

information gaps by assessing hare habitat ecology. To 

implement this recommendation, the Refuge would initiate a 

cooperative study. Goals of the study would include (1) 

evaluation of diet and habitat selection in different regions, 

and (2) comparison of structure and composition of similar 

habitats in areas historically occupied and unoccupied (e.g., 

islands) by hares. 

4.5 During cabin maintenance and management of derelict 

structures, take precautions to minimize damage to native bat 

populations. 

Rationale: Native bats have slow-growing populations that 

could be damaged during management and maintenance of 

cabins and structures. By timing cabin maintenance and 

structure management to avoid the bat pupping and nursing 

periods of late spring and early summer, providing alternative 

bat-roosting structures, and providing educational materials to 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

refuge users, bat populations may be conserved while 

continuing to protect human health and safety. 

GOAL 5: Monitor populations of resident and migratory birds as 

indicators of ecosystem health. 

5.1 Continue to monitor coastal populations of environmentally 

sensitive resident birds in winter, spring, and summer for 

general information on species composition, distribution, and 

population trends to use as indices of marine and coastal 

resource health. 

Rationale: Kodiak Archipelago’s coastline, totaling 

2,500 miles, is considered one of its most important wildlife 

habitats and one most vulnerable to human impact. Extent of 

potential impact was demonstrated by the 1989 Exxon Valdez

oil spill (ADEC 1990). To mitigate impacts, resource 

managers used a range of site-specific information, including 

results of refuge surveys of coastal use by aquatic migratory 

birds. Under this objective, the Refuge would maintain its 

capability to protect and mitigate impacts to coastal resources 

by continuing periodic seasonal surveys of coastal use by 

aquatic migratory birds. This objective is supported by the 

Kodiak Refuge biological program review (Heglund 2002). 

5.2 Continue to monitor populations of wintering waterfowl to 

provide information to the State of Alaska and the Alaska 

Migratory Bird Co-management Council in support of sound 

management of recreation and subsistence harvest of 

waterfowl. Monitoring should emphasize species such as 

black scoter, harlequin duck, and Barrow’s goldeneye, which 

make up much of the waterfowl harvest in the Archipelago. 

Rationale: The Archipelago has supported the largest 

recreation harvest of sea ducks in the State of Alaska 

(USFWS 1999). The Refuge needs to continue monitoring 

wintering populations to ensure sustainable harvest rates, 

especially for harlequin ducks and goldeneyes, many of which 

breed on the Refuge. 

5.3 Continue periodic monitoring of trends in distribution, size, 

and reproductive success of the Refuge’s population of 

nesting bald eagles. By 2007, determine appropriate frequency 

and sample sizes for long-term monitoring. 

Rationale: Bald eagles, featured in refuge purposes (see 

section 1.2.2 in Chapter 1 of this plan), garner national and 

local interest; the Refuge annually fields many inquiries 

regarding bald eagles of the Archipelago. Since 1963, the 

population expanded significantly from 200 to more than 600 

nesting pairs (Zwiefelhofer 2002). Presently, the population is 

considered healthy and thriving to such an extent that it may 

constitute the densest resident population in North America 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-13 

(Zwiefelhofer 2002). Results from periodic monitoring will 

continue to foster understanding of trends in size, 

productivity, and distribution of the eagle population. 

Management actions may be triggered if monitoring results 

indicate that the population significantly declines. This 

objective is supported by recommendations generated by the 

Kodiak Refuge biological program review (Heglund 2002). 

5.4 By 2007, develop a banding program to monitor trends in 

survival and productivity with a focus on sea duck species 

(black scoter, harlequin ducks, Barrow’s goldeneye) that make 

up much of the local waterfowl harvest. Areas along the 

Kodiak road system and adjacent to the villages would be 

given priority for the program. 

Rationale: Many sea duck populations in Alaska have 

declined dramatically during the last 20 years (USFWS 1999). 

Essential population data such as productivity and survival 

rates are scant. Factors that caused decline of populations are 

poorly understood for most species (USFWS 1999). To 

address these issues, the Service needs to focus efforts in a 

number of places—including the Archipelago—that provide 

important habitat for a diversity of sea duck species and that 

support relatively large annual recreation and subsistence 

harvests. Specifically, the Service needs to monitor trends in 

productivity and survival of sea ducks in areas where most 

harvest occurs in order to provide waterfowl managers with 

the ability to set sustainable harvest quotas and to maintain 

healthy populations. This objective is supported by a 

recommendation made in the Kodiak Refuge biological 

program review (Heglund 2002). 

5.5 Identify important habitat areas on the Refuge for bird species 

of conservation concern, including bald eagles, Steller’s 

eiders, harlequin ducks, emperor geese, marbled and Kittlitz’s 

murrelets, red-throated loons, gray-cheeked thrush, orangecrowned warblers, and yellow warblers. Develop habitat maps 

by 2010. 

Rationale: Protection of habitat requires management action 

supported by understanding of habitat composition, 

distribution, and relative use. To foster this understanding, the 

Service plans to couple results from existing and future 

surveys of bird species of conservation concern with results 

from mapping of Archipelago land and nearshore marine 

habitats. These maps are expected to be completed in the next 

few years after publication of the Final Conservation Plan. 

This objective is supported by a recommendation of the 

Kodiak Refuge biological program review (Heglund 2002). 

5.6 Continue collaboration with the Migratory Bird Management 

Office, Alaska Region, on periodic monitoring of wintering 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Steller’s eider populations to contribute to monitoring and 

recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act. Expand 

this effort to include monitoring of emperor geese. 

Rationale: In 1997, the Alaska population of Steller’s eiders 

was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Listing prompted increased effort by the Service to understand 

the ecology of the species and to promote its recovery. 

Emperor geese have been a species of concern to the Service 

since the mid-1980s (Pacific Flyway Council 1994). In the 

Archipelago, periodic surveys documented winter distribution 

and abundance of eiders, but emperor geese have not been 

surveyed since 1990. Under this objective, the Refuge would 

cooperate on eider surveys, research of seasonal movements 

of Steller’s eider, emperor goose surveys, and education of 

waterfowl hunters to prevent illegal harvest. This objective is 

supported by recommendations of the Kodiak Refuge 

biological program review (Heglund 2002). While Kodiak’s 

overall wintering Steller’s eider numbers are somewhat low 

(approximately 5,000), they have remained relatively stable 

compared to declines seen elsewhere. Continuing to monitor 

this population component of this species may give clues to 

what may be responsible for the population’s continued 

decline. 

5.7 Develop baseline contaminants information for 

environmentally sensitive resident birds by 2010. 

Rationale: Historically, decline and recovery of bird 

populations have been linked to incidence of many factors, 

including environmental contaminants. Examples include 

synthetic chemicals, such as DDT, and heavy metals, such as 

lead. Understanding of, and mitigation for, potential 

contaminant effects often requires documentation of 

differences in contaminant incidence among species, 

locations, and time periods. Under this objective, the Service 

would establish this documentation capability by securing a 

cooperative relationship with the appropriate institution, 

agency, or government branch; collecting tissue samples from 

a representative range of (indicator) bird species; and 

analyzing and then archiving the samples for future reference. 

GOAL 6: Maintain and restore native plant populations, 

communities, and habitats. 

6.1 Develop and conduct reconnaissance surveys for invasive 

plants—particularly orange hawkweed (Hieracium 

aurantiacum), a known invasive on Kodiak Island—every 

five years in the vicinity of villages, private lands within the 

Refuge (e.g., lodges, canneries), and refuge sites subject to 

routine use by people. Where invasive plants are detected, 

initiate collaborative control and eradication actions. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-15 

Rationale: In 2002, Kodiak Refuge began monitoring spread 

of orange hawkweed on Camp Island and planning an 

eradication program (Brown 2003). Orange hawkweed is 

common in the City of Kodiak. It can grow from rhizome, 

stolons, or seeds. Visitors may carry orange hawkweed or 

other invasive plant seeds or plant parts to the Refuge from 

infested areas. A reconnaissance survey of those areas most 

heavily traveled on the Island will allow staff to stop spread of 

invasive plants before they become well established on the 

Refuge. 

6.2 By 2008, describe species composition of plant communities 

for selected areas of the Refuge, with special emphasis on the 

Kodiak Refugium and areas likely to contain endemic plants. 

Rationale: Little is known about plant communities within 

Kodiak Refuge. The Archipelago ecosystem is considered 

unique within Alaska and has been separated out as its own 

ecoregion (Nowacki et al. 2001). A vegetative mapping effort 

was initiated in 2001 and was completed in 2004, but little 

detail is known about species composition found in each of 

the vegetation communities listed. Kodiak Archipelago has 

experienced a long history of mammal introductions, 

including snowshoe hare, beaver, deer, elk, and mountain goat 

(Burris and McKnight 1973). Each of these animals focuses 

on plants for its main dietary needs. Kodiak Archipelago has 

also undergone considerable change through volcanic 

eruptions, glaciation, and the slow spread of Sitka spruce. 

New information is needed to more fully understand the 

effects of nonnative species and changes in climate to the 

habitats of Kodiak Refuge. 

6.3 By 2010, develop a monitoring program to evaluate major 

plant communities in the vicinity of remote weather stations. 

Rationale: In 1994, the Climatic Subcommittee of the Region 

7 Habitat Committee proposed a plan to monitor climatic 

factors on Alaska refuges. Kodiak was one of the first refuges 

to initiate this program, installing four remote automated 

weather stations (RAWS) around the Archipelago in 1995. 

These stations were installed to begin collecting weather data 

to better understand the relationship between wildlife habitats 

and weather (USFWS 1994a). The second part of the 

project—monitoring plant communities surrounding the 

weather stations—has never been developed but is needed to 

provide a whole picture of how climate changes may or may 

not be affecting plant communities. 

GOAL 7: Conserve the abundance of natural salmonid populations 

for continued human and wildlife use and to ensure the 

diversity of species as indicators of the health of the 

Refuge’s ecosystem. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

7.1 In collaboration with ADF&G, annually monitor escapement 

of salmon by means of aerial surveys and weir counts to 

ensure adequate escapement for future production and to 

support important commercial, recreation, and subsistence 

fisheries. 

Rationale: Escapement monitoring is key to successful 

salmon stock management. Although ADF&G has primary 

management and data-collection responsibilities, the Refuge 

shares these responsibilities and recognizes the importance of 

fishery resources to support the purposes for which the Refuge 

was established. Refuge resources will best be conserved 

through a collaborative, long-term commitment to support 

monitoring fisheries resources. 

7.2 Monitor salmon escapement in streams on the Refuge that are 

key seasonal feeding areas for brown bears and bald eagles 

and work collaboratively with ADF&G to maintain 

escapement levels that reflect wildlife needs. 

Rationale: Although wildlife needs are recognized in salmon 

escapement goals set by ADF&G, as required by the Policies 

on the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries and the 

Statewide Escapement Goals, the importance of brown bears 

and eagles and their dependence on the salmon resources 

require special attention. Documenting wildlife use of salmon 

resources and ensuring adequate fish abundance to meet these 

needs is an ongoing effort. The Refuge will continue to work 

with ADF&G to gather necessary data to update salmon 

escapement goals during their review cycle. 

7.3 Annually review commercial, recreation, and subsistence 

harvest of salmon by means of ADF&G commercial harvest 

reports, special use permit reports, creel censuses, and 

subsistence reporting. Harvest data, along with escapement 

data, will be used to monitor productivity of salmon 

populations that occur in waters within refuge boundaries. 

Rationale: Data collected annually by ADF&G and the 

Refuge provide key indicators of population status. Changes 

in harvest levels, catch rates, public use levels, and salmon 

escapement can indicate shifts in fish abundance and 

productivity. If changes are detected, more directed studies 

can be implemented to determine if a problem exists and to 

determine potential remedies. 

7.4 Continue to review management plans and harvest regulations 

that may affect exploitation of fish populations located within 

the Refuge. Make recommendations to ADF&G, regional 

advisory councils, the Federal Subsistence Board, local 

advisory committees, and the Alaska Board of Fisheries, as 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-17 

needed, for modifications to existing plans and regulations 

and/or for new plans and regulations. 

Rationale: Using existing state and federal regulatory and 

management processes to conserve fish and wildlife resources 

within the Refuge is an ongoing effort. The Refuge is 

committed to actively participate in and contribute to various 

public processes that affect refuge resources. 

7.5 Work with ADF&G to evaluate the need for steelhead 

escapement goals for Karluk, Ayakulik, and Sturgeon rivers. 

Additionally, recommend to ADF&G management actions or 

regulatory proposals that foster conservation of population 

structure and productivity of stocks that use these rivers. 

Rationale: Steelhead is an important recreation and 

subsistence species. At present, management goals for 

steelhead fisheries are contained in the ADF&G Statewide 

Rainbow Trout Management Policy; no formal escapement 

goals are identified. The Refuge would collaborate with 

ADF&G to establish escapement goals and management 

targets for steelhead through the Board of Fisheries process. 

7.6 Assess and monitor populations to gather baseline data on 

noncommercial fish species such as Arctic char in Karluk 

Lake, Dolly Varden char, and resident rainbow trout. Use 

study methods such as mark-recapture, radio-tagging, weirs, 

video, and creel surveys with assistance of the Service’s King 

Salmon Fish & Wildlife Service field office and ADF&G. 

Rationale: Dolly Varden, Arctic char, and rainbow trout 

support valuable recreation and subsistence fisheries within 

the Refuge. Documenting the current status of these 

populations will contribute to understanding of population 

dynamics and ensure changes in abundance or distribution can 

be detected. If changes are detected over time, appropriate 

management actions can be initiated to conserve the stocks. 

7.7 Continue to require ADF&G to implement monitoring 

programs for Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 

(KRAA) enhancement projects conducted on the Refuge, as 

outlined in specific refuge management plans (i.e., Spiridon 

and Hidden lakes enhancement management plans). Annually 

review project reports provided by ADF&G to ensure that 

biological parameters continue to meet management plan 

criteria, which will ensure protection of wild salmon stocks, 

char populations, and wildlife within the project area. 

Rationale: When the Spiridon and Hidden lakes enhancement 

projects were first proposed, several biological concerns were 

expressed by the Service; these included potential 

interbreeding of wild and enhanced stock, displacement of 

wild stocks, introduction of disease, impacts to resident fish 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

populations, and changes in wildlife migration and use 

patterns. In response to those concerns, ADF&G and KRAA 

developed enhancement management plans with specific 

monitoring requirements. While current enhancement projects 

do not appear to have negative impacts on wild fish and 

wildlife populations, continued monitoring is necessary to 

ensure health and well-being of these populations. 

7.8 Through a collaborative effort with ADF&G, evaluate 

situations when fish populations are determined not to be 

meeting escapement goals or management targets. When 

weak stocks are identified (e.g., the early run of sockeye in 

Akalura Creek) develop strategies to improve and stabilize 

runs, which may include implementation of specific 

management actions and research or rehabilitation projects, 

while maintaining genetic integrity of these fish populations. 

Rationale: The Refuge is committed to maintaining 

sustainable, productive fish populations. Because ADF&G has 

primary responsibility to manage fish and wildlife 

populations, the Service will work together with the 

department, using the Board of Fisheries process when 

appropriate, to seek solutions to restore fish stocks that are 

depressed. 

7.9 Complete data collection and write a report describing and 

classifying genetic characteristics of salmon populations in the 

Kodiak Refugium by 2008. 

Rationale: Genetic samples were collected in 1999 and 2001 

from sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon. These samples are 

at the Service’s conservation genetic laboratory pending 

analysis. A report will be written to summarize these findings, 

which will be valuable in future management and 

conservation of these stocks. 

7.10 In cooperation with ADF&G, document and describe genetic 

characteristics and variability of natural fish populations that 

are important indicators of the diversity on the Refuge for 

both human and wildlife use. 

Rationale: Both ADF&G, through its genetic policy, and the 

Refuge, by its commitment to ecosystem principles, recognize 

the importance of conserving genetic diversity as a means of 

maintaining healthy fish populations. Collecting genetic 

material and documenting current status of the fish 

populations within the Refuge will provide valuable data to 

manage and conserve these stocks. 

7.11 Through a coordinated effort with ADF&G, evaluate salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat to determine productivity of 

salmon-producing systems within the Refuge. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-19 

Rationale: Only limited catch and escapement data are 

available for some Pacific salmon species not targeted by the 

commercial, recreation, or subsistence fisheries. In the 

absence of catch and escapement data, alternative methods 

may need to be employed to establish the carrying capacity of 

each drainage. Carrying capacity estimates can be used to help 

set escapement goals and to evaluate the stock status. 

7.12 Through a collaborative effort among ADF&G, the Refuge, 

and the King Salmon Fish & Wildlife Service field office, use 

escapement, habitat, and other pertinent data to establish 

sustainable or biological escapement goals—subject to review 

by the Alaska Board of Fisheries—for all species of salmon 

within the Refuge. 

Rationale: Using ADF&G and the Alaska Board of Fisheries 

processes as much as possible, the Refuge would like to have 

biological escapement goals determined for all salmon stocks 

within the Refuge. Escapement goals currently in use are 

based on commercial use and do not necessarily include 

recreation or wildlife utilization. 

7.13 Establish and implement monitoring plans for streamside 

areas to ensure salmon and Arctic char rearing and spawning 

habitats remain productive. 

Rationale: Recreational fishing and bear viewing are 

concentrated in riparian areas adjacent to important salmon 

spawning streams. High public use has potential to degrade 

these important habitats. While riparian habitats within the 

Refuge have not been negatively affected to the point where 

fish and wildlife productivity has been decreased, these 

habitats should be monitored to detect changes. 

GOAL 8: Provide the opportunity for local residents to continue 

their subsistence uses on the Refuge, consistent with the 

subsistence priority and with other refuge purposes. 

Most of the objectives listed under Goals 1 through 7 are also 

objectives for the subsistence goal. For example, there are numerous 

objectives related to management of deer (Goal 3), fish (Goal 7), and 

migratory birds (Goal 5), which are commonly used subsistence 

resources in and around the Refuge. 

8.1 Coordinate with ADF&G and the Federal Subsistence Board 

to issue special actions, as authorized under federal in-season 

management, when necessary to ensure conservation of 

healthy fish stocks and to provide for subsistence uses (subject 

to Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act [ANILCA]) of fish in federal waters. Efforts 

will be made to minimize disruption to resource users and 

existing agency programs, as agreed to in the Interim 

Memorandum of Agreement for Coordinated Fisheries and 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wildlife Management for Subsistence Uses on Federal Public 

Lands in Alaska. 

Rationale: The Kodiak Refuge manager has been delegated 

in-season subsistence fishery management authority by the 

Federal Subsistence Board for waters within federal 

conservation units within and adjacent to Kodiak Island. The 

authority gives the refuge manager responsibility to take inseason regulatory actions to ensure subsistence fishing needs 

are met. By issuing a “special action,” which is similar to an 

ADF&G emergency order, the refuge manager has authority 

to regulate open and closed fisheries and to adjust bag limits. 

Along with delegating this authority, the Federal Subsistence 

Board has directed the refuge manager to work closely with 

ADF&G managers to minimize unnecessary disruptions to 

ongoing fisheries. 

8.2 Continue to coordinate with and assist the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management in completing the annual 

Migratory Bird Harvest Survey in rural communities 

surrounding Kodiak Refuge. 

Rationale: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protocol 

Amendment provides for harvest of migratory birds during 

spring and summer; however, the amendment states that there 

will not be a significant increase in the number of birds 

harvested relative to their continental population sizes. The 

need for harvest surveys was officially specified at the time 

the amendment was approved. Harvest survey data documents 

the harvest level each year and will help to ensure that harvest 

does not significantly increase over the coming years (Alaska 

Migratory Bird Co-Management Council 2003). 

8.3 Coordinate with ADF&G and the Service’s Office of 

Subsistence Management to complete subsistence use surveys 

as needed. 

Rationale: Management plans and cultural and traditional use 

determinations often require research into historical use of an 

area or a species, including traditional ecological knowledge. 

There have been many studies done in the Kodiak area by 

ADF&G’s Subsistence Division. Studies include 

documentation of mountain goat harvest and use (Williams 

2003), harvest of harbor seal and sea lion (Wolfe and Mishler 

1996), harvest and use in Alaska communities after the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill (Fall 1991; Fall and Utermohle 1999), and an 

ethnography of Old Harbor and Ouzinkie (Mishler 2001). 

Refuge staff will work with the Subsistence Division of 

ADF&G and the Service’s Office of Subsistence Management 

to design and complete necessary studies in an appropriate 

manner. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-21 

GOAL 9: Improve baseline understanding of natural flowing 

waters on the Refuge and maintain the water quality and 

quantity necessary to conserve fish and wildlife 

populations and habitats in their natural diversity. 

9.1 In coordination with the Service’s Fisheries and Ecological 

Services and the Water Resources Branch, in the Regional 

Office, ensure the Four Dam Pool and the Kodiak Electric 

Association comply with instream-flow requirements of the 

Terror Lake Project agreement and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission license. Additionally, monitor and 

maintain water quantity and water quality that could be affected 

by future hydroelectric or other water development projects. 

Rationale: In 1981, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA), 

Department of the Interior, State of Alaska, Sierra Club, 

National Audubon Society, and National Wildlife Federation 

signed a cooperative management agreement (see Appendix 

D) to mitigate adverse effects of the Terror Lake hydroelectric 

project on salmon and their habitat. The agreement stipulates 

an instream-flow regime for Terror River that is a part of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the Terror 

Lake Project. KEA makes water releases to maintain 

minimum instream flows for Terror River that are recorded at 

a U. S. Geological Survey gauging station and reported to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Minimum instream 

flows are necessary to protect the passage, spawning, 

incubation, and rearing of pink and chum salmon resources of 

Terror River and the fish and wildlife resources of other 

waterbodies. 

9.2 By 2009, complete the Five-Year Plan of Study for the Water 

Resources Inventory and Assessment on Kodiak Refuge and, 

in coordination with the Service’s Water Resources Branch, 

quantify and file for instream water rights for the maintenance 

and protection of fish and wildlife habitats. 

Rationale: The baseline inventory and assessment will 

provide managers with a basic understanding of the variability 

of stream flow over time and among watersheds with different 

physical characteristics. The water resource inventory and 

assessment will provide the baseline information documenting 

the occurrence, quantity, distribution, frequency, and quality 

of selected surface waters on the Refuge. This information 

will be available to resource managers and the public and will 

be used to support quantification of instream-flow water rights 

necessary to maintain water quantity and quality for the 

protection of fish and wildlife and their habitats to achieve the 

purposes of Kodiak Refuge as stated in ANILCA. (See section 

1.1.2 in Chapter 1.) 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

9.3 In cooperation with ADF&G and the King Salmon Fish & 

Wildlife Service field office, initiate limnological studies at 

lakes and streams within the Refuge that provide important 

habitat for fish and wildlife. Specifically, begin studies at 

Karluk, Ayakulik (Red Lake), Frazer, Akalura, Uganik, 

Sturgeon, Spiridon, and Little river systems. 

Rationale: Lake rearing is a critical phase of sockeye salmon 

life history. Lake productivity is often the limiting factor 

controlling juvenile sockeye salmon abundance. Monitoring 

and understanding lake productivity through limnological 

investigations are important and can be used to help establish 

escapement goals for river systems. Given sockeye salmon’s 

role in transporting nutrients into lake systems and adjacent 

terrestrial areas, a continuing commitment to monitor lake 

productivity is warranted. 

GOAL 10: Provide opportunities for quality public use and 

enjoyment of refuge resources through compatible fishand wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. 

10.1 Improve monitoring and continue appropriate onsite 

management of seasonal aggregations of public use at 

Ayakulik River, Karluk River, Frazer fish pass, and Uganik 

River and expand to other areas as use develops. 

Rationale: Concentrations of public use occur during June for 

king salmon fishing on the Ayakulik and Karluk rivers, in July 

for fishing and bear viewing at Frazer fish pass, and in 

September for coho fishing on the Uganik River. These 

aggregations of refuge visitors increase the potential for 

impacts to bears and other resources and for user conflicts, 

which require additional management considerations. 

Monitoring not only the amount of use, but also the nature of 

visitor experiences (using appropriate social science methods) 

is important for preventing conflicts and for maintaining 

quality recreation opportunities. 

In some popular use-areas, visitors periodically compete for 

camping areas that have level terrain and are conveniently 

located near productive fishing holes. These camping areas 

are typically located along rivers in the same areas where 

brown bears travel and congregate during salmon runs. Bears 

compete with humans for use of gravel bars, which the bears 

use for feeding areas, and river banks, which they use for 

movement corridors. The potential for soil and vegetation 

impacts and for bear–human conflicts is evident. Improved 

monitoring is necessary to determine if and where onsite 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-23 

management—such as improving camping areas2—is 

appropriate to mitigate resource impacts associated with 

seasonal aggregations of public use. 

10.2 In cooperation with ADF&G, Koniag, Inc., Akhiok-Kaguyak, 

Inc., and Old Harbor, continue to implement and manage 

easement agreements to minimize impacts of public use on 

fish, wildlife, and habitat; to ensure compatibility with refuge 

purposes; and to provide for sustainable fish, wildlife, and 

wildlands recreation. 

Rationale: The United States, in cooperation with the State of 

Alaska, has entered into conservation easements with each of 

these Native corporations to protect conservation values on 

corporation lands within the refuge boundary. Each easement 

provides information on the rights and responsibilities of the 

Service and the particular Native corporation with respect to 

public access and use, prohibited uses, and management. It is 

essential that all participants work together to comply with 

and implement easement terms. 

10.3 In 2007, develop an operations plan encompassing all aspects 

of law enforcement to be completed by 2008. Annually 

monitor commercial activities on the Refuge, including 

compliance with special use permit conditions and operation 

plans. Expand law-enforcement outreach to include education 

programs and media releases regarding refuge regulations, 

and increase the number of field patrols to protect resource 

values and to enhance visitor experiences on Refuge and 

conservation easement lands. 

Rationale: The Refuge lacks an operations plan for law 

enforcement. Monitoring commercial use is important to 

ensure compliance with permit conditions and operation plans 

and compatibility with refuge purposes. Expanding law 

enforcement outreach to include local presentations, 

newspaper articles, and radio reports would facilitate visitor 

use and reduce potential for violations. Topics could include 

the permit system for Koniag conservation easement lands; 

resource and legal concerns about low-altitude flights over 

bear feeding areas; and waterfowl identification to reduce 

illegal harvest of Steller’s eiders. Increased refuge patrols 

could better ensure visitor safety and resource protection. 

10.4 Assess the nature of visitor experiences available in different 

types of bear-viewing settings to support the design and 

development of viewing programs at O’Malley River and 

 

2

Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

other potential sites. Complete the assessment(s) in advance of 

the implementation of any new bear-viewing program(s). 

Rationale: In their 2002 assessment of regional bear-viewing 

opportunities, Allen and Collins (2002) suggest that “future 

research is needed to assess the correspondence between 

settings. . . . and the types of experiences people have. . . . 

Researchers have not compared experiences of bear viewers 

systematically at various settings to determine the relative role 

of setting attributes” (Allen and Collins 2002, p. 59). In other 

words, little is known about the influence on the nature of 

bear-viewing experiences of things such as viewing platforms 

and other facilities, viewer density, and proximity to bears. 

Research of the kind proposed here will help managers 

effectively design viewing programs to meet their intended 

purposes. 

10.5 Using rigorous social science methods, assess the nature of 

visitor experiences, significant influences on those 

experiences, and public acceptability of potential management 

actions at Frazer fish pass. Use results of the study as input to 

visitor-use management and potential visitor-capacity 

decisions at that site. 

Rationale: There is mounting anecdotal evidence—including 

reports from visitors, guides, and air taxi operators—that high 

visitor densities at Frazer fish pass, which is operated by 

ADF&G for management and research purposes, are causing 

negative impacts to the quality of the setting and the 

experience at that site. The popularity and unique attributes of 

this site warrant attention above and beyond the monitoring 

called for in objective 10.1. Formal research is needed to 

systematically document and understand visitors’ and 

commercial operators’ expectations, the kinds of experiences 

visitors are currently having, and the root cause(s) of observed 

and reported problems (some problems may be related to 

behaviors or value differences among users rather than from 

user density). Ultimately, decisions about visitor capacity at 

Frazer fish pass may be informed—but not directed—by this 

research. Decades of research have shown that there is no 

objective social carrying capacity that may be “discovered” 

for a given setting. Rather, capacity is a subjective standard 

identified by informed managers in cooperation with the 

public. 

10.6 Manage the public use cabin system to support a variety of 

compatible recreation activities by carefully considering the 

location of all current cabins and potential future additions to 

the system. 

Rationale: Use records maintained by the Refuge show 

substantial variability in demand for individual cabins, 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-25 

depending on time of year and the activities that each cabin 

supports. The most popular cabins support a wide variety of 

activities and are relatively easily accessible by the public. 

Even the least popular cabins (based on annual use-days) 

serve an important function because they are adjacent to 

saltwater and are therefore accessible in mid-winter when 

freshwater cabins are inaccessible because of freeze-up. The 

current collection of public use cabins appears to function 

relatively well as a system. If changes to the system (including 

relocation of existing cabins, conversion to public use of 

cabins on acquired lands, or new construction) are proposed, 

the following location criteria should be considered: (1) 

availability of diverse recreation activities and/or activities not 

supported by other cabins in the system; (2) solitude and 

isolation from other uses and facilities on the Refuge; (3) ease 

of access for users and for maintenance, and; (4) prevention of 

adverse impacts to refuge resources. 

10.7 Continue to monitor use of 17(b) easements and implement 

management actions as necessary to prevent resource impacts 

to the easements. (Also see Goal 1.) 

Rationale: 17(b) easements provide important public access to 

the Refuge across Native corporation lands. Unfortunately, 

some easements (e.g., between Larsen Bay and the Karluk 

River) are located in fragile terrain where even moderate use 

may cause lasting impacts to soils and vegetation. A 

consistent monitoring program will alert managers to changes 

in use that will trigger appropriate management actions. 

10.8 By 2008, assess off-road vehicle (ORV) use on conservation 

easements lands. 

Rationale: Easement agreements with Old Harbor, AkhiokKaguyak, Inc., and Koniag, Inc., provide for some ORV use, 

although stipulations differ among the agreements. It is 

unknown how much use is occurring and whether use is 

damaging conservation easement lands. Stakeholders who 

participated in the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002) 

process were concerned about possible ramifications of ORV 

use on conservation easement lands. They recommended that 

baseline information be gathered on ORV use and that 

expansion of ORV use be discouraged in areas where they 

have not been previously used. 

10.9 Initiate assessment of snowmachine use on the Refuge. 

Rationale: Little is known about the nature or intensity of 

snowmachine use on the Refuge. Snowmachines were 

prohibited on the Refuge prior to 1980. Improved 

snowmachine technology and expanded participation have led 

to concerns about user conflicts and resource impacts in other 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

parts of Alaska. Although lack of snow may limit 

snowmachine use on Kodiak, it is important that the Refuge 

develop a baseline understanding of past and present use 

levels in order to assess potential for impacts to refuge 

resources. 

GOAL 11: Improve management of commercial use opportunities 

that are compatible with refuge purposes, provide quality 

public use opportunities, enhance visitor experiences, 

and ensure compliance with provisions of ANILCA. 

11.1 To accommodate an increasing number of permittees, review 

the current process for administrating special use permits and 

develop a simplified, more time-efficient system for receiving 

applications, issuing permits, processing use reports, and 

distributing billings. 

Rationale: The current process used to administer special use 

permits is labor intensive and repetitious (e.g., some operators 

are issued four permits for recreation fish guiding). Operators 

have asked if there is a way to simplify the administrative 

process. 

11.2 By 2008, develop an education program for commercial 

operators to inform permittees of refuge requirements, goals, 

and regulations. As a part of this, provide updated information 

on bear safety and awareness for distribution to clients. 

Rationale: The National Park Service recently started 

requiring each applicant for a special use permit to conduct 

commercial services in Katmai National Park to attend an 

education program prior to being issued a permit. The Park 

Service found this to be an effective tool in minimizing 

administrative errors and in aiding user compliance with park 

regulations. The Refuge is interesting in developing a similar 

program for the same benefits. The Bear Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002) recommended that agencies develop 

educational materials and that permittees provide bear safety 

instructions to their clients before going to the field. 

11.3 By 2007, obtain stakeholder input, determine if the 1987 

Management Plan for Commercial Fishing Activities needs to 

be revised, and update this plan if warranted. 

Rationale: Section 304(d) of ANILCA allows the use of 

refuge lands for campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and 

aircraft landings directly incident to the exercise of valid 

commercial fishing activities, consistent with the purposes of 

the Refuge and not significantly above the level of such 

activities during 1979. The 1987 plan defined the numbers, 

types, and sizes of facilities and equipment allowed on refuge 

lands related to commercial fishing. Permit holders, ADF&G, 

and the general public will be consulted about the need to 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-27 

update the plan, and the plan will be revised as necessary to 

reflect changes since it was prepared. 

GOAL 12: Provide outreach, environmental education, and 

interpretive programs that increase a sense of 

stewardship for wildlife, cultural resources, and the 

environment and that enhance visitor experiences on the 

Refuge. 

12.1 Plan, design, and construct a refuge visitor center in the 

vicinity of downtown Kodiak, to be completed by 2009. 

Rationale: The U.S. Congress has so far provided in excess of 

four million dollars for planning, land acquisition, design, and 

initiation of construction. The total cost of the facility is 

estimated at eight million dollars plus land acquisition. The 

visitor center will allow the Refuge to greatly expand the 

number of people it reaches through its interpretive and 

environmental education programs. Visitation at the current 

center at refuge headquarters was approximately 2,500 people 

in 2003. It is estimated that the Refuge is missing a potential 

audience of as many as 50,000 visitors annually. This estimate 

includes visitors arriving by air, ferry, and cruise ships during 

the summer months alone. Note: Funding for construction of 

the visitor center is a one-time special appropriation from 

Congress that can be used exclusively for this project; these 

funds are not part of the Service’s general budget. 

12.2 By 2007, provide better access to refuge information on topics 

such as bear safety, campfire safety, permits, and public use 

cabins through a Web site and other electronic media. 

Information would also be available through a variety of 

nonelectronic sources. 

Rationale: Educational information on key topics provided in 

a variety of formats is a cost-effective way to reach visitors 

and others with important messages. The Bear Management 

Plan (ADF&G 2002) calls for new interpretive and 

educational materials to help avoid adverse human-bear 

encounters. 

12.3 Increase visitor center staffing to allow the center to be open 

seven days per week during peak visitor use season 

(dependent on funding). 

Rationale: From mid-May through mid-September, the ferry 

serving Kodiak runs four times a week, cruise ships visit, and 

visitation numbers spike. To accommodate increased numbers 

of visitors and to better serve the public, extended hours into 

the evenings and weekends require additional staff or 

volunteers. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

12.4 Acquire base funds for the Kodiak Summer Science and 

Salmon Camp base camp and village outreach project through 

Refuge System funding processes to avoid depending on 

annual fund-raising. 

Rationale: Kodiak Summer Science and Salmon Camp is the 

largest and most significant refuge outreach project. Not only 

is it an award-winning educational program, but it is an 

important community tradition. However, fund-raising is so 

varied and so unreliable that each year staff questions how it 

will run. The best way to ensure Salmon Camp’s continued 

success, now and into the future, is to secure base funding. 

12.5 Annually sponsor, co-sponsor, or participate in community 

events, festivals, and programs (e.g., Migratory Bird Day, 

Crab Fest, Whale Fest) to build awareness of the Refuge and 

Kodiak ecosystems. 

Rationale: These community events provide the Refuge 

opportunities to increase community awareness and to share 

key interpretive and educational messages. 

12.6 By 2008, work within the community to increase partnerships 

and volunteers to form a friends group for Kodiak Refuge. 

Rationale: One person can make a difference. A friends group 

could make much more of a difference. There are many 

projects and programs that are stagnant because of lack of 

personnel, money, or support. With an active advocacy group 

for the Refuge, new doors of possibility and opportunity can 

be opened. 

12.7 As staff and funding allow, conduct workshops with schools 

and teachers across Kodiak Island to enhance curriculum and 

outreach dealing with refuge resources, issues, and 

opportunities. 

Rationale: By training teachers, refuge educational messages 

can be incorporated into local school curricula. Teachers will 

then reach many more students than can refuge staff. 

Messages can be included in educational activities throughout 

the school year. 

12.8 Expand opportunities for individuals, organized groups, and 

families to learn about the Refuge through on and offheadquarters programs, environmental education, nature 

walks and interpretive programs. 

Rationale: Opportunities such as interpretive and educational 

programs, talks, nature hikes, and workshops provide an 

important and desired visitor service. They can prepare 

visitors to have safe and enjoyable experiences on the Refuge 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-29 

as well as educate a variety of audiences about conservation 

topics or refuge issues. 

GOAL 13: Conserve cultural and archaeological resources of the 

Refuge. 

13.1 Identify priority areas to inventory for archaeologic and other 

cultural sites and conduct surveys as time and personnel 

permit. Perform surveys at a level sufficient to evaluate, 

without a follow-up visit, eligibility of sites identified for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. While 

actual surveys will be conducted as funding and personnel 

become available, the identification of priority areas and 

overall planning for surveys should be completed by the end 

of 2007. 

Rationale: Some areas of the Archipelago are very wellknown and studied. Others are virtually unknown. The 

Service knows there is a high degree of regional variability 

among archaeological resources in this relatively small area, 

but many questions about why the diversity exists and how it 

was maintained are not known. Surveys in relatively unknown 

areas will provide immediately useful information on site 

locations and physical characteristics needed to protect the 

sites. Over the longer term, work in currently unknown areas 

will provide information on the prehistory of Kodiak. The 

National Register of Historic Places is a list of districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects significant in American 

history, architecture, archaeology and culture. 

13.2 Formalize the existing partnership with the Alutiiq Museum 

by the end of 2006. This agreement should spell out 

participation of the Refuge, the Service’s Regional Office in 

Anchorage, and the Museum in terms of both funding and 

tasks. Seek out and develop partnerships with Native 

corporations, universities, other government agencies, etc., to 

cooperatively inventory, manage, and protect cultural 

resources. 

Rationale: Cooperative projects with museums, universities, 

and other institutions allow parties to pool often scarce 

resources and increase the amount of work completed. They 

allow the Service to receive the advantages of working with 

recognized experts in the region, which greatly increases the 

value of completed work. The Service is already engaged in 

cooperative activities with the Alutiiq Museum, and 

formalizing the relationship will clarify what each party can 

expect from the other and the roles of the museum and the 

Refuge in managing, studying, and interpreting cultural 

resources on lands managed by the Refuge. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

13.3 Identify and acquire archaeological, historical, and 

ethnographical archival resources to provide the necessary 

background material to support archaeological and historic 

site protection, public interpretation, and paleobiological 

information useful in wildlife and habitat management. 

Rationale: The amount of information available on the 

prehistory and paleoenvironment of Kodiak has increased 

dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. Much of this will be 

critical to modern interpretations of the prehistory of the 

Island and its wildlife. 

13.4 Provide Archaeological Resources Protection Act training to 

refuge law-enforcement personnel. Provide basic cultural 

resource training to refuge staff. Identify sites or areas at risk 

for vandalism and monitor with periodic law-enforcement 

patrols. 

Rationale: Sites on Kodiak are large, prominent, and contain a 

wealth of attractive artifacts. Looting is a long-recognized 

problem in the Archipelago. Training for refuge staff on the 

kinds and value of cultural resources and in law enforcement 

will provide the Refuge with several tools to control looting. 

Coupling this training with identification of sites or areas 

needing monitoring, the law-enforcement staff can actively 

monitor and, if necessary, pursue legal actions. At the same 

time, the other refuge staff can incorporate cultural resource 

values in their natural resource–protection message. 

Identification of specific problem areas for monitoring will 

target high-profile activity areas for maximum deterrence. 

13.5 Strengthen and expand the Alaska Heritage Resource 

Stewardship program for site monitoring and evaluating site 

conditions on Kodiak Refuge. 

Rationale: Stewardship has reduced vandalism on Kodiak 

from 15 percent to 30 percent of sites to less than five percent 

in areas with active steward monitors. Stewardship engages 

the public in a truly valuable resource-protection role and 

makes them stakeholders and proponents of preservation. 

There is increasing interest in expanding the program to other 

areas of Kodiak. This is probably the single most valuable 

effort the Service could make to protect cultural resources on 

Kodiak. 

GOAL 14: Conserve special and unique features of the Kodiak 

Archipelago ecosystem within the Refuge. 

Note: Most of the objectives listed under Goals 1 through 7 are also 

objectives related to the special and unique features of the 

Archipelago ecosystem. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-31 

14.1 With public involvement, develop a management plan for the 

Mount Glottof Research Natural Area that identifies 

conservation and monitoring measures to preserve and 

document featured values and identifies how management 

under the plan may influence public use and access. 

Rationale: The Mount Glottof Research Natural Area was 

designated in 1975 to highlight important alpine habitat values 

for bears and to provide a focal point for research activity. 

Studies and research have been conducted in the area, but 

there has been no coordinated approach to management and 

use of the area. Developing a step-down management plan 

will ensure that the unique habitat and wildlife values of this 

research natural area are preserved and that appropriate 

research opportunities are identified. This objective is 

supported by a recommendation of the Bear Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002). 

GOAL 15: Promote close working relationships through effective 

coordination, interaction, and cooperation with other 

federal agencies, state agencies, local communities, 

tribes, organizations, industries, the general public, and 

landowners within and adjacent to the Refuge whose 

programs affect or are affected by refuge management 

activities. 

15.1 Routinely report results of biological and subsistence 

management, monitoring, and research to external audiences, 

including Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee, 

Kodiak-Aleutian Regional Advisory Council, tribal councils, 

and other interested groups and individuals. 

Rationale: The lands of Kodiak Refuge are internationally 

known. Local people use these lands for subsistence and 

recreation. People come from across the globe to experience 

the wildness and abundance of Kodiak Refuge lands. By 

routinely providing information to all of the Refuge’s 

constituents, more public input is garnered, and better 

decisions can be made by resource managers. It is in the best 

interest of the Refuge to keep interested parties involved in 

the process because they are the ones for whom these lands 

are managed. 

15.2 Use and assist in the fish and game regulation process through 

interaction with ADF&G, local and fish and game advisory 

committees, state Boards of Fisheries and Game, Federal 

Subsistence Board, Kodiak-Aleutians Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Council, and the Alaska Migratory Bird 

Co-management Council. 

Rationale: These various organizations are part of the state 

and federal fish and wildlife regulatory process. Many fish 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and wildlife management issues can best be resolved through 

these regulatory processes. Refuge staff often have relevant 

information to support regulation of hunting and fishing on 

and near the Refuge. Conversely, how hunting and fishing are 

managed affects refuge management and public use and 

enjoyment of the Refuge. 

15.3 Use public processes as necessary to encourage stakeholder 

involvement in implementation of this Conservation Plan. 

Rationale: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge belongs to the 

American public. Citizens—individually and through state, 

local, tribal governments, and organizations—have 

participated in various aspects of refuge management since 

the Refuge was established. Many actions proposed in the 

plan require adaptive management. The least-intrusive 

management is proposed, tested, and refined in response to 

monitoring and evaluation. For management to be effective, 

individuals and organizations with a stake in the outcome, 

especially those who will be directly or indirectly affected, 

must be involved in crafting management and implementing 

planning decisions. 

15.4 Continue the Refuge Information Technician program to 

enhance information exchange with local communities on 

refuge issues, particularly those dealing with subsistence and 

bear management (such as bears killed in defense-of-life-orproperty). 

Rationale: Residents of the villages of Kodiak are closer to 

refuge lands than those who live in the City of Kodiak, yet 

they have less contact in general with the refuge staff. The 

refuge information technician (RIT) position at Kodiak 

Refuge has been one way to change that. With this staff 

position, more time can be devoted to contacting tribes, 

corporations, and individuals who do not have ready access to 

the refuge office. This person prepares information 

specifically for the villages and visits the villages on a regular 

basis. While in the village, the individual can personally 

deliver information, answer questions, and return with 

feedback for refuge staff. 

15.5 Participate in interagency activities, cooperative agreements, 

data sharing, and sharing of equipment and personnel to 

accomplish mutual management goals and objectives. 

Rationale: Working together with others is national and 

regional Service policy, is called for in the Bear Management 

Plan (ADF&G 2002), and is generally a good way to do 

business. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-33 

15.6 When requested, partner with community members to address 

bear-management concerns at villages, remote cabins, and 

lodges. 

Rationale: The Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002) 

identifies this type of cooperative approach to bear 

management concerns in recommendations related to defenseof-life-or-property kills, solid waste management and storage 

of human and pet food, and bear education. 

2.2 Management 

Policies and 

Guidelines 

Management of national wildlife refuges in Alaska is governed by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

(Refuge Administration Act; 16 U.S.C., Section 668dd), as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Refuge Improvement Act; P.L. 105-57) and ANILCA: by 

regulations implementing these laws; by treaties; by Service policy; 

and by principles of sound resource management—which establish 

standards for resource management or limit the range of potential 

activities that may be allowed on the refuges. When the management 

direction or details of the direction are specific to or modified for 

application to Kodiak Refuge, it is so noted. 

ANILCA authorizes traditional activities such as subsistence, the 

exercise of valid commercial fishing rights, hunting, fishing and 

trapping in accordance with state and federal laws. Under Service 

regulations implementing this direction, “public recreation activities 

within the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges are authorized as long 

as such activities are conducted in a manner compatible with the 

purposes for which the areas were established” [50 CFR 36.31(a)]. 

Such recreation activities include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, 

nature observations and photography, hunting, fishing, boating, 

camping, hiking, picnicking, and other related activities. The Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act, 

defines “wildlife-dependent recreation” and “wildlife-dependent 

recreational use” as “hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and interpretation” (16 

U.S.C., Section 668ee[2]). These uses are encouraged and will 

receive emphasis in management of the public’s use of refuges. 

Under all the action alternatives (B, C, and D) being considered, 

management of the Refuge would comply with the management 

direction described in this section. As a result, the alternatives share 

a set of common management policies and guidelines. These 

directions provide a common base on which each of the alternatives 

is built and represent the typical level of management necessary to 

comply with existing law, regulation, and policy. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.2.1 Management Emergencies 

It may be necessary, when emergencies occur on the Refuge, to 

deviate from policies and guidelines discussed in the conservation 

plan. Activities not allowed on the Refuge or under a specific 

management category (as shown in Table 2-2) may occur during or 

as a result of emergencies. For example, if naturally occurring or 

human-caused actions (e.g., landslides, floods, fires, droughts) 

adversely affect refuge resources, it may be necessary to undertake 

rehabilitation, restoration, habitat improvement, water management, 

fisheries enhancement, or other actions that would not otherwise be 

allowed to the same extent on the Refuge. Threats to human health 

and safety may also result during emergencies. In emergencies, the 

refuge manager is authorized to take prudent and reasonable actions 

to protect human life and to address immediate health, safety, or 

critical resource protection needs. 

2.2.2 Administrative Boundary Adjustments and IntraAgency Management Agreements 

Included within the boundaries of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge are numerous islands, islets, rocks, reefs, and spires and an 

undetermined quantity of submerged lands in the vicinity of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. (See Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1.) While 

these lands and submerged lands, if any, remain under the legal 

jurisdiction of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, certain 

management authorities have been transferred to Kodiak Refuge. A 

1989 regional memorandum administratively transferred 

management of Sheep, Sally, and Sitkalidak islands to Kodiak 

Refuge because the islands’ resources and human uses are closely 

linked to adjacent Kodiak Refuge lands. Kodiak Refuge manages 

refuge lands on these islands. 

To facilitate access to and use of other refuge islands in and around 

the Archipelago for compatible recreation and commercial activities, 

Kodiak Refuge and Alaska Maritime Refuge share responsibilities 

for issuing special use permits and ensuring compliance with permit 

conditions for these areas. The two refuges have worked together to 

develop standard permit conditions for common activities. Residents 

of Kodiak may now deal directly with Kodiak Refuge for their 

permit needs for these Alaska Maritime lands. Residents of other 

areas who have or need permits for use of Alaska Maritime lands in 

the Kodiak vicinity may contact either refuge directly. 

Certain Womens Bay waters and surrounding lands were withdrawn 

for the U.S. Navy by Executive Order 8278 on October 28, 1939. 

Over time, at least eight different public lands orders have made 

changes to the original Navy withdrawal. Currently, the U.S. Coast 

Guard has primary jurisdiction over much of Womens Bay, while 

Alaska Maritime Refuge will continue to administer a portion of the 

original Navy withdrawal that was revoked but not granted to the 

Coast Guard. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-35 

Table 2-1 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge lands near 

Kodiak Refuge, February 19, 2003 

Islands USFWS 

Acres 

Non-USFWS 

Acres 

Aiaktalik Island 3,462.21 983.6 

Alf Island 60.7 0 

Alligator Island Lighthouse 13.9 0 

Amee Island 23.6 0 

Bear Island (in Bluefox Bay) 226.6 0 

Blodgett Islands 5.02 0 

Cathedral Island 16.8 0 

Cliff Island 1.4 0 

Cub Island 2.8 0 

Delphin Island 65.5 0 

Discoverer Island 164 0 

Egg Island 4.52 0 

Fox Island 63.93 0 

Geese Islands 65.83 458.8 

Grassy Island 13.3 0 

Green Island (near Village Island) 0.8 0 

Hogg Island 119.9 0 

Islets at head of Northeast Arm 11.9 0 

John Island 1.3 0 

Kulichkof Island 1.6 0 

Ladder Island 26.0 0 

Latex Rocks 7.8 0 

Mary Island 22.32 0 

Noisy Islands 77.4 0 

Nut Island 0.7 0 

Puffin Island (near Sitkalidak Island) 0.4 9.4 

Puffin Island (in Womens Bay) 5.5 0 

Rocky Island 1.7 0 

Sally Island 1,407.2 0 

Sea Otter Island 42.2 0 

Seal Islands 13.2 0 

Sealion Rocks 12.1 0 

Sheep Island 120.2 0 

Shuyak Island 283.14 44,116.4 

Sitkinak Island 1,704.82 57,125.4 

Spruce Island 112.71 10,268.6 

Table Island 4.61 0 

Teck Island 29.9 0 

Unnamed Islands (Bluefox Bay) 70.9 0 

Unnamed Island (Duck Bay) 9.6 0 

Viesoki Island 2.3 0 

Village Islands 125.6 0 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-36 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Islands USFWS 

Acres 

Non-USFWS 

Acres 

Woody Island 12.85

153.63

1,437.3 

Zaimka 25.02 0 

Submerged Land USFWS Acres 

Afognak Fish Culture Reserve 394,103.96

Womens Bay 4,385.7 

3,899.32

Karluk Reservation 7,044.3 

1 Selected (conflicting state and village corporation selections) 

2 U.S. Coast Guard (Service has secondary jurisdiction) 

3 Selected (village corporation) 

4 Federal Aviation Administration (Air Navigation Site) (Service has secondary 

jurisdiction) 

5 Other federal (Service has secondary jurisdiction) 

6 Acreage will be adjusted once the 1892 boundary of the Afognak Forest and 

Fish Culture Reserve is clarified 

Management of off-shore submerged lands and waters in the Karluk 

and Afognak areas remains with Alaska Maritime Refuge. These 

areas, retained in federal ownership at the time of statehood and 

subsequently included in Alaska Maritime Refuge by ANILCA, 

include the following: 

 Tidelands, submerged lands, and water column within one mile 

from the shores of Afognak Island and adjacent rocks, including 

Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Island 

 A 3,000-foot-wide strip of tidelands, submerged lands, and water 

column extending from Wolcott Reef to Sturgeon Lagoon 

(measured from the shoreline at mean low tide) near Karluk on 

Kodiak Island 

The Afognak waters were originally set aside by Presidential 

Proclamation No. 39 on December 24, 1892, as the Afognak Forest 

and Fish Culture Reserve; the Karluk waters were part of an Indian 

reservation established by public land order on May 22, 1943, for the 

inhabitants of the Native village of Karluk, Alaska. Reservation 

status was revoked when local residents chose to participate in the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act land selection process. Special 

use permits for research and commercial uses in these waters (below 

mean high tide) will be issued by the Alaska Maritime Refuge. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-37 

Figure 2-1 Alaska Maritime NWR lands 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-39 

2.2.3 Land Exchanges and Acquisitions 

Under Section 1302 of ANILCA, and subject to certain restrictions, 

the Service may acquire by purchase, donation, or exchange any 

lands within the boundaries of Alaska refuges. Proposed land 

exchanges or acquisitions must benefit fish and wildlife resources, 

satisfy other purposes for which the refuge was established, or be 

necessary to satisfy other national interests. The Service can also 

purchase conservation easements or enter into cooperative 

management agreements to meet these objectives. See Appendix H 

for information on the Kodiak Refuge land acquisition program. 

2.2.4 Land Conservation Planning 

Department of the Interior and Service policies require development 

of a step-down plan, called a land conservation plan, addressing 

priorities for habitat conservation within refuge boundaries. Land 

conservation plans inform private landowners what land within 

refuge boundaries the Service would like to see conserved for fish 

and wildlife habitat. The plans do the following: 

 Identify the private lands within the refuge boundary that the 

Service believes should be conserved 

 Display the relative protection priority for each parcel 

 Discuss alternative means of land and resource conservation 

 Analyze the impacts on local residents of acquisition 

In Alaska, the Service only acquires land from willing landowners. It 

is Service policy to acquire land only when other methods of 

achieving goals are not appropriate, available, or effective. 

Sometimes resource conservation goals can be met through 

cooperative management agreements with landowners or by similar 

means. The Refuge would work with all landowners to ensure that 

overall fish and wildlife and habitat values within the Refuge are 

conserved. 

A pre-acquisition environmental site assessment is required for all 

real property proposed for acquisition by the Service or for public 

domain lands returning to Service jurisdiction (Service Manual, 341 

FW 3). A land protection plan for Kodiak Refuge was completed in 

1992 (USFWS 1992b); it is scheduled to be revised by 2012. 

2.2.5 Compatibility Determinations 

The Refuge Administration Act states that “the Secretary is 

authorized, under such regulations as he [or she] may prescribe, to . . . 

permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose, 

including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, public recreation and 

accommodations, and access whenever he [or she] determines that 

such uses are compatible . . .” 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A compatible use is a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreation use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, 

based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with nor detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission or the purposes for which the national wildlife 

refuge was established. Economic uses must contribute to achieving 

refuge purposes and the System mission. Compatibility 

determinations are not required for refuge management activities, 

except economic activities. 

If a use is found to be incompatible, the Refuge would follow normal 

administrative procedures for stopping the action. If the use was a 

new use requiring a special use permit, the refuge manager would 

not issue a permit. If the use was an existing use already under 

permit, the refuge manager would work with the permittee to modify 

the use to make it compatible or would terminate the permit. 

Ending incompatible uses that do not require a special use permit or 

other formal authorization, or that cannot be addressed by other 

federal or state agencies, would require the Refuge go through the 

normal rule-making process. This would include publishing in the 

Federal Register the proposed regulations and providing opportunity 

for public comment. 

Compatibility determinations for uses on Kodiak Refuge are found in 

Appendix E. 

Compatibility determinations for existing hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation must be re-evaluated with the preparation or revision 

of a comprehensive conservation plan or at least every 15 years, 

whichever is earlier. Compatibility determinations for all other uses 

of refuge land must be re-evaluated every 10 years or earlier if 

conditions change or significant new information relative to the use 

and its effects becomes available. Current compatibility 

determinations for activities on or uses of section 22(g) lands 

(Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) are excluded from reevaluation. 

Additional details on applying compatibility standards and 

completing compatibility determinations are found in the 

compatibility regulations at 50 CFR Parts 25, 26, and 29 and in 

Service Manual 603 FW 2. 

2.2.6 Mitigation 

In the interest of serving the public, it is the policy of the Service, 

throughout the nation, to seek to prevent, reduce, or compensate for 

losses of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and uses thereof, from land 

and water development. To that end, the Service developed a 

“Mitigation Policy” in 1981 that includes measures ranging from 

avoiding an activity that results in loss of such resources to seeking 

compensation by replacement of or substitution for resource loss. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-41 

The Service will promulgate regulations, develop stipulations, and 

issue permits to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts 

resulting from compatible activities that may be authorized under 

this plan. These regulations, stipulations, and permits would mitigate 

impacts by a variety of means, as stipulated in the Mitigation Policy 

guidelines (Service Manual 501 FW 2.1). The means, in order of 

application, are as follows: 

1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action 

2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 

action and its implementation 

3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring 

the affected environment 

4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation 

and maintenance operations during the life of the action 

5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments 

When determining activities or uses as compatible, projects should 

be designed first to avoid adverse impacts. The Service generally 

would not allow compensatory mitigation on National Wildlife 

Refuge System lands, and only in limited and exceptional 

circumstances could compensatory mitigation be used to find an 

activity compatible. Service Manuals, 501 FW 2 and 603 FW 2 

provide more information. 

Mitigation may consist of standard stipulations such as those 

attached to right-of-way permits; special stipulations that may be 

attached to leases or permits on a site-specific basis; and sitespecific, project-specific mitigation identified through detailed stepdown management plans or the environmental assessment process. In 

all instances, mitigation must support the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and must be compatible with the purposes 

of the refuge. The degree, type, and extent of mitigation undertaken 

would depend on the site-specific conditions present and the 

management goals and objectives of the action being implemented. 

As mitigation for construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric 

Project within Kodiak Refuge, the Service and the State of Alaska, 

Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game, entered into a 

cooperative management agreement to classify certain state lands as 

wildlife habitat and manage these lands in consultation with each 

other, consistent with the Refuge Administration Act and related 

federal regulations, including the compatibility standard. See 

Attachment 1 of the Terror Lake agreement in Appendix D. 

2.2.7 Coastal Zone Consistency 

Although federal lands, including lands in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, are excluded from the coastal zone (16 U.S.C., 

Section 1453[1]), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-42 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

amended, directs federal agencies conducting activities within the 

coastal zone or that may affect any land or water use or natural 

resources of the coastal zone to conduct these activities in a manner 

that is consistent “to the maximum extent practicable”3

 with 

approved state management programs (16 U.S.C. 1456). 

The Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, as amended, and 

the subsequent Alaska Coastal Management Program, as amended, 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement (1979) establish policy 

guidance and standards for the review of projects within or 

potentially affecting Alaska’s coastal zone. In addition, specific 

policies have been developed for activities and uses of coastal lands 

and water resources within regional coastal resource districts. Most 

incorporated cities, municipalities, and boroughs as well as 

unincorporated areas (coastal resource service areas) within the 

coastal zone now have state-approved coastal management 

programs. 

Although state and coastal district program policies are to guide 

consistency determinations, more restrictive federal agency standards 

may be applied. Federal regulations state that “(w)hen Federal 

agency standards are more restrictive than standards or requirements 

contained in the State’s management program, the Federal agency 

may continue to apply its stricter standards . . .” (15 CFR, Section 

930.39[d]). 

Certain federal actions may require a Federal Coastal Consistency 

Determination. The Refuge will contact the Department of Natural 

Resources’ Alaska Coastal Management Program for program 

applicability before beginning a project that may affect the coastal 

zone, 

Section 7.1 of Chapter 7 is a consistency determination covering all 

the alternatives for management of Kodiak Refuge that are addressed 

in this document. 

2.2.8 Cooperation and Coordination with Others 

Federal, State, and Local Government

The Refuge will continue to work closely with those federal, state, 

Native, and local governments and agencies whose programs affect, 

or are affected by, Kodiak Refuge. State, Native, and local 

government input will be sought during the development of 

regulatory policies addressing management of the Refuge System 

(Executive Order 13083—Federalism). When possible, the Service 

will participate in interagency activities (such as joint fish and 

wildlife surveys and co-funded research), cooperative agreements, 

sharing data, and sharing equipment and/or aircraft costs to meet 

mutual management goals and objectives. 

 

3 “To the maximum extent practicable” means “to the fullest degree permitted by existing law” (15 CFR, 

Section 930.32). 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-43 

When the Refuge is aware of issues involving management 

jurisdiction or authority over submerged lands or other areas or 

resources, it will, under appropriate situations, coordinate with the 

State of Alaska. Coordination may involve formal and informal 

management agreements between the Service and the state, but the 

assertion of management authority will not be contingent on 

completing any agreements or any other action not required by 

federal law. Questions regarding the ownership of specific 

submerged lands may be addressed to the refuge headquarters. 

The Refuge and the State of Alaska will cooperatively manage the 

fish and wildlife resources of Kodiak Refuge. The Master 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and the Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game (dated March 13, 1982) defines the 

cooperative management roles of each agency (see Appendix B). In 

this agreement, ADF&G agreed to “recognize the Service as the 

agency with the responsibility to manage migratory birds, 

endangered species, and other species mandated by federal law, and 

on Service lands in Alaska to conserve fish and wildlife and their 

habitats and regulate human use.” Correspondingly, the Service 

agreed to “recognize the right of the Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game as the agency with the primary responsibility to manage fish 

and resident wildlife within the State of Alaska.” Further discussion 

of intergovernmental cooperation regarding the preservation, use, 

and management of fish and wildlife resources is found in Title 43 

CFR, Part 24 (Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Policy: 

State and Federal Relationships). 

The Service does not require compatibility determinations for state 

wildlife management activities on a national wildlife refuge pursuant 

to a cooperative agreement between the state and the Fish & Wildlife 

Service where the refuge manager has made a written determination 

that such activities support fulfilling the refuge purposes or the 

System mission. When the activity proposed by the state is not part 

of a cooperative agreement or the state is not acting as the Service’s 

agent, a special use permit may be required, and a compatibility 

determination will need to be completed before the activity may be 

allowed. Separate compatibility determinations addressing specific 

proposals will be required for state management activities that 

propose predator management, fish and wildlife control (with the 

exception of emergency removal of individual rogue animals), 

reintroduction of species, nonnative species management, pest 

management, disease prevention and control, fishery restoration, 

fishery enhancement, native fish introductions, nonnative species 

introductions, construction of facilities, helicopter access, or any 

other unpermitted activity that could alter refuge ecosystems 

Tribes and Native American Organizations

The Service’s Native American Policy (USFWS 1994c) identifies 

general principles that guide the Service’s government-togovernment relationships with tribal governments in the conservation 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-44 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

of fish and wildlife resources. Additional guidance has been 

provided by Executive Order 13084, “Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,” issued May 14, 1998, and the 

Department of the Interior—Alaska Policy on Government-toGovernment Relations with Alaska Native Tribes issued January 18, 

2001 (USDI 2001). The Refuge will maintain government-togovernment relationships with tribal governments. The Refuge will 

also work directly with regional and village corporations and respect 

Native American cultural values when planning and implementing 

programs on the Refuge. 

Owners of Refuge Inholdings and Adjacent Lands

The Refuge will work cooperatively with inholders and adjacent 

landowners, providing information on refuge management activities 

and policies. The Refuge will consult periodically with them 

regarding topics of mutual interest; will respond promptly to 

concerns over refuge programs; and will participate in cooperative 

projects (e.g., water-quality monitoring and fish and wildlife 

management). 

Service Jurisdiction over Waters within Kodiak Refuge

Where the United States holds title to submerged lands beneath 

waters within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, the Service has 

jurisdiction over activities on the water. The United States owns the 

large majority of submerged lands beneath navigable and 

nonnavigable waters within the external boundaries of Kodiak 

Refuge. 

In 1941, by Executive Order 8857 that established Kodiak Refuge 

(boundaries modified by Public Land Order 1634 in 1958), the 

United States withdrew and reserved most of the submerged lands of 

present day Kodiak Refuge. This pre-statehood withdrawal and 

reservation has maintained Federal ownership of submerged lands 

beneath navigable waters that otherwise may have transferred to the 

State of Alaska in 1959 under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the 

Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and the Alaska Statehood Act. 

In 1980, under ANILCA, the U.S. Congress redesignated and 

expanded Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These areas of land and 

water, located on Afognak and Ban islands, were added to the 

Refuge under ANILCA and may contain both navigable and nonnavigable waters. President Benjamin Harrison withdrew and 

reserved these lands and waters as part of the Afognak Forest and 

Fish Culture Reservation in 1892. See Section 1.1.1 for additional 

jurisdictional history. As with the original Refuge, the pre-statehood 

withdrawal and reservation has maintained Federal ownership of 

submerged lands beneath navigable waters that otherwise may have 

transferred to the State of Alaska upon statehood. The Service has 

management authority over most activities on both navigable and 

nonnavigable waters where adjacent uplands are federally owned. 

Where a Native corporation or Native allotee owns the adjacent 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-45 

uplands within areas of the Refuge, the Service’s management 

authority is limited. The State of Alaska owns no uplands within the 

boundaries of the Refuge. 

The Service’s statutory authority to manage these lands and waters 

comes from the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA); the Service manages these lands pursuant to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. 

Under provisions of ANILCA, the Service manages the federal 

subsistence program on all inland waters within the external 

boundaries of Kodiak Refuge. 

Other Constituencies

The Refuge will inform local communities, special interest groups, 

and others who have expressed an interest in or are affected by 

refuge programs about refuge management policies and activities. 

The Refuge will seek input from these constituents when issues arise 

that may affect how the Refuge is managed. Whenever possible, 

local residents and special interest groups will be asked to participate 

in refuge activities so that their expertise and local knowledge can be 

incorporated into refuge management. 

2.2.9 Ecosystem and Landscape Management 

Species do not function alone; they function together in the 

environment as part of an ecosystem. The Refuge will manage the 

resources of Kodiak Refuge by employing ecosystem management 

techniques. Individual species are viewed as integral to the diversity 

of those ecosystems and, as such, are indicators of the healthy 

functioning of the entire ecosystem. When the Service identifies 

species to use as indicators of the health of the ecosystem, it will do 

so through a rigorous peer-reviewed scientific process involving 

experts from other federal agencies and the Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game. 

Inventorying, monitoring, and maintaining a comprehensive database 

of selected ecosystem components are critical for making refuge 

management decisions and for ensuring the proper long-term 

stewardship of refuge ecosystems. This includes regular and 

recurring monitoring of status and trends for ecosystem components 

such as fish, wildlife, plants, climatic conditions, soils, and 

waterbodies. All monitoring will employ appropriate disciplines, 

new technologies, and scientific capabilities, whenever practical. 

Air Quality

The Service’s authorities for air-quality management are included in 

several laws. The most direct mandates to manage air resources are 

found in the Wilderness Act and the Clean Air Act. 

The Service is required by the Clean Air Act to preserve, protect, and 

enhance air quality and air quality–related values on Service lands. 

Air quality–related values include visibility, plants, animals, soil, 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-46 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

water quality, cultural and historical resources, and virtually all 

resources that are dependent upon and affected by air quality. In 

addition, the Wilderness Act requires the Service to protect and 

preserve the wilderness character, including the pristine air quality, 

of designated areas. 

Class I air-quality sites receive the highest level of protection. Very 

little deterioration is allowed in these areas, and the federal land 

manager has an “affirmative responsibility” to protect air quality–

related values on those lands. With the exception of three Class I air 

quality sites in designated Wilderness on the Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge, all other lands managed by the Service in 

Alaska are classified as Class II and receive protection through the 

Clean Air Act. Moderate deterioration, associated with wellmanaged growth, is allowed in Class II areas. 

If air quality or related resources are at risk, the refuge manager will 

work with the Service’s Air Quality Branch; the regional air quality 

coordinator; the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

and other state, local, and federal agencies; and the public, as 

appropriate, in developing an air-quality management plan, as 

outlined in the Service Manual, Part 563, FW 2.8 (USFWS). 

Water Resources (Hydrology) Management

Every national wildlife refuge in Alaska shares the common purpose 

of ensuring that water resources are maintained and protected. 

ANILCA mandates that the Service safeguard water quality and 

necessary water quantity within the refuges to conserve fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity. 

Although the Service has reserved water rights sufficient to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 660dd) and the Service 

Manual (430 FW 1-3) direct the Service to obtain, to the extent 

practicable, water supplies of adequate quantity and quality for 

Service facilities, for refuge purposes, and as trust resources and to 

obtain the legal right to use that water through state laws, 

regulations, and procedures. 

The Alaska Region conducted a water-resources threats analysis 

(Harle 1994) for the purpose of guiding water resource investigations 

and protecting water resources by acquiring instream water rights 

protection. Based on the results of the threats analysis, the Service’s 

regional office developed a strategic plan for systematically 

quantifying the surface water on refuges within Alaska (Bayha et al.

1997). 

Using existing data, or through the collection of hydrologic and 

biologic data, the Service applies to the State of Alaska for 

appropriative water rights for instream water reservations and for 

water withdrawals to meet the purposes identified in ANILCA and 

the Refuge System Improvement Act. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-47 

Establishing state water rights is only a part of a management 

strategy to protect refuge resources and to understand ecosystem 

processes. Collection of hydrologic data allows the Service to 

accomplish the following: 

 Plan flood-plain and riparian zone management 

 Estimate flow for ungauged refuge streams 

 Supplement historical or current fisheries and wildlife studies 

 Detect and evaluate future natural or human-induced changes in 

the hydrologic system 

 Provide stream profile and velocity data for the design of fish 

weirs or other structures 

 Estimate the potential for future flooding and erosion 

 Analyze the impacts of proposed projects on stream flow and 

water supply 

 Provide a basis for decision-making about commercial 

operations on some important streams 

All facilities and activities on refuges must comply with pollutioncontrol standards set by federal laws (e.g., the Clean Water Act [33 

U.S.C. 1251] and the Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300]); 

state laws where federal law so provides; and the regulations, 

policies, and standards implementing these laws. 

Visual Resource Management 

Visual resource management has two primary purposes: (1) to 

manage the quality of the visual environment and (2) to reduce the 

visual impact of development activities. To accomplish these 

purposes, the Refuge will identify and maintain the scenic values of 

the Refuge and will, within the constraints imposed by the 

conservation plan, minimize the visual impacts of development and 

use of the Refuge. All activities and facilities on the Refuge will be 

designed to blend into the landscape to the extent practical. The 

Service will cooperate with other federal, state, local, tribal, and 

private agencies and organizations to prevent significant 

deterioration of visual resources. 

Cultural, Historic, and Paleontologic Resources

The Service has long-term responsibilities for cultural resources on 

refuge lands. Cultural resources on refuge lands are managed under a 

number of laws, executive orders, and regulations, including the 

Antiquities Act; the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act; the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act; Executive Order 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; Executive Order 13007, 

Indian Sacred Sites; and Section 36 CFR, Part 800. 

The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act 

direct the Service to inventory and evaluate cultural resources for 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-48 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places. All significant historic, archaeological, cultural, and 

paleontological resources on the Refuge will be protected and 

managed in accordance with federal and state law. Because of limits 

of time, funding, and staffing, the Service must designate priorities in 

evaluating cultural resources on refuge lands. Pending a complete 

evaluation, all cultural resources will be considered potentially 

eligible for the National Register. When funds become available, the 

first priority will be to prepare a substantial and comprehensive 

cultural resource overview to be used to guide future inventory and 

evaluation. Sites determined to be eligible for the National Register 

will be protected with an appropriate cultural resources management 

plan. 

A cultural resource plan for Kodiak Refuge was completed in 1999. 

This plan provides guidance for cultural resource management on the 

Refuge. It outlines legal mandates and considerations, reviews 

current information about resources, and establishes goals and 

objectives for the program. The cultural resource plan should be 

updated every five years; it is scheduled for review in 2009. Cultural 

resource plans are considered step-down plans. 

It is illegal to collect archaeological materials and/or vertebrate 

paleontological remains on the Refuge without a permit issued under 

the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (for 

archaeological materials) or of the Antiquities Act of 1906 

(vertebrate paleontological remains). Historic aircraft and other 

World War II material will be managed in accordance with a policy 

published December 20, 1985, in the Federal Register (FR 

50:51952-51953). These materials may be collected on refuge lands 

only as authorized by a permit issued to a qualified organization or 

individual. Cultural resource research permits will only be issued to 

qualified individuals operating under appropriate research designs. 

The Refuge will encourage archaeologists, historians, ethnologists, 

and paleontologists from educational institutions and other 

government agencies to pursue their research interests on refuge 

lands so long as these research interests are compatible with refuge 

purposes. Research that collects data from threatened sites and 

minimizes disturbance to intact sites will be encouraged. 

When any federal undertaking—including any action funded or 

authorized by the federal government and having the potential to 

directly or indirectly affect any archaeologic or historic site—is 

planned, a consultation must be initiated with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. If sites that may be affected are found in the 

project area, their significance will be evaluated to determine their 

eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. For eligible sites, 

consultation will result in a course of action causing the least 

possible impact. Impacts may be minimized in a variety of ways, 

including relocation or redesign of a project, site hardening, 

mitigation through information collection, or cancellation of the 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-49 

project if no alternatives are feasible. To protect archaeological and 

historic sites, other uses may be precluded. Private interests 

proposing to conduct commercial uses on the Refuge will normally 

be required to fund studies necessary for consultation and for 

mitigation of impacts. 

The Refuge will implement Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred 

Sites, allowing access to identified sacred sites and avoiding 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of these sites. Where 

appropriate, the Service will maintain the confidentiality of sacred 

sites. 

Further information on cultural resources management can be found 

in Part 614 FW 1-5 of the Service Manual and the Service’s Cultural 

Resources Management Handbook (USFWS 1992a). 

2.2.10 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management 

Habitat Management

Habitats are managed in keeping with the purposes, goals, and 

objectives of a refuge. In most cases, this means habitats are 

managed to maintain a natural state with little or no human 

intervention. In some cases, habitats are manipulated to maintain or 

improve conditions for selected fish and wildlife populations, to 

control plant species, or to manage fire fuels on refuge lands. Any 

habitat management and manipulation activities will be carried out in 

support of the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Refuge. The 

Refuge will use the least-intrusive management measures needed. 

Where practical and economically feasible, habitat management 

practices will maintain a natural appearance on the landscape. 

Habitat-management practices, even those carried out for the benefit 

of a single species or small group of species, will, to the extent 

possible, contribute to the widest diversity of native (indigenous) 

wildlife species and habitat types. 

Habitat management and manipulation may be achieved by 

mechanical, chemical, and manual methods, including the use of fire, 

or by a combination of methods. Mechanical treatment could include 

mechanical removal, crushing, cutting, or mowing. When applicable, 

state and federal guidelines for timber management will be followed. 

Mechanical treatment could also include the construction of fish 

passages, fish ladders, fish barriers, water impoundments and 

structures such as fences or artificial nests, and raising or lowering of 

water levels to manage wildlife or waterfowl habitat. Riparian or 

aquatic habitat management and manipulation may be achieved by 

acquiring instream-flow reservations or making beneficial water 

diversions. 

Chemical treatment would involve the use of chemicals to restore 

nutrient levels in a lake system (fertilization) for fisheries restoration, 

to reduce hazardous fuels, or to eliminate nonnative plant and animal 

species, normally by killing them or destroying their ability to spread 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-50 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

or prosper. Before chemical treatment is used, the Refuge will 

analyze the need for action, the options for treatment, and the 

potential impacts of those options. A pesticide-use proposal must be 

approved by the Service’s regional office before chemical controls 

are used on refuge lands (30 AM 12 and 7 RM 14). 

Manual treatment could include the use of hand tools to remove, 

reduce, or modify hazardous fuels or nonnative plant or animal 

species or to modify habitats (e.g., removal of beaver dams). 

Aquatic habitat modification may include activities and structures 

such as streambank restoration, passage structures, and removal of 

fish barriers or obstacles that result in physical modification of 

aquatic or riparian habitats to benefit fish species. These activities 

would be undertaken to maintain or restore native fish populations 

and may require appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) compliance and compatibility determinations. 

Fire Management

Fire management is the full range of activities necessary to conserve, 

protect, and enhance habitat and to maintain desired ecological 

conditions for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Fire management 

activities include preparedness, emergency suppression operations, 

wildland fire use, fire prevention, education, monitoring, research, 

prescribed fire, hazardous fuel reduction, and mechanical treatments. 

All activities will be conducted in accordance with Refuge, Service, 

and Department of the Interior policies and approved interagency 

and refuge-specific fire management plans. Additional guidance on 

fire management can be found in the Service Manual (USFWS, 621 

FW 1-3). 

The Kodiak Refuge Fire Management Plan provides the basis for 

integrating fire as a critical natural process into other plans and 

activities on the Refuge at a landscape scale. The Refuge Fire 

Management Plan provides specific information on the application 

and management of fire on the Refuge. The Alaska Interagency 

Wildland Fire Management Plan (Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating 

Group 1998) provides a cooperative framework and operational 

guidelines for the suppression of wildland fires. The suppression of 

human-caused and unwanted wildland fires and the use of naturecaused wildland fires and prescribed fires as management tools are 

important management prerogatives. Kodiak’s fire management plan 

provides specific information on the application and management of 

fire on the Refuge. 

Wildland Fire Suppression—Fire suppression activity is the work of 

confining, constraining, controlling, or monitoring a fire or portion 

of a fire to protect, prevent, or reduce the loss of identified values. 

Suppression takes place, with the highest priority being the safety of 

firefighters and the public, using the appropriate management 

response based on values to be protected. The Alaska Interagency 

Wildland Fire Management Plan, amended in October 1998, is the 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-51 

guiding document for suppression actions. The plan establishes four 

management options—critical, full, modified, and limited—that 

direct a range of wildland fire management responses. Refuge lands 

have been classified by fire management zones for limited, modified, 

or full suppression, with all facilities mapped. 

Kodiak Refuge has a mixture of lands designated as limited and 

modified, with a few areas identified as full protection. These can be 

viewed through the Alaska Fire Service Website 

(http://fire.ak.blm.gov/) under the Maps and Imaging 

section. The Refuge reviews these classifications periodically and 

can change management options if appropriate. 

The Bureau of Land Management/Alaska Fire Service (BLM/AFS) 

provides emergency suppression services on refuge lands in Alaska 

(DOI 2001, 620 DM 2), as directed by the refuge manager. Through 

a cooperative agreement with BLM/AFS, the State of Alaska Kenai–

Kodiak Area Forestry Office provides emergency suppression 

services on refuge lands in state protection zones, as directed by the 

refuge manager. 

Wildland Fire Use—Wildland fire use is the application of the 

appropriate management response to naturally ignited wildland fires 

to accomplish resource management objectives outlined in fire 

management plans. Wildland fires may be used to protect, maintain, 

and enhance natural and cultural resources and, as nearly as possible, 

wildland fires will be allowed to function in their natural ecological 

role. Optional management is described in the Refuge Fire 

Management Plan. 

Prescribed Fire—Prescribed fires are ignited by management action 

to meet specific wildland fuel, vegetation, and habitat management 

objectives. Prior to each ignition, a written, approved plan outlining 

prescription conditions is required. Use of prescribed fires must also 

comply with the Alaska Enhanced Smoke Management Plan for 

Prescribed Fire. The plan provides guidance and direction 

concerning smoke issues related to prescribed fire. 

Weed Control (Pest and Nonnative Plant Management)

Weeds can cause significant impacts to the land and water resources 

and to the species of plants and animals that use these habitats. To 

manage weeds, the Refuge will include weed inventories as part of 

all habitat inventories. The Refuge will review a proposed action’s 

potential to introduce or spread weeds and will take measures to 

reduce the hazards (e.g., require weed-free feed for pack animals). 

The Refuge will coordinate with other landowners and agencies and 

use integrated pest-management practices to enhance the detection, 

prevention, and management of weed problems. Use of chemical 

control measures on refuge lands requires Regional Office approval 

of a pesticide-use proposal (Service Administrative Manual 30 AM 

12 and Refuge System Manual 7 RM 14). 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-52 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.2.11 Fish and Wildlife Population Management 

Conservation of habitat is a key element in maintaining the natural 

diversity of populations on the Refuge, and management of native 

fish and wildlife populations is an important component of 

maintaining a healthy ecosystem. The Refuge will be managed 

consistent with the Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Service Manual 601 FW 3) to ensure native species are 

managed in their natural diversity and abundance. 

The Refuge will work with the State of Alaska to conserve fish and 

wildlife populations, recognizing that populations may experience 

fluctuations in abundance because of environmental factors and may 

require management actions for conservation purposes. Management 

of the Kodiak brown bear is guided by the Bear Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002). The Fisheries Management Plan (USFWS 1990) for 

the Refuge was completed in 1990 (in cooperation with ADF&G) 

and guides Service fisheries management activities on Kodiak 

Refuge. The Refuge will be managed to maintain the genetic 

variability of wild, native fish stocks. 

Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan

To assess presence, relative abundance, distribution, and trends in 

populations of fish, wildlife, and plants, the Refuge will draft a 

Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan (WIP). The WIP describes 

objectives, justification, methods, management implications, 

geographic scale, report schedules, and database management for 

studies on species targeted for inventory and monitoring. The WIP 

will include studies that address environmental parameters (e.g., 

weather) and hydrology, soils, and fire history to explain potential 

changes in the distribution, relative abundance, and populations of 

fish, wildlife, and plants. The WIP will be forwarded to the regional 

office for review by the regional refuge biologist and other 

professional staff prior to final approval by the regional refuge chief. 

The Refuge will update its WIP on an annual basis but will only need 

regional review and approval every five years. 

Scientific Peer Review

Biologists, ecologists, botanists, and other refuge personnel 

conducting scientific investigations will adhere to Refuge, regional, 

Service, and Department of the Interior policies on scientific 

conduct, including scientific peer review. The overall goal of 

scientific peer review is to ensure that information collected, 

analyzed, interpreted, and reported to the public and upon which 

policy and management decisions are based, meets established 

standards of the scientific community. To achieve this goal, refuge 

biologists, ecologists, botanists, and others serving as principal 

investigators will write a study plan that will undergo peer review. In 

addition, study plans, reports, and manuscripts that summarize the 

results of scientific studies, analyses, assessments, or syntheses 

developed by, or supported by, the Service will undergo scientific 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-53 

review prior to publication. The type and level of review shall be 

commensurate with the potential significance of the scientific 

information and its likely influence on policy and management 

actions. 

Compliance with the Animal Welfare Act

The Animal Welfare Act, as amended, established legal standards for 

animal care and use. To prescribe methods and set standards for the 

design, performance, and conduct of animal care and use, research 

facilities and federal agencies must establish an Institutional Animal 

Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Field studies conducted or 

authorized by refuge employees within the purview of the Animal 

Welfare Act will require review and approval of an IACUC. Any 

refuge study that involves an invasive procedure or that harms or 

materially alters the behavior of an animal under study should be 

reviewed and approved by an IACUC prior to implementing field 

work.

Marking and Banding

These activities include fish and wildlife capture, marking, banding, 

radio collaring, release, tracking, and other information-gathering 

techniques. Cooperation with appropriate partners, including the 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, will be stressed, and specific 

protocols will be followed, taking advantage of all appropriate 

disciplines and new technologies wherever possible. 

Threatened or Endangered Species

The Refuge will consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services field office on actions that may affect listed, 

proposed, or candidate species or designated or proposed critical 

habitat. These actions include refuge operations, public use 

programs, private lands and Federal Aid activities, promulgating 

regulations, and issuing permits (USFWS 1973, USFWS and 

NMFS). 

Introductions and Reintroductions

A species may be introduced on a refuge only if that species is native 

to the refuge (i.e., a reintroduction). Nonnative species may not be 

introduced. Definitions of native and nonnative species are found in 

the glossary. 

Reintroductions can be useful tools for restoring species to natural 

ranges and reestablishing a refuge’s natural fish, wildlife, and habitat 

diversity. Reintroductions would require appropriate NEPA 

compliance, a review to ensure consistency with the biological 

integrity policy, an ANILCA Section 810 determination, and a 

refuge compatibility determination. Reintroductions also require 

extensive coordination with adjacent landowners and with the State 

of Alaska In evaluating the project, the cause(s) of the extirpation 

should be evaluated and management actions taken to alleviate the 

cause(s) prior to reintroduction. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-54 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The environmental requirements of the species and the ecological 

dynamics of the area proposed for the reintroduction need to be 

thoroughly reviewed prior to a reintroduction. Some factors to 

consider include behavior, diseases, general ecology of the species, 

habitat requirements, inter- and intra-specific competition, life 

history, genetics, management practices, population dynamics, and 

predators. Consideration should be given to whether there have been 

significant habitat changes since extirpation of the species (e.g., is 

the area still within the species natural range?). 

Fish and Wildlife Control

These activities involve the control, relocation, and/or removal of 

native species, including predators, to maintain natural diversity of 

fish, wildlife, and habitats. These management actions may be 

employed with species of fish and wildlife within their original range 

to restore other depleted native populations. These activities are 

subject to appropriate NEPA compliance, an ANILCA Section 810 

subsistence determination, and a refuge compatibility determination. 

Predator management includes the relocation, removal, sterilization, 

and other management of native predators to accomplish 

management objectives. The Service considers predator management 

to be a legitimate conservation tool when applied in a prudent and 

ecologically sound manner and when other alternatives are not 

practical. The key requirements are that a predator management 

program be ecologically sound and biologically justified. In keeping 

with the Service’s mandate to first and foremost maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of fish and 

wildlife populations at the refuge scale, a predator population will 

not intentionally be reduced below a level consistent with the lowend of natural population cycles (see USFWS, 601 FW 3). 

A predator management program requires appropriate NEPA 

compliance, an ANILCA Section 810 evaluation, and, if conducted 

by other than the Service, a refuge compatibility determination. 

Alternative management actions must be evaluated prior to pursuing 

direct predator control activities. Any proposal to allow or 

implement a predator management program on national wildlife 

refuges in Alaska will be subjected to public review and closely 

coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, local 

communities, tribal governments, and adjacent landowners and/or 

managers. Predator management activities must be monitored and 

evaluated for effectiveness and resource impacts. 

Normal environmental education and population management 

activities—such as trapper education programs and regulation 

changes that allow for increased harvest of predatory animals by 

licensed trappers and hunters—are not considered to be “predator 

management.” The control or extirpation of nonnative predators is 

not considered to be “predator management” (see Nonnative Species 

Management). 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-55 

Nonnative Species Management

In general, nonnative species (including feral domestic animals) are 

not compatible with refuge purposes or with National Wildlife 

Refuge System policies. When nonnative species (fish, wildlife, or 

plants) occur on a refuge, the Service may control or eliminate that 

species. Where a population of a nonnative species has already been 

established on a refuge and this population does not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge, the 

species may be managed as part of the refuge’s diverse ecosystem. 

Several nonnative species—including Sitka black-tailed deer, 

Roosevelt elk, mountain goats, and beaver—were introduced to 

Kodiak Refuge in the 20th century. This plan includes objectives 

(see section 2.1) to manage these species as part of the wildlife of 

Kodiak Refuge. The Refuge, in cooperation with the State of Alaska, 

will monitor the impacts of introduced species, particularly Sitka 

black-tailed deer and beaver, which have the potential to change 

either the characteristics or composition of aquatic, riparian, or 

upland habitat used by native species. If the results of this 

monitoring indicate these species are having significant impacts, 

appropriate actions would be proposed with appropriate NEPA 

compliance and, if necessary, compatibility determinations. 

Fish, and Wildlife Pest Management and Disease Prevention 

and Control

Organisms (e.g., rabies or parasites) that threaten human health and 

property or survival of native wildlife or plant species may be 

managed or removed after consideration of all reasonable options 

and consultation with the State of Alaska and other concerned 

parties. This will normally only occur when severe resource damage 

is likely or when public health or safety is jeopardized. Wherever 

possible, an integrated approach to pest management will be used in 

accordance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Administrative 

Manual, 30 AM 12 and 7 RW 14. If chemical controls are used, a 

pesticide-use proposal must be submitted to the Regional Office for 

approval. 

Fishery Restoration

Fishery restoration is any management action that increases fishery 

resources to allow full use of available habitat or to reach a 

population level based on historical biologic data. Although the goal 

of restoration is self-sustaining populations, situations may exist in 

which some form of fishery management or facilities could continue 

indefinitely. 

Where fishery resources have been severely adversely affected, the 

Refuge will work with the State of Alaska, local tribes, and other 

partners to restore habitats and populations to appropriate, 

sustainable conditions. Restoration emphasis will focus on strategies 

that are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-56 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the depleted 

population. This may include regulatory adjustments and/or 

evaluations of escapement goals. 

ADF&G, in cooperation with the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture 

Association and the Refuge, has undertaken several restoration 

projects on Kodiak Refuge including temporary actions such as the 

fertilization of Karluk Lake to restore zooplankton productivity for 

sockeye salmon and a temporary incubation facility in the upper 

Thumb River (Karluk drainage) to restore sockeye productivity. The 

Refuge will continue to support similar restoration actions provided 

they are compatible with refuge purposes and the Refuge System 

mission. 

Fishery Enhancement

Fishery enhancement is any management action or set of actions that 

is applied to a fishery stock to supplement numbers of harvestable 

fish to a level beyond that which could be naturally produced based 

on a determination or reasonable estimate of historic levels. This 

could be accomplished by stocking barren lakes, providing access to 

barren spawning areas (fish passages), constructing hatcheries, 

outstocking in productive systems, or fertilizing rearing habitat. 

Refuge management priorities will focus on conserving naturally 

diverse ecosystems. Fishery enhancement facilities for the purposes 

of artificially increasing fish populations normally will not occur 

within any management category unless stocks have been reduced or 

are threatened. 

Proposals for fishery enhancement projects will be subject to the 

provisions of NEPA regulations, an ANILCA Section 810 

determination, and a compatibility determination. Only temporary 

fisheries enhancement facilities may be authorized in Minimal 

Management areas. 

2.2.12 Subsistence Use Management 

Providing the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local 

residents is one of the purposes of Kodiak Refuge, as stated in Title 

III of ANILCA. Title VIII of ANILCA further provides that rural 

Alaska residents engaged in subsistence use of resources be allowed 

to continue using refuge resources for traditional purposes. These 

resources include fish and wildlife, house logs and firewood, and 

other plant materials (berries, bark, etc.). Many aspects of 

subsistence management are addressed outside of this plan. The 

Federal Subsistence Board, through its rule-making process, 

addresses seasons, harvest limits, and customary and traditional use 

determinations. The federal board has established Regional 

Subsistence Advisory Councils to provide for meaningful public 

input to the rule-making process. 

The Refuge will work with others to monitor subsistence harvest, 

including monitoring conducted by other federal land management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-57 

agencies, the State of Alaska, tribal governments, Native 

organizations, or any other party. The Refuge will supplement the 

state’s ongoing harvest and resource monitoring programs to provide 

additional information on the status of fish and wildlife populations 

harvested for subsistence uses. This monitoring is intended to 

identify potential problems before populations of fish and wildlife 

become depleted and to ensure preference is given to subsistence 

users as required by law. All information the Refuge gathers through 

subsistence monitoring will be shared with local state fish and game 

advisory committees, tribes, and other entities. The Refuge attends 

various subsistence-related meetings, including those of local fish 

and game advisory committees and Regional Subsistence Advisory 

Councils, and provides information on the status of subsistence 

resources and management as it relates to Kodiak Refuge. 

The noncommercial gathering by local rural residents of fruits, 

berries, mushrooms, and other plant materials for subsistence uses 

and of dead standing or down timber for firewood is allowed without 

a special use permit. Harvest of live standing timber for house logs, 

firewood, or other uses is allowed, although specific requirements 

vary by size and location. See 50 CFR 36.15 for specific details. 

Timber stocks subject to subsistence use will also be monitored to 

ensure they remain available over the long term. 

Under Section 816 of ANILCA, refuge lands may be closed to the 

taking of fish and wildlife if closure is deemed necessary for reasons 

of public safety or administration or to ensure the continued viability 

of particular populations of fish or wildlife. Emergency closure to 

subsistence taking generally would occur only after other 

consumptive uses competing for the resources were restricted or 

eliminated. 

Access for Subsistence Purposes

Access to refuge lands by traditional means will be allowed for 

subsistence purposes in accordance with Section 811 of ANILCA, 

subject to reasonable regulation. (See 50 CFR 36.12.) Traditional 

means include snowmachines, motorboats, dog teams, and other 

means of surface transportation traditionally used by local rural 

residents engaged in subsistence activities. Use of these traditional 

means of travel will be in compliance with state and federal law in 

such a manner to prevent waste of harvested resources or damage to 

the Refuge and to prevent herding, harassment, hazing, or driving of 

wildlife. 

Section 810 Evaluations

The Refuge will evaluate the effects of proposed activities on 

subsistence use to ensure compliance with Section 810 of ANILCA. 

The Refuge will work with the Federal Subsistence Board, regional 

subsistence advisory councils, local fish and game advisory 

committees, tribes, Native corporations, the Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game, and other appropriate local sources to determine 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-58 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

whether a proposed activity would “significantly restrict” subsistence 

uses. If the Refuge determines that a proposal would probably result 

in adverse effects to subsistence use, the Refuge would follow the 

requirements identified in Section 810 before making a final decision 

on the proposal. 

2.2.13 Public Access and Transportation Management 

Snowmachines, Motorboats, Airplanes, and Nonmotorized 

Surface Transportation

Section 1110(a) of ANILCA allows the use of snowmachines (during 

periods of adequate snow cover and frozen river conditions), 

motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation 

methods for traditional activities and for travel to and from villages 

and homesites. Such access shall be subject to reasonable regulations 

to protect the natural and other values of the Refuge (43 CFR 36.11). 

Specific areas may be closed, in accordance with these regulations, 

to such uses. The refuge manager is responsible for determining 

when snow cover is adequate to protect the underlying vegetation 

and soil from damage by snowmachine use. 

Off-Road Vehicles

The regulations in 43 CFR 36.11(g) restrict the use of off-road 

vehicles within refuges. The definition of off-road vehicles in 

50 CFR 36.2 excludes snowmachines but includes air boats and aircushion vehicles along with motorized wheeled vehicles. Off-road 

vehicles are allowed only on designated routes or areas within 

Moderate Management areas or by special use permit. 

Helicopters 

Special use permits or other authorizations are required for all 

helicopters landings in any area other than at designated landing 

areas. Exceptions include emergencies, search and rescue operations, 

or operations conducted by the Service [43 CFR 36.11(f)(4)]. 

Helicopter landings for volcano monitoring, geologic hazards 

evaluations, and fisheries and wildlife management activities may be 

authorized under special use permit or other authorization, subject to 

site-specific stipulations. Helicopter landings for initial-attack fire 

suppression must comply with operational guidance in the Alaska 

Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan. It is the policy of 

Kodiak Refuge to not issue permits for the landing of helicopters for 

recreational purposes. 

The “Memorandum of Agreement Between U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and United States 

Coast Guard Regarding Flight Operations over Kodiak” was signed 

on April 30, 2002. This agreement contains provisions regarding 

flights by Coast Guard aircraft (including helicopters) to minimize 

disturbance to wildlife within the Archipelago. The agencies will 

provide information on the location of bear concentration areas and 

periods of avoidance as well as annual training to Coast Guard Air 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-59 

Station personnel governing the use of aircraft on the Refuge plus 

rules governing the protection of wildlife throughout the 

Archipelago. The Coast Guard will conduct flights in a manner to 

actively avoid flying near large mammals, will transit aircraft at an 

altitude of at least 750 feet above ground level, and will schedule 

familiarization flights away from brown bear feeding areas during 

times when brown bears are historically present in those areas. 

Nothing in this agreement affects the ability of the Coast Guard to 

conduct operations involving national defense or the saving of 

human life or property. 

Access to Inholdings

Section 1110(b) of ANILCA ensures adequate and feasible access, 

for economic or other purposes, across a refuge for any person or 

entity who has a valid inholding. An inholding is defined as stateowned or privately owned land, including subsurface rights 

underlying public lands, valid mining claims, or other valid 

occupancy that is within or effectively surrounded by one or more 

conservation system units. When a right-of-way permit is necessary 

under this provision (e.g., construction of permanent or long-term 

facilities), the Service will review and process the application in 

accordance with regulations in 43 CFR 36.5, 36.6 and 50 CFR 29.21. 

Such permits are subject to terms and conditions as specified in the 

regulations at 43 CFR 36.9 and 50 CFR 29.21-4. 

Temporary Access

43 CFR 36.12(a)(2) defines temporary access as “limited, short-term 

(i.e., up to one year from issuance of the permit) access which does 

not require permanent facilities for access to state or private lands.” 

Temporary access across federal lands can be granted to State and 

private landowners for the purposes of survey, geophysical, 

exploratory, and other temporary uses of non-federal lands, and 

where access is not otherwise provided for in 43 CFR 36.10 and 43 

CFR 36.11. 

The Refuge will evaluate an application for temporary access across 

the Refuge and will issue a permit with the necessary stipulations 

and conditions to ensure that the access granted is compatible with 

the purposes for which the Refuge was established, that it complies 

with the provisions of Section 810 of ANILCA, and that it ensures 

that no permanent harm will result to the resources of the Refuge. 

Subsistence Access

See Access for Subsistence Purposes under Subsistence Use 

Management (section 2.2.12). 

Transportation and Utility Systems

Transportation and utility systems include roads, highways, 

railroads, airports, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, 

communication systems, and related structures and facilities 

reasonably and minimally necessary for the construction, operation, 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-60 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and maintenance of such systems (Section 1102 of ANILCA). 

Anyone seeking to acquire a right-of-way across refuge lands for a 

transportation or utility system must, consistent with 43 CFR Part 36, 

file an application with the Service’s Regional Office. Regulations in 

43 CFR Part 36 and 50 CFR Part 29 establish specific procedures 

and time constraints for application review, compliance with NEPA, 

decision-making, and appeals. 

The Service will decide whether to approve or disapprove that 

portion of a transportation or utility system that would cross refuge 

lands, except for those on designated Wilderness. When the proposed 

transportation or utility system would cross a designated Wilderness 

area, the Service tentatively approves or disapproves the application 

subject to the President’s subsequent decision. If the President 

approves, a recommendation is submitted to Congress for final 

approval. 

A right-of-way for a transportation or utility system across refuge 

lands can be granted only if the system meets the compatibility 

standard, the criteria outlined in Section 1104(g)(2) of ANILCA, and 

the regulations at 43 CFR 36.7(a)(2) and if there is no economically 

feasible and prudent alternative route for the system. If approved, 

permits issued for a transportation or utility system will contain 

terms and conditions as required under regulations in 43 CFR 36.9(b) 

and 50 CFR 29.21-4. Rights-of-way that cross Wild and Scenic 

River corridors cannot interfere with or impede stream flow and 

transportation on the river (Section 1107[b] of ANILCA and the 

regulations at 43 CFR 36.9[c] and [d]). Additional special 

requirements apply to rights-of-way for pipelines issued under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. 185, Section 1107[c] of 

ANILCA, and the regulations at 43 CFR 36.9[d]). 

When considering an application for a transportation or utility 

system, the authorization process would incorporate a corresponding 

conservation plan amendment to update the desired management 

category(s) of the affected area if the system were to be approved. 

State Transportation Planning

Federal transportation planning regulations require each state to 

develop a long-range statewide transportation plan in consultation 

and coordination with other government agencies and the public. In 

Alaska, transportation projects nominated for funding are evaluated 

and ranked by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities. When appropriate, the Refuge will participate in the state 

transportation planning process and provide input regarding 

environmental considerations of proposed projects affecting refuge 

lands and resources. 

RS 2477 Rights-of-Way

The State of Alaska asserts numerous claims to roads, trails, and 

paths across federal lands under Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477), a 

section in the Mining Act of 1866 that states, “The right-of-way for 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-61 

the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for 

public uses, is hereby granted.” RS 2477 was repealed by the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, subject to valid existing 

claims. Under authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, the Bureau of Land Management expanded the regulations at 43 

CFR 1864 to allow the State of Alaska and others to apply for 

Federal “disclaimers” for routes of travel that applicants believe 

qualify as RS 2477 rights-of-way. 

Assertion and identification of potential rights-of-way does not 

establish the validity of these claims nor the public’s right to use 

them. The existence of all RS 2477 rights-of-way will be determined 

on a case-by-case basis, either through the courts or by other legally 

binding document. The State of Alaska has identified one route on 

Kodiak Refuge it asserts may be claimed as a right-of-way under RS 

2477. See Figure F-1 in Appendix F. 

Section 17(b) Easements

Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 

December 18, 1971, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

reserve easements on lands conveyed to Native corporations to 

guarantee access to public lands and waters. Easements across 

Native lands include linear easements (e.g., roads and trails) and site 

easements. Site easements are reserved for use as temporary 

campsites and to change modes of transportation. 

The Service is responsible for administering those public easements, 

inside and outside refuge boundaries, that provide access to refuge 

lands. Service authority for administering 17(b) easements is 

restricted to the lands within the easement. The size, route, and 

general location of 17(b) easements are identified on maps filed with 

conveyance documents. Conveyance documents also specify the 

terms and conditions of use, including the acceptable periods and 

methods of public access. See Appendix F for additional information 

on easements. 

Navigation Aids and Other Facilities

Section 1310 of ANILCA authorizes reasonable access to and 

operation and maintenance of existing air and water navigation aids, 

communications sites, and related facilities. It authorizes existing 

facilities for weather, climate, and fisheries research and monitoring 

subject to applicable laws and regulations. Reasonable access to and 

operation and maintenance of facilities for national defense and 

related air and water navigation are also provided for, including 

within designated Wilderness areas. 

New facilities may be authorized after consultation with the head of 

the federal department or agency undertaking the establishment, 

operation, or maintenance and in accordance with mutually agreed to 

terms and conditions.
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-62 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.2.14 Recreation and Other Public Use 

Public recreation activities compatible with refuge purposes are 

authorized unless specifically prohibited (50 CFR 36.31). 

Compatible recreation uses of Kodiak Refuge will continue. The 

Refuge Administration Act priority public uses are hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. These uses are encouraged and will receive emphasis 

in management of public use of the Refuge. 

Both consumptive (e.g., hunting, fishing, and trapping) and 

nonconsumptive (e.g., photography and wildlife viewing) recreation 

uses are appropriate. Some recreational uses are incidental to others. 

Camping and hiking may be related to hunting, fishing, wildlife 

photography, or other recreational uses. 

There is often a fine line between subsistence and recreation use 

(e.g., berry picking). Subsistence uses are addressed under 

Subsistence Use Management (section 2.2.12). When it is necessary 

to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife on a refuge in order to 

protect the continued viability of such populations, the taking of fish 

and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses on refuges shall be 

accorded priority over the taking of fish and wildlife for other 

purposes, in accordance with Title VIII of ANILCA. 

Kodiak Refuge will be managed to provide recreation experiences in 

generally natural wildland settings. Recreation use would be 

managed consistent with the designated management area category. 

Moderate Management areas will be managed for greater 

concentrations of visitors than will be Minimal Management areas. 

The Refuge will manage all recreation use to avoid crowded 

conditions and to minimize adverse effects to cultural resources, fish 

and wildlife, wilderness, and other special values of the Refuge. 

“Leave No Trace” use will be the standard. 

The least intrusive means of managing use will be employed. 

Education will be the primary management tool for recreation 

management, using brochures, maps, signs, and personal contacts. 

However, if voluntary methods fail, other actions may be taken. 

Actions that may be taken to manage recreation include limiting 

commercial guiding and outfitting; regulating use and access subject 

to the provisions of Section 1110(a) of ANILCA; and recommending 

changes in state and/or federal fishing, hunting, or trapping 

regulations. When necessary, recreation opportunities may be 

seasonally or otherwise restricted to minimize user conflicts and to 

protect the natural or other values of the Refuge. 

Any restrictions on public use will follow the public participation 

and closure procedures at 50 CFR Part 36, 43 CFR Part 36, or other 

applicable regulations. State management actions available through 

the Master Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix B) and 

other state management tools will also be utilized where mutually 

desirable. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-63 

Management plans may be prepared for areas of relatively 

concentrated use. As called for in the original Kodiak Refuge 

Conservation Plan (1987), a public use management plan was 

adopted for the Refuge in 1994. It provides specific direction for 

management of snowmachine use, pack animals, wildlife 

concentration areas, camping, private cabins, outfitting and guiding, 

trails, public use cabins, aircraft and jet-boat use, tent platforms, and 

a bear-viewing program. Many of the actions proposed in the public 

use plan would require regulations for implementation. To date, the 

only refuge-specific regulation adopted is the seasonal closure of the 

O’Malley River area. Other actions requiring regulations are 

considered as part of Alternative A (Current Management). The 

Conservation Plan addresses some of the topics addressed in the 

public use plan (snowmachine use, management of wildlife 

concentration areas, public use cabins, pack animals, and bear 

viewing.) Once the Conservation Plan is completed, the public use 

plan will be revised. (See sections 0 through 2.1 of this chapter.) 

2.2.15 Outreach 

Outreach is two-way communication between the Refuge and the 

public to establish mutual understanding, promote public 

involvement, and influence public attitudes and actions. The Refuge 

will continue to take advantage of partnership opportunities in 

providing these services, including working with the Alaska Natural 

History Association; Alaska Public Lands Information Centers; 

local, state, and other federal agencies; local schools; tribal 

governments; Alaska Native organizations; and individuals. 

Use of outreach as a management tool is key to the success of many 

of the management activities outlined in this plan. Two outreach 

activities—environmental education and interpretation—are included 

in the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Many other activities are also available for use by 

the refuge staff in its outreach program, which may be developed in 

more detail as a step-down management plan. All outreach activities 

must be continually evaluated to determine whether they fulfill 

refuge management goals and objectives. The Refuge will ensure 

that these services are available to all segments of the public, 

including those with disabilities and those who speak languages 

other than English. 

Other Outreach Activities

The Refuge will work with the news media, attend public meetings 

and workshops, develop Internet home pages, invite the public to the 

Refuge (open houses), and foster one-on-one communication. 

2.2.16 Recreation Facilities 

Facilities may be provided to support certain recreation uses. 

Recreation facilities may be located on refuge lands and at 

administrative sites. Visitor centers and highly developed 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-64 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

environmental education and interpretive sites may be located off 

refuge lands at administrative sites or other appropriate locations. 

Recreation facilities may include roads, trails, boat launch sites, 

airstrips, campgrounds, interpretive sites, environmental education 

sites, visitor centers, public use cabins, visitor contact facilities, and 

signs. 

All new buildings (e.g., visitor centers, restrooms, public use cabins, 

and visitor-contact buildings) and additions and alterations to 

existing buildings will comply with current accessibility standards. 

Other recreation facilities are not currently covered under these 

standards, although access for the disabled will be considered in the 

design of new or upgraded facilities. As funds are available, existing 

buildings will be updated to meet these standards. 

The level of development and appearance of facilities will be 

appropriate for the management category of the area in which they 

are located. More intensive and sophisticated facilities will be 

allowed in the Moderate Management category; more rustic and 

rudimentary facilities will occur in the Minimal Management 

category. 

Cabins

Special use permits are required for subsistence and commercial 

cabins. Management of existing cabins and review of proposals for 

construction of new cabins for traditional uses will be in accordance 

with the Service’s cabin regulations (50 CFR 36.33). Private 

recreation use cabins will not be authorized. 

Public use cabins are intended to provide the public with unique 

opportunities to enjoy and use the Refuge. They also help ensure 

public health and safety in bad weather and emergencies. 

Development of new permanent facilities for private uses, such as 

commercial and subsistence cabins, is generally not allowed on 

Kodiak Refuge. Documentation has shown that the cumulative 

effects of increasing human activity and development in brown bear 

habitat will ultimately lead to significant impacts to the brown bear 

population. 

Temporary Facilities

Per Section 1316 of ANILCA, the Refuge will allow the use of 

temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary 

facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related to the taking 

of fish and wildlife, provided these facilities are not detrimental to 

the purposes of the Refuge. Special use permits may be issued for 

tent frames, caches, smokehouses, and other facilities. Appropriate 

stipulations will be included in the special use permits to ensure 

protection of refuge resources. Existing tent platforms would 

continue to be permitted and could be rebuilt in the same location if 

destroyed. No new tent platforms could be developed. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-65 

The following criteria will be considered in evaluating applications 

for temporary facilities: 

 Where feasible, they will be located in a manner to not displace 

or compete with existing public uses. 

 They will be located away from the vicinity of existing cabins. 

 They will be located on sites that are not currently popular 

campsites. 

 They will be located to minimize displacement of wildlife. 

The following conditions may be imposed on special use permits for 

temporary facilities: 

 The time of occupancy will coincide with the state and/or federal 

hunting, fishing, and/or trapping season for the species for which 

the temporary facility is being used. 

 At the end of the specified occupancy, tents and other readily 

portable materials will be removed. 

 To the extent feasible, temporary structures will be built with 

materials that blend into and are compatible with the surrounding 

landscape. 

 To the extent feasible, temporary facilities will be screened from 

water and located so that they are as unobtrusive as possible 

when viewed from trails and areas of significant public use. 

2.2.17 Commercial Use Management 

Commercial uses are activities involving use of a refuge or its 

resources for a profit. Subsistence uses are not included in 

commercial uses. Refer to section 2.2.12 for policies related to 

subsistence. 

Except for mining on valid claims under the 1872 Mining Law, other 

activities where specific property rights are held by entities other 

than the federal government, or where specifically exempted by law, 

all commercial uses must comply with both NEPA and the 

compatibility requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act. A written authorization (such as a special use 

permit) is required to conduct commercial activities on Kodiak 

Refuge. Compliance with NEPA and a compatibility determination 

will be required prior to deciding whether to authorize a commercial 

use. Prior to authorizing any economic use of a natural resource, the 

refuge manager must determine that each use, except for proposed 

activities authorized by ANILCA, contributes to the achievement of 

refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission (50 

CFR 29.1). 

Mineral Exploration and Development

Oil and Gas Assessment—Geological and geophysical studies, 

including subsurface core sampling and seismic activities, require 

special use permits with site-specific stipulations that ensure 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-66 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

compatibility with refuge purposes and consistency with the 

management objectives of this plan. Decisions to allow exploration 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Oil and Gas Leasing—Oil and gas leasing may be allowed only if 

the affected lands are changed to the Intensive Management category 

through a plan amendment. Oil and gas leasing will not be 

authorized until completion of the following: 

 An assessment of potential 

 A national interest determination 

 A compatibility determination, where applicable 

 A comprehensive conservation plan amendment 

During this process, the Service will seek the views of state and local 

governments and other interested parties, in accordance with Section 

1008(b)(2) of ANILCA. 

If leasing is authorized, leaseholders will be subject to federal leasing 

regulations (43 CFR 3100) and appropriate state regulations. Leases 

will be subject to stipulations on access, seasonal use, and site 

revegetation; operators would be required to use technology that 

minimizes impacts on fish, wildlife, and habitat. The Refuge will 

work closely with leaseholders to minimize adverse effects of 

mineral exploration and extraction on refuge resources and 

recreational opportunities. When the original Conservation Plan was 

prepared (1987), oil and gas leasing was found to be incompatible 

with the purposes of Kodiak Refuge. 

Sand and Gravel, and Other Common Variety (Saleable) 

Minerals—Common variety minerals—such as sand, gravel, stone, 

limestone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay—may be sold 

pursuant to the Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601, 602), 

as amended. Regulations are found at 43 CFR 3600. Disposal is also 

authorized under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s). 

See Part 612 FW 1 of the Service Manual (USFWS). Extraction may 

be authorized, where compatible, in Moderate Management areas to 

support construction and maintenance projects on or near refuge 

lands if no reasonable material sites exist off refuge lands. 

Other Mineral Leasing—In general, mineral leasing is not allowed 

on refuge lands. Geothermal leasing is not allowed on the Refuge 

under Section 1014(c) of the Geothermal Steam Act (30 U.S.C. 

1014). Coal mining is also prohibited, subject to valid existing rights, 

under Section 16 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 

1975 (30 U.S.C. 201 Notes) and the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1272; 43 CFR 3400.2). In 

specific cases of national need, however, mineral exploration, 

development, or extraction may be permitted under Section 1502 of 

ANILCA. The President must determine that the national need for 

the mineral activity outweighs the other public values of the land. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-67 

Any recommendation by the President would take effect only after 

enactment of a joint resolution by Congress. 

Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Program—Section 1010 of 

ANILCA requires that all federal lands be assessed for their oil, gas, 

and other mineral potential, although Section 304(c) prohibits new 

hardrock mining on refuges. Mineral assessment techniques that do 

not have lasting impacts—such as side-scanning radar, trenching, 

and core drilling—may be allowed throughout Kodiak Refuge. 

Special use permits issued to other government agencies or their 

contractors for assessment work would include stipulations to ensure 

that the assessment program is compatible with refuge purposes. For 

example, stipulations may limit access during nesting, calving, 

spawning, or other times when fish and wildlife may be especially 

vulnerable to disturbance. 

Commercial Recreation Services

Air-taxi and water-taxi operators, wildlife viewing guides, tour 

operators, wilderness guides, recreational fishing guides, big-game 

hunting guides, and others providing recreation services are required, 

under 50 CFR 27.97, to obtain special use permits to operate on 

refuge lands. Where the number of special use permits is limited, 

refuge managers will award permits competitively (see 50 CFR 

36.41). Special use permits require compliance with all applicable 

laws and regulations (e.g., Coast Guard licensing regulations). 

Permit stipulations ensure that camps; travel methods; storage of 

food, fish, and game meat; and activities are compatible with refuge 

purposes and reduce the potential for impacts to resources and to 

other refuge users. If problems arise relating to commercial 

recreation activities—such as disturbance of active nests, conflicts 

with subsistence use, chronic incidence of bears getting into food, or 

violations of state or federal regulations—the Refuge may modify or 

terminate use under the special use permit stipulations. The Refuge 

will monitor the number and type of guides and outfitters operating 

in the Refuge and the number of their clients and will, if necessary, 

further regulate use. 

Under Section 1307 of ANILCA, local preference is provided for all 

new commercial visitor services except guiding for recreation 

hunting and fishing. Regulations defining local preference are in 50 

CFR 36.37. 

Currently, Kodiak Refuge awards all 25 big game guide permits 

allowed on the refuge (25 exclusive guide areas are identified on the 

Refuge) by means of a competitive selection process in order to limit 

the number of permits and ensure quality guiding services to the 

public. In addition, recreational fishing guide permits are awarded on 

specific refuge drainages (the Dog Salmon, Ayakulik, Uganik, and 

Little rivers) using a similar competitive selection process. Outside 

these drainages, there is no limit on the number of recreational 

fishing guides. More detailed information on commercial big game 

and recreational fish guiding can be found in Chapter 3 (see Hunting
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-68 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Fishing discussions in section 3.3.7 Recreation Opportunities on 

Kodiak Refuge). 

Commercial Fishing and Related Facilities

Under Section 304(d) of ANILCA, the Service will continue to allow 

individuals with valid commercial fishing rights or privileges to 

operate on the Refuge. The use of campsites, cabins, motor vehicles, 

and aircraft on the Refuge in support of commercial fishing is subject 

to reasonable regulation. Section 304(d) provides for restricting 

commercial fishing rights if the use is determined to be inconsistent 

with refuge purposes and to be a “significant expansion of 

commercial fishing activities . . . beyond the level of such activities 

during 1979.” The Service recognizes that fishery levels are cyclic 

and will take that into consideration when applying the 1979-level 

criteria. Any new fishery and related facilities and equipment will 

have to meet the compatibility standard. Kodiak Refuge developed a 

Management Plan for Commercial Fishing Activities in 1987; it will 

be updated in 2007. 

Aquaculture and mariculture support facilities may be allowed, 

subject to provisions of state and federal laws, and only if the 

affected lands are changed to the Intensive Management category 

through a plan amendment. Seafood processing plants will not be 

allowed. 

Commercial Harvest of Timber and Firewood

Commercial harvest of timber and firewood will only be authorized 

under a special use permit and when necessary to fulfill overall 

refuge management objectives. Within Moderate and Minimal 

management categories, commercial harvest of timber and firewood 

to accomplish management objectives will only occur when an 

approved refuge fire management plan identifies the need to reduce 

fuel loads in an area. Applicable federal and State of Alaska 

guidelines for timber management will be followed. 

Commercial Gathering of Other Resources

Gathering other resources (e.g., antlers and mushrooms) requires a 

special use permit under 50 CFR 27.51. Kodiak Refuge requires a 

trapping permit under 50 CFR 36.32(c)iii. Trappers are required to 

secure and possess all required state licenses and shall comply with 

all applicable provisions of state and federal law. The State of Alaska 

makes no distinction between recreation, subsistence, and 

commercial trapping. 

Commercial Filming and Recording Activities

It is Service policy to provide refuge access and/or assistance to 

firms and individuals in the pursuit of commercial visual and audio 

recordings. Such access or assistance will not be provided if visual 

and audio recordings are incompatible with refuge purposes of the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Commercial films, 

television productions, or sound tracks made within refuges for other 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-69 

than news purposes require a special use permit or authorization. 

(See 43 CFR 5.1) 

Commercial filming or recording activities such as videotaping, 

audio taping, and photography for the purpose of advertising 

products and services are subject to an A/V Production Permit. (See 

Refuge System Manual 8 RM Section 16.) 

Permits are not required for still photography on refuge lands open to 

the general public, including commercial still photography so long as 

no models or props which are not a part of the site’s natural or 

cultural resources or administrative facilities are used. (See 16 

U.S.C. 460l-6d.)

Other Commercial Uses

Generally, other commercial uses such as grazing, agriculture, and 

hydroelectric power development will not be allowed. On Kodiak 

Refuge, overland access is permitted to the Terror Lake 

Hydroelectric Project. Expansion of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric 

Project (through the Hidden Basin diversion) may be permitted if 

determined to be compatible. An exception may be made for lowhead or small run-of-the-river hydropower facilities. These may be 

authorized on a case-by-case basis. See section 2.2.13 for a 

discussion of transmission lines, pipelines, and other rights-of-way, 

as described in Title XI of ANILCA. 

2.2.18 Environmental Contaminants Identification and 

Cleanup 

One goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

is to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the system. In support of this goal, the Service has studied 

environmental contaminants that may threaten trust species (i.e., 

those species for which the Service has primary jurisdiction) and 

other refuge resources. This work will continue as new concerns are 

identified and as funding allows. 

An assessment of known or suspected contaminants threats within 

Kodiak Refuge is planned as part of the national contaminants 

assessment process; existing information will be reviewed, and an 

assessment of potential contaminants threats will be entered into an 

electronic database. A contaminant assessment report will also be 

prepared. 

When contaminants are identified on refuge lands, the Service will 

initiate discussions with the responsible party or parties to remedy 

the situation. If the Service caused the contamination, funds will be 

sought to define the extent and type of the contamination and to 

remedy it. Appropriate environmental regulations—including the 

Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Comprehensive 

Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act, Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, and State of Alaska regulations (e.g., 18 AAC 

75)—would be followed during remediation work. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-70 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

All spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials must be 

reported to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

and to the National Response Center. Incidents also need to be 

reported to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regional spill response 

coordinator. The Refuge will refer to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service Region 7 Spill Response Contingency Plan when responding 

to spills. 

2.2.19 Administration of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Administrative Sites and Visitor Facilities

Administrative sites include temporary and permanent field camps, 

residences, offices, and associated storage, communication, and 

transportation facilities. The type of administrative site and level of 

development will be consistent with the management intent of the 

management category in which they are constructed. Administrative 

field camps or other administrative facilities within the Minimal 

Management category will only be allowed when required to meet 

management objectives, when no reasonable alternative sites exist, 

and when the facilities are essential to protect the health and safety 

of employees. New facilities would only be the minimum required to 

meet long-term needs. 

Fuel storage or other hazardous material storage in conjunction with 

administrative sites will meet all federal and state requirements for 

spill containment and storage. 

Under Section 1306 of ANILCA, the Secretary of the Interior may 

establish administrative sites and visitor facilities, either within or 

outside the boundaries of a conservation system unit, in accordance 

with the unit’s management plan and for the purposes of ensuring the 

preservation, protection, and proper management of said unit. This 

section further states that to the “extent practicable and desirable, the 

Secretary shall attempt to locate such sites and facilities on Native 

lands in the vicinity of the unit.” 

Department of Interior guidelines, developed in 1995, implementing 

Section 1306 of ANILCA require that, prior to initiating a search for 

an administrative site or visitor facility, site-selection criteria be 

developed, with public input, and all proposals be evaluated 

according to the site-selection criteria. If it is determined that Native 

lands satisfy the site-selection criteria and are desirable and 

practicable for the intended use, the highest-ranked Native lands 

shall be selected as the preferred site, subject to a specific site 

evaluation. If no Native lands satisfy the site-selection criteria, the 

highest-ranking parcel will become the preferred site. Public 

comments will be considered prior to making a final decision. 

Applicability of Refuge Regulations to Off-Refuge Administrative and 

Visitor Facility Sites—50 CFR 36.1(c) authorizes the Service to 

enforce regulations concerning public safety and protection of 

government property, as well as State of Alaska fish and wildlife 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-71 

regulations, on administrative and visitor facility sites that may be 

held in fee or less-than-fee title and are either inside or outside the 

approved boundaries of any Alaska national wildlife refuge. 

Refuge Management Plans

Some management programs are addressed in sufficient detail in the 

Conservation Plan to be integrated directly into the budgetary 

process. For other programs, it may be necessary to prepare stepdown management plans to implement general strategies identified 

in the Conservation Plan. Additional information on the step-down 

planning process can be found in Part 602 FW 3, of the Service 

Manual (USFWS). 

The following step-down management plans for Kodiak Refuge are 

required: 

Station Safety Plan Completed 1996, revised annually 

Fire Emergency 

Evacuation Plan 

Completed 1996, revised annually 

Station Security Plan Completed 2001, revised annually 

Commercial Fisheries 

Activities 

Completed 1987, next review 2007 

Cultural Resources Guide Completed 1999, next review 2009 

Fisheries Management 

Plan 

Completed 1987, next review 2007 

Fire Management Plan Completed 1987, next review after 

revision of AK Interagency Wildland 

Fire Management Plan 

Land Conservation Plan Completed 1992, next review 2012 

Public Use Management 

Plan 

Completed 1993, next review 2009 

Public Use Cabin 

Management Plan 

Completed 1993, next review 2012 

Environmental Education 

Plan 

To be completed by 2008 

Comprehensive 

Inventorying and 

Monitoring Plan 

To be completed within two years of 

completion of Conservation Plan 

Mt. Glottof Research 

Natural Area Plan 

To be completed by 2010 

Water Resources Study 

Plan 

Completed 1998 

2.3 Management 

Categories 

Although five management categories, ranging from Intensive 

Management to designated Wilderness, are used to describe 

management levels in National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska, only two 

management categories—Moderate Management and Minimal 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-72 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Management—would be used to describe management levels on 

Kodiak Refuge. A management category is used to define the level 

of human activity appropriate to a specific area of a refuge. It is a set 

of refuge management directions applied to an area, in light of its 

resources and existing and potential uses, to facilitate management 

and the accomplishment of refuge purposes and goals. The Service 

could, in the future, designate refuge lands as Intensive Management 

through a plan amendment or revision. The Wilderness and Wild 

(and Scenic) River management categories are reserved for 

congressionally designated lands. The management activities table 

shows those management activities, public uses, commercial uses, 

and facilities that may be allowed in each management category and 

under what conditions. (See Table 2-2, page 2-76.) 

2.3.1 Moderate Management 

Moderate Management is meant to allow compatible management 

actions, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities that may result 

in changes to the natural environment that are temporary, or 

permanent, but small in scale and that do not disrupt natural 

processes. The natural landscape is the dominant feature of Moderate 

Management areas although signs of human actions may be visible. 

Management actions in the category of Moderate Management will 

focus on maintaining, restoring, or enhancing habitats to maintain 

healthy populations of plants and animals where natural processes 

take over. For example, logging, tree-crushing, and prescribed 

burning may be used to convert mature forests to earlier native seral 

stages to enhance wildlife habitat. In general, management facilities, 

both temporary and permanent, will be allowed for the purposes of 

gathering data needed to understand and manage resources and 

natural systems of the refuge. Structures will be designed to 

minimize overall visual impact. 

Public facilities provided in Moderate Management will, while 

protecting habitats and resources, allow the public to enjoy and use 

refuge resources in low numbers over a large area or they will 

encourage the short-term enjoyment of the refuge in focused areas. 

The emphasis is on small facilities that encourage outdoor 

experiences. Facilities such as public use cabins, rustic campgrounds, 

kiosks, viewing platforms, trails, and toilets may be provided. 

Facilities will be designed to blend with the surrounding 

environment. 

Compatible economic activities may be allowed where impacts to 

natural processes and habitats are temporary (e.g., small-scale 

logging where an earlier seral stage meets management goals; 

facilities in support of guiding and outfitting services such as tent 

platforms or cabins that encourage enhanced public use). All 

economic activities and facilities require authorizations such as 

special use permits. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-73 

2.3.2 Minimal Management 

Minimal Management is designed to maintain the natural 

environment with very little evidence of human-caused change. 

Habitats should be allowed to change and function through natural 

processes. Administration will ensure that the resource values and 

environmental characteristics identified in the conservation plan are 

conserved. Management actions that change existing habitats should 

be designed and implemented so that a natural appearance is 

maintained. Public uses, commercial activities, and facilities should 

minimize disturbance to habitats and resources. Ground-disturbing 

activities are to be avoided whenever possible. 

Management actions in this category focus on understanding natural 

systems and monitoring the health of refuge resources. Generally, no 

permanent structures are allowed (except cabins). Temporary 

structures may be allowed in situations in which removal is planned 

after the period of authorized use and the site can be rehabilitated 

using plants native to the immediate area. Existing cabins may be 

allowed for administrative, public use, subsistence, or commercial or 

economic (e.g., guiding) purposes. New subsistence or commercial 

cabins may be authorized if no reasonable alternative sites exist. 

Public use or administrative cabins may be constructed if necessary 

for health and safety. 

Public use of the refuge for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

subsistence activities is encouraged. Public use facilities are not 

generally provided. Mechanized and motorized equipment may be 

allowed when the overall impacts are temporary or where its use 

furthers management goals. 

If a transportation or utility system, as defined in Section 1102 of 

ANILCA, is proposed to cross an area in Minimal Management, the 

authorization process would incorporate a corresponding 

conservation plan amendment to change the management category in 

the affected area from Minimal Management to Moderate or 

Intensive management as appropriate.

Compatible economic activities may be allowed where the evidence 

of those activities does not last past the season of use, except as 

noted in the preceding discussion of cabins. The primary economic 

activities are likely to be guiding and outfitting of recreation 

activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, river floating, and 

sightseeing. All economic activities and facilities require 

authorizations such as special use permits. 

2.3.3 Special Management 

Special Management lands are managed within one of the categories 

previously described but have additional requirements because of 

their status. An example of a Special Management area would be the 

Mt. Glottof Research Natural Area. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-74 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.3.4 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Section 22(g) 

Lands 

Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provides 

that Service-administered lands within refuges established prior to 

December 18, 1971, that are conveyed under that act remain subject 

to the laws and regulations governing the use and development of the 

refuge. Activities occurring on these lands are subject to the 

compatibility standard, as described in 50 CFR 25.21(b)(1). In 

addition, the Service retains the right of first refusal on village 

corporation lands if these lands are ever offered for sale. 

Approximately 131,500 acres of lands within the boundaries of 

Kodiak Refuge are subject to Section 22(g). The Refuge will work 

with the landowners to balance the commercial development and use 

of 22(g) lands with the protection of resources important to the 

purposes of the Refuge. 

2.3.5 Activities, Uses, and Facilities by Management 

Category 

Explanatory Note: Table 2-2 summarizes the management direction 

for the management categories as it applies to Kodiak Refuge. The 

description of the management categories reflect a clear distinction 

in the level of action, type of action, and constraints that may be 

placed on activities or development within the management 

categories. They should be used to reflect the desired future 

condition of the area when site-specific proposals are being 

evaluated. Activities allowed or authorized will be managed 

differently depending on the management category in which they 

occur. There are activities, uses, and facilities listed in the table 

(shaded rows) that are not currently and have little or no likelihood 

of occurring in the future on Kodiak Refuge. 

Key for Table 2-2

The following are definitions for terms used in the table: 

Allowed—Activity, use, or facility is allowed under existing NEPA 

analysis, compatibility determinations, and applicable laws and 

regulations of the Service, other federal agencies, and the State of 

Alaska. 

May be allowed—Activity, use, or facility may be allowed subject 

to site-specific NEPA analysis, a specific compatibility 

determination, and compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations of the Service, other federal agencies, and the State of 

Alaska. 

May be authorized—Activity, use or facility may be allowed; a 

special use permit or other authorization is required. 

Not allowed—Activity, use, or facility is not allowed. 

The following terms are used: 

NEPA analysis—All activities, uses, and facilities proposed for a 

refuge that have the potential to result in significant effects on the 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-75 

environment require an analysis of potential environmental impacts 

under the National Environmental Policy Act. This analysis may be 

documented as a categorical exclusion (CE), an environmental 

assessment (EA), or an environmental impact statement (EIS), 

depending on the nature of the proposed project. 

Compatibility—All activities, uses, and facilities allowed on a 

refuge must be compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The analysis that 

occurs results in a compatibility determination. Management 

activities undertaken by the Service or by volunteers, cooperators, or 

contractors working for the Service, with limited exception, are 

exempt from compatibility review (Part 603 of the Service Manual, 

Compatibility). 

Regulations—All activities, uses, and facilities allowed on a refuge 

must comply with any applicable regulations, as published in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations are developed by the 

Service through a public process to implement the legal authorities 

under which the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. For more information on these regulations, see the 

appropriate topic in the Management Directions and Guidelines 

(section 2.2) of this chapter. For some activities, other federal agency 

and/or state regulations may also apply. 

Temporary—A continuous period of time not to exceed 12 months, 

except as specifically provided otherwise. Special use permits or 

other authorizations may prescribe a longer period of time but the 

structures or other human-made improvements need to be readily and 

completely dismantled and removed from the site when the period of 

authorized use terminates. 

The following guidelines apply to all activities, uses, and facilities 

allowed on a refuge: 

Area or time restrictions—All activities and uses allowed on a 

refuge may be restricted in certain areas or at certain times, at the 

discretion of the refuge manager and with the appropriate level of 

public involvement, by emergency (short-term) or permanent 

regulation, if necessary to protect refuge resources or human health 

and safety. 

Management emergencies—Activities, uses, and facilities not 

allowed on a refuge or in specific management categories may be 

allowed if naturally occurring or human-caused actions adversely 

affect refuge resources or threaten human health and safety. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-76 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2-2 Activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities by management category 

(Shaded rows describe activities that are not currently and have little likelihood of occurring 

on Kodiak Refuge.) 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

ECOSYSTEM, HABITAT, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

ECOSYSTEM/LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 

Collecting Information on and Monitoring 

Ecosystem Components

Data-gathering, monitoring, and maintaining a 

comprehensive database of selected ecosystem 

components (plants, animals, fish, water, air) 

Allowed; see section 2.2.11 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Service—Allowed 

ADF&G—Coordinate with 

refuge manager; see sections 

2.2.8 and 2.2.11 

Research and Management

Access and collection of data necessary for 

management decisions or to further science 

Other researchers—May be 

allowed 

Same as (1) 

Research and Management Facilities

May be permanent or temporary structures or 

camps, including weirs, counting towers, and 

sonar counters 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Describing, Locating, and Mapping Habitats

Development of quantitative, written, and 

graphic descriptions of fish and wildlife habitat, 

including water, food, and shelter components 

Allowed; see section 2.2.11 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Habitat Management 

Mechanical Treatment—Activities such as 

cutting, crushing or mowing of vegetation; 

water-control structures; fencing; artificial 

nest structures 

Chemical Treatment—Use of chemicals to 

remove or control nonnative species 

Manual Treatment—Use of hand tools to 

remove, reduce, or modify hazardous plant 

fuels and exotic plant species or to modify 

habitats (e.g., remove beaver dams) 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

Allowed; see section 2.2.10 

Not allowed; with 

exceptions consistent with 

section 2.3.2 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Aquatic Habitat Modifications—Activities 

such as streambank restoration, passage 

structures, fish barriers, or removal of 

obstacles that result in physical modification 

of aquatic habitats to maintain or restore 

native fish species 

May be allowed: see sections 

2.2.10 and 2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-77 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Fire Management—Prescribed Fires

Fire ignited by management actions to meet 

specific management objectives 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

Same as Moderate 

Management; consistent 

with section Minimal 2.3.2 

Fire Management—Wildland Fire Use

The planned use of naturally occurring fires to 

meet management objectives 

May be allowed; subject to 

Fire Management 

Same as Moderate 

Management; limited to 

constraints in section 2.3.2 

Fire Management—Fire Suppression 

Management actions intended to protect 

identified resources from a fire, to extinguish a 

fire, or to alter a fire’s direction of spread 

Allowed,; subject to section 

2.2.10 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see also 

section 2.3.2 

Weed Control

Monitoring, extirpation, control, removal and/or 

relocation, and other management practices for 

pest and non-native plant species 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Water Quality and Quantity Management

Monitoring of water quality and quantity to 

identify baseline data and for management 

purposes; includes installation of gauging 

stations 

Allowed; see section 2.2.9 Same as Moderate 

Management 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Reintroduction of Species

The reintroduction of native species to restore 

natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and habitats 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Fish and Wildlife Control

The control, relocation, sterilization, removal, or 

other management of native species including 

predators to maintain natural diversity of fish, 

wildlife, and habitats; favor other fish or wildlife 

populations; protect reintroduced, threatened, or 

endangered species; or restore depleted native 

populations 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Nonnative Species Management 

The removal or control of nonnative species 

(including predators) 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management; use least 

intrusive methods 

Pest Management and Disease Prevention 

and Control

Relocation or removal of organisms that threaten 

human health or survival of native fish, wildlife, 

or plant species; management practices directed 

at controlling pathogens that threaten fish, 

wildlife, and people (e.g., as rabies and parasite 

control)

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-78 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Fishery Restoration

Actions taken to restore fish access to spawning 

and rearing habitat or actions taken to restore 

populations to historic levels; includes harvest 

management, escapement goals, habitat 

restoration, stocking, egg incubation boxes, and 

lake fertilization 

Temporary actions such as the fertilization of 

Karluk Lake to restore zooplankton productivity 

for sockeye salmon is a prime example of 

fishery restoration 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Fishery Restoration Facilities

Fisheries facilities may be permanent or 

temporary and may include hatcheries, fish 

ladders, fish passages, fish barriers, and 

associated structures 

Actions such as the temporary incubation 

facility used in the upper Thumb River in Karluk 

drainage to restore sockeye productivity is a 

prime example of fishery restoration facilities 

May be authorized; see 

sections 2.2.11 and 2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see also 

section 2.3.2 

Fishery Enhancement 

Activities applied to a fish stock to supplement 

numbers of harvestable fish to a level beyond 

what could be naturally produced based on a 

determination or reasonable estimate of historic 

levels 

The Spiridon Lake Sockeye Enhancement 

Project is a prime example of fisheries 

enhancement.

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.11 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Fishery Enhancement Facilities 

May be permanent or temporary and may 

include hatcheries, egg incubation boxes, fish 

ladders, fish passages, fish barriers, and 

associated structures 

May be authorized; see 

sections 2.2.11 and 2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see also 

section 2.3.2 

Native Fish Introductions

Movement of native fish species within a 

drainage on the refuge to areas where they have 

not historically existed 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Nonnative Species Introductions

Introduction of species not naturally occurring 

within a watershed 

Not allowed; see section 

2.2.10 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

SUBSISTENCE 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping, and Berry 

Picking

The taking of fish and wildlife and other natural 

resources for personal consumption or as 

provided by law 

Allowed; see section 2.2.12 Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-79 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Collection of House Logs and Firewood 

Harvesting live standing timber greater than 6 

inches diameter at breast height for personal or 

extended-family use 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.12 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Collection of House Logs and Firewood

Harvesting live trees less than 3 inches in 

diameter at breast height and dead standing or 

down timber for personal or extended-family use

Allowed; see section 2.2.12 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Collection of House Logs and Firewood 

Harvesting live trees between 3 and 6 inches 

diameter at breast height for personal or 

extended-family use 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.12 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Collection of Other Plant Materials

Harvesting trees less than 6 inches diameter at 

breast height for trapping and other purposes; 

harvesting grass, bark, or other plant materials 

used as food, in making handicrafts, or for other 

subsistence purposes 

Allowed; see section 2.2.12 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Access

Use of snowmachines, motorboats, and other 

means of surface transportation traditionally 

employed for subsistence purposes 

Allowed; see section 2.2.12 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Temporary Facilities

Establishment and use of tent platforms, 

shelters, and other temporary facilities and 

equipment directly related to the taking of fish 

and wildlife 

No new tent platforms 

allowed; other temporary 

facilities allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Subsistence Cabins—See CABINS and section 2.2.16

ACCESS (restrictions subject to provisions of Section 1110 of ANILCA; access for 

subsistence purposes discussed in SUBSISTENCE above) 

NONMOTORIZED 

Foot Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Dogs and Dog Teams Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Other Domestic Animals

Includes horses, mules, llamas, and other 

domestic animals 

Not allowed; see sections 

2.2.13 and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Bicycles

Includes all types of bicycles (e.g., road, BMX, 

mountain) 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Nonmotorized Boats

Includes canoes, kayaks, rafts, etc. 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-80 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

MOTORIZED 

Motorboats

Includes inboard and outboard motor power 

boats, including jet boats; does not include jetdriven personal water craft, air boats, and air 

cushion vehicles 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Highway Vehicles May be allowed on designated 

roads 

Not allowed 

Off-Road/All-Terrain Vehicles

Includes air boats and air cushion vehicles 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.13 

Not allowed; see section 

2.2.12 

Airplanes

Fixed-wing aircraft such as float planes and 

wheeled planes 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Helicopters

Includes all rotary-wing aircraft 

Not allowed for recreation 

activities; may be authorized 

for other purposes; see section 

2.2.13 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Snowmachines (Snowmobiles)

A self-propelled vehicle intended for off-road 

travel primarily on snow and having a curb 

weight of not more than 1,000 pounds (450 kg), 

driven by track or tracks in contact with the 

snow 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.13 

and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES—Note: also see ACCESS 

section 

Hunting*, Fishing*, Trapping, Walking, 

Hiking, Camping at undeveloped sites, 

Wildlife Observation*, and Dog Sledding 

Note: *priority public use 

Allowed; see sections 2.2 and 

2.2.14; trapping requires 

refuge trapping permit (section 

2.2.17) 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Wildlife Photography* and General 

Photography—Also see COMMERCIAL 

USES 

Note: * priority public use 

Allowed; see sections 2.2 and 

2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Boating and Snowmachining 

Motorized and nonmotorized boating (excluding 

air boats and air cushion vehicles) and 

snowmachining (also see ACCESS) 

 Allowed; see sections 2.2, 

2.2.13, and 2.2.14 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Interpretation*, Environmental Education*, 

and other Outreach Activities 

Note: *priority public use 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.15 

and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.15 and 2.3.2 

PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION FACILITIES 

Recreation Use Facilities

Facilities provided by the Service 

May be allowed; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-81 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

All-Weather Roads 

And associated developments, including bridges 

May be allowed; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Not allowed 

Unimproved Roads May be allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Not allowed 

ORV/ATV Trails and Routes May be allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Not allowed 

Roadside Exhibits and Waysides May be allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Not applicable 

Constructed and Maintained Airstrips May be allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Not allowed 

Cleared Landing Strips 

and Areas

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Constructed Hiking Trails

Including bridges, boardwalks, trailheads, and 

related facilities 

May be allowed; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Designated Hiking Routes

Unimproved and unmaintained trails; may be 

designated by signs, cairns, and/or on maps 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.16 

and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Boat Launches and Docks 

Designated sites for launching and storing 

watercraft 

May be allowed; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Visitor Contact Facilities 

A variety of staffed and unstaffed facilities 

providing information on the Refuge and its 

resources to the public; facilities range from 

visitor centers to kiosks and signs 

May be allowed; consistent 

with direction in sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; consistent 

with direction in sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Campgrounds

Developed sites accessible by highway vehicles 

May be allowed; consistent 

with 2.2.16 and 2.3.1 

Not allowed; see campsites 

(below) 

Hardened Campsites

Areas where people can camp that are accessible 

by vehicle or on foot but where the only 

facilities provided are for public health and 

safety and/or resource protection; may include 

gravel pads for tents, hardened trails, and/or 

primitive toilets 

Allowed; see sections 2.2.16 

and 2.3.1 

Same as Moderate 

Management; see sections 

2.2.16 and 2.3.2 

Temporary Facilities

Includes tent frames, caches, and other similar 

or related facilities; does not include cabins; see 

also Subsistence, Administrative Facilities, and 

Commercial Uses 

No new tent platforms 

allowed; other temporary 

facilities allowed; see section 

2.2.16 

Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-82 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

CABINS (and other related structures such as outdoor toilets, food caches, storage sheds, and 

fish-drying racks) 

Public Use Cabin

A cabin administered by the Service and 

available for use by the public; intended only for 

short-term public recreation use and occupancy 

Existing cabins allowed to 

remain; new cabins may be 

allowed; see 2.2.16 

Same as Moderate 

Management; consistent 

with 2.3.2 

Administrative Cabin

Any cabin primarily used by refuge staff or 

other authorized personnel for the administration 

of the refuge 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management; consistent 

with section 2.3.2 

Subsistence Cabin

Any cabin necessary for health and safety and to 

provide for the continuation of ongoing 

subsistence activities; not for recreation use 

Existing cabins allowed, new 

cabins not allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Commercial Cabin

Any cabin that is used in association with a 

commercial operation, including commercial 

fishing activities and recreation guiding services 

Existing cabins allowed; new 

cabins not allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Other Cabins 

Cabins associated with authorized uses by other 

government agencies 

May be allowed May be allowed; consistent 

with section 2.3.2 

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES 

Administrative Field Camps

Temporary facilities used by refuge staff and 

other authorized personnel to support individual 

(generally) field projects; may include tent 

frames and temporary or portable outhouses, 

shower facilities, storage and maintenance 

facilities, and caches 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Administrative Field Sites 

Permanent facilities used by refuge staff or 

other authorized personnel for the administration 

of the refuge; includes administrative cabins and 

related structures (see CABINS above) and 

larger multi-facility administrative sites 

necessary to support ongoing field projects, 

research, and other management activities; 

temporary facilities, to meet short-term needs, 

may supplement the permanent facilities at these 

sites 

Use of existing sites allowed 

including replacement of 

existing facilities as necessary; 

new sites may be allowed; see 

section 2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management; consistent 

with section 2.3.2 

Refuge Administrative Office Complex

Facilities necessary to house refuge operations, 

outreach, and maintenance activities and 

associated infrastructure; includes staff offices, 

storage, maintenance, and other facilities, 

parking lots, and so forth 

Not allowed Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-83 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Hazardous Materials Storage

Sites, including appropriate structures and 

equipment necessary for the storage and transfer 

of fuels and other hazardous materials, used for 

administrative purposes; must be in compliance 

with all federal and state requirements 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Residences 

Residential housing for refuge staff and their 

families; includes single and multi-family 

dwellings 

Not allowed Same as Moderate 

Management 

Bunkhouses 

Quarters to house temporary and similar 

employees, volunteers, visitors, and other 

agency personnel 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Not allowed 

Float Plane Bases 

Designated sites for docking and storage of 

float-equipped aircraft 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Not allowed 

Aircraft Hangars 

Facilities for storage of aircraft 

Not allowed Same as Moderate 

Management 

Radio Repeater Sites 

Sites used to maintain radio communications 

equipment; may include helispots for access 

May be allowed; see section 

2.2.19 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

COMMERCIAL USES (Does not include subsistence use; see SUBSISTENCE section of this table. 

Except as specifically noted, a written authorization in the form of a special use permit or other 

document is required for economic use of a refuge.)

MINERAL EXPLORATION 

Surface Geological Studies 

Includes surface rock collecting and geological 

mapping activities (includes helicopter or fixedwing access) 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Geophysical Exploration and Seismic Studies

Examination of subsurface rock formations 

through devices that set off and record 

vibrations in the earth; usually involves 

mechanized surface transportation, but may be 

helicopter supported; includes studies conducted 

for the Department of the Interior 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Core Sampling 

Using helicopter-transported motorized drill rig 

to extract subsurface rock samples; does not 

include exploratory wells; includes sampling 

conducted for Department of the Interior 

May be authorized: see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Other Geophysical Studies 

Helicopter-supported gravity and magnetic 

surveys and other minimal-impact activities that 

do not require mechanized surface transportation

May be authorized: see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-84 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

Oil and Gas Leasing 

Leasing, drilling, and extraction of oil and gas 

for commercial purposes; includes all associated 

above and below ground facilities 

 Not allowed Same as Moderate 

Management 

Sale of Sand, Gravel, and Other Common 

Variety Minerals 

Extraction of sand, gravel, and other saleable 

minerals for commercial purposes; includes 

commercial use by federal, state, and local 

agencies 

May be authorized: see section 

2.2.17 

Not allowed 

Other Mineral Leasing 

Includes the extraction of coal, geothermal 

resources, potassium, sodium, phosphate, sulfur, 

or other leaseable minerals for commercial 

purposes 

Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Mining of Hardrock Minerals 

Development of valid (pre-ANILCA) mining 

claims (lode, placer, and mill sites) on refuge 

lands for the purpose of extracting hardrock 

minerals 

Note: Kodiak Refuge has no valid mining 

claims. 

Not allowed; no valid claims 

on Refuge; see section 2.2.17 

 Same as Moderate 

Management 

COMMERCIAL RECREATION—Includes all forms of guiding, including those operated by 

nonprofit, educational, and other noncommercial groups 

Guiding and Outfitting May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Transporting May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Fixed-wing Air Taxis May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Helicopter Air Taxis Not allowed; see section 

2.2.13 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Bus and Auto Tours May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Not applicable 

OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES 

Commercial Filming and Video and Audio 

Taping

May be authorized, see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Grazing Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Agriculture (commercial) Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Commercial Fishery Support Facilities At or 

Below 1979 Levels 

Allowed; see section 2.2.17 Same as Moderate 

Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-85 

ACTIVITY MODERATE 

MANAGEMENT 

MINIMAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Commercial Fishery Support Facilities Above 

1979 levels 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Seafood Processing Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Aquaculture and Mariculture Support 

Facilities 

Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

 Same as Moderate 

Management 

Commercial Timber and Firewood Harvest May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Commercial Gathering of Other Refuge 

Resources 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Not allowed 

Transportation and Utility Systems 

Includes transmission lines, pipelines, telephone 

and electrical power lines, oil and gas pipelines, 

communication systems, roads, airstrips, and 

other necessary related facilities/ Does not 

include facilities associated with on-refuge oil 

and gas development 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.13 

May be authorized; would 

require plan amendment; see 

section 2.2.13 

Navigation Aids and Other Facilities 

Includes air and water navigation aids and 

related facilities, communication sites and 

related facilities, facilities for national defense 

purposes and related air and water navigation 

aids, and facilities for weather, climate, and 

fisheries research and monitoring; includes both 

private and government facilities 

Existing and new facilities 

allowed; see section 2.2.13 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Major New Hydroelectric Power 

Development 

Hydroelectric dams creating a change in 

streamflow with an elevation change and 

reservoir behind the dam 

Not allowed; see section 

2.2.17 

Same as Moderate 

Management 

Small Hydroelectric Power Development 

Hydroelectric generation by low-head or 

instream structures that do not change the flow 

of the river 

May be authorized; see section 

2.2.17 

Not Allowed 

2.4 Process Used to 

Develop 

Alternatives 

The alternatives described later in this chapter were developed to 

comply with NEPA, ANILCA, and other pertinent laws. They 

provide different ways to address and respond to major issues, 

management concerns, and opportunities identified during the 

planning process. Alternatives take an interdisciplinary approach to 

problem solving by considering the physical, biological, economic, 

and social effects of the proposed actions on the environment. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-86 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Under regulations implementing NEPA, a plan must “rigorously 

explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and, for 

alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly 

discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated” (40 CFR 

1502.14[a]). A reasonable alternative achieves, in large part, the 

agency’s defined purpose and need and addresses significant issues. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, issues of concern to the public were 

identified from responses to planning updates and several public 

meetings. A series of open planning-team meetings discussing the 

conservation planning process and the issues were held in April and 

May 2001. Five alternatives were developed at the last of these 

meetings. The alternatives were designed to meet refuge goals, 

respond to identified issues, and encompass a range of options for 

addressing each issue. 

Recommendations developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee 

for the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002) were incorporated 

into at least one alternative. In addition, each alternative had to be 

responsive to numerous laws and regulations governing management 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System as well as to the mission and 

goals of the Service and the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which Kodiak Refuge was established. Each alternative also had to 

embrace regional management direction presented in Refuge 

Management Policies and Guidelines, Management Categories, and 

Activities, Uses, and Facilities by Management Category (sections 

2.2, 2.3, and 2.3.5, respectively). Although these considerations 

limited the range of potential alternatives, all input into the planning 

process was considered in order to achieve a reasonable range of 

alternatives incorporating differing approaches to resolving issues 

and accomplishing refuge goals. 

Five alternatives were presented to the public for review in a 

planning update published in July 2001. A number of public 

comments were received. An open planning-team meeting was held 

in January 2002 to review these comments. Each major issue, 

activity, and management concern was discussed and evaluated. As a 

result, some significant changes were made to the alternatives. The 

planning team then began to analyze the alternatives to determine the 

potential environmental impacts of their implementation. In February 

2003, the planning team reviewed the impact analyses and selected 

the team’s preferred alternative, which included elements of several 

of the preliminary alternatives. (State representatives on the planning 

team did not identify a preferred alternative.) 

After reviewing the requirements for Wilderness and Wild and 

Scenic River reviews, it was determined that conservation planning 

requirements of Section 304(g) of ANILCA were best satisfied by 

honoring the Wilderness recommendation of the current Kodiak 

Conservation Plan and focusing Service efforts on describing the 

wilderness and river values of the Refuge and providing better 

direction for managing the Refuge to protect these values. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-87 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River recommendations were 

removed from the alternatives for this Conservation Plan, and the 

number of alternatives being considered was reduced from five to 

four. Alternative D is the Preferred Alternative. 

2.5 Alternatives and 

Actions Considered 

But Eliminated 

from Detailed Study 

Many potential actions were eliminated from further consideration 

because they were impractical, unfeasible, or too expensive to 

implement in terms of cost or time. Other actions were considered 

viable and were included in preliminary alternatives formulated by 

the planning team for early input from the public. Actions and 

strategies considered in preliminary alternatives, but subsequently 

eliminated from detailed consideration, included the following: 

 Control of unguided use on the Refuge. Several variations 

involving establishment of a “refuge access permit system” for 

monitoring unguided use on the Refuge were considered. These 

included requiring permits for those areas where seasonal use 

limits were proposed; using a permit system only on the 

Ayakulik River from June 1 through September 30; using a 

permit system for the more heavily used areas on the Refuge, 

such as the Ayakulik River, Frazer fish pass, and Uganik Lake 

outlet and lower river; or requiring all unguided visitors to the 

Refuge (including subsistence users) to obtain free permits with 

no limits on numbers. In addition to being impractical and 

expensive to implement, particularly for a refuge-wide program, 

a permit system on Kodiak Refuge would be logistically difficult 

to monitor and enforce. 

 Designation of additional research natural areas. Two areas 

of the Refuge, the Kodiak Refugium and the Afognak Island 

Sitka spruce forest contain unique resources that may be worthy 

of special designation. It was decided not to pursue additional 

research natural area designations on the Refuge until further 

studies of these areas were conducted to determine whether such 

designations were warranted. 

 Designation of sites for unguided users to view bears. 

Although most of the Refuge will remain open for unguided 

bear viewing, staff thought that identifying specific sites for 

viewing would result in concentrating human at use these sites 

resulting in increased impacts (e.g., displacement of bears from 

feeding areas) and the need for some limited facilities (e.g., 

wilderness latrines, trails, and viewing pads) and associated 

maintenance. Potentially limiting user numbers at specific sites 

could occur more quickly if specific sites are designated as 

viewing sites. 

 Hunting closure in vicinity of formal bear-viewing program 

site (O’Malley). Analysis of data on bear use in the vicinity of 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-88 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the O’Malley River, bear harvest information, and other data 

indicated a low probability of population level impacts 

(Appendix T of the Bear Management Plan [ADF&G 2002]). 

 Freedom-of-Choice O’Malley River Bear-Viewing Program.

Under this system, a lottery would be used to select visitors 

who would receive permits for bear viewing at O’Malley River. 

Once selected, visitors would be free to choose any qualified 

commercial wildlife-viewing guide or to elect a do-it-yourself 

experience under agency supervision. Given the relatively 

small number of visitors appropriate for an area such as 

O’Malley, administering this type of program would be 

impractical. Guides would have no predictable client base; the 

Refuge and ADF&G would not be able to predict workloads. 

Also, guided and unguided clients would be on site at the same 

time, perhaps seeking different types of experiences. Cost to 

the agencies would be much greater than other alternatives 

considered because on-site staffing and administration of 

special use permits for commercial guides and visitor permits 

would be required. 

 Restricting the number of bear-viewing clients permitted in 

some drainages. More drainage-specific data on bear 

populations and use levels, the amount of human use occurring, 

and the interaction between bears and humans is necessary to 

better evaluate and assess whether there is a need to restrict the 

number of people viewing bears or otherwise limit bear-viewing 

activities in some refuge drainages. 

 Recommending rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. Alternatives that would have 

recommended that Congress consider additional rivers for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System were 

considered but eliminated from detailed consideration. Riverrelated values are discussed in Chapter 3, but recommendations 

are not included in the alternatives. Current and proposed 

management direction provides adequate protection for all riverrelated values. 

 Recommending additional lands for designation as 

Wilderness. Alternatives that would have recommended that 

Congress consider additional areas for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System were considered but eliminated 

from detailed consideration. The Refuge has a recommendation 

for Wilderness designation (approximately 1.08 million acres) 

from the original Conservation Plan. This recommendation will 

remain in effect unless withdrawn or until such time as a 

recommendation is submitted to Congress. Wilderness values are 

discussed in Chapter 3, but recommendations for additional 

designations are not included in the alternatives. Current and 

proposed management direction provides adequate protection for 

all wilderness values. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-89 

2.6 Elements Common 

to All Alternatives 

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

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan regardless of the alternative 

selected. Each of the alternatives would do the following: 

 Contribute to achieving the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established, as set forth in Executive Order 8857 (August 19, 

1941), Public Land Order 1634 (May 9, 1958), and section 

303(5)(B) of ANILCA. 

 Ensure local rural residents have access to and priority use of 

refuge resources for purposes of subsistence, as determined by 

law. 

 Ensure that refuge management complies with all other federal 

laws and regulations that provide direction for managing units of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 Protect and maintain fish and wildlife in their natural diversity. 

 Maintain opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence 

activities, scientific research, and hunting, fishing, and other 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

 Maintain most of the Refuge in a relatively undeveloped state. 

 Minimize disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and 

populations. 

 Allow public use of the Refuge using traditional access methods 

provided use remains compatible with purposes of the Refuge. 

Goals and objectives are an integral part of each alternative. Whereas 

goals describe broad general direction for refuge management, 

objectives provide specific measurable ways through which the 

Refuge can move toward achieving its goals and determine how well 

the intent of individual alternatives is being achieved. Refuge goals 

(presented in section 2.1) do not vary among alternatives; they are 

common to all. The objectives, which have been developed for each 

goal and are also presented in section 2.1, generally apply to all of 

the alternatives. A few objectives may require modification, or new 

objectives may be incorporated into one or more alternatives, based 

on particular issue-driven actions under a specific alternative. 

Two specific actions have occurred recently that will affect 

management of Kodiak Refuge and implementation of this 

Conservation Plan. These actions will, for the most part, result in the 

same management direction being applied regardless of the 

alternative selected for implementation. These actions, and their 

implications for refuge management, are discussed in the following 

subsections. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-90 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.6.1 The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan 

In response to growing public concern over conservation of the 

brown bear population and habitats on the Archipelago, the Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, in cooperation with Kodiak Refuge and 

other agencies and organizations, undertook a public planning 

process to develop a bear management plan for the Archipelago. 

Beginning in fall 2000, the planning process addressed concerns 

expressed by the public, including the effects on the bear population 

of development in and around bear habitat, how increasing demand 

for diverse recreation opportunities would affect the bear population, 

and the need to minimize negative bear–human interactions yet 

increase opportunities for viewing. 

Because management responsibility for bears and their habitat is 

shared by ADF&G (population) and the Refuge (habitat), the 

agencies pooled their resources to work with the public in 

developing this management plan (ADF&G 2002). Other 

governmental agencies and Native tribes and organizations 

(including Koniag, Inc., Kodiak Island Borough, the City of Kodiak, 

the U.S. Coast Guard, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

including the Alaska State Park System, and the tribal and/or village 

governments of the six rural villages on the Archipelago) needed to 

be involved and committed to the plan in order for full 

implementation to occur. A group of agencies, tribes, and 

organizations—the Intergovernmental Planning Group—was formed 

to select members of the public to serve on the Citizens Advisory 

Committee that developed the management plan. 

The Intergovernmental Planning Group also developed and is 

coordinating a strategy for implementation of the management plan’s 

recommendations. The Citizens Advisory Committee recognized the 

need for an ongoing team of local representatives, to be known as the 

Kodiak Unified Bear Subcommittee, to work with the 

Intergovernmental Planning Group in implementing the plan’s 

recommendations and to provide input consistent with this plan on 

issues related to bear conservation and management that may arise in 

the future. 

The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002) developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee is 

comprehensive, addressing human uses of the Archipelago relating 

to bears, bear–human interactions, potential habitat degradation, the 

impacts of private land ownership in bear habitat, and other bearmanagement issues. The Bear Management Plan provides analyses 

of examples of successful coexistence between people and bears. It 

attempts to improve the current situation through a series of 

recommendations developed to accommodate shifts in human uses of 

bears and to reduce bear–human conflicts in a mutually beneficial 

manner as increases in human activities and impacts occur within the 

Archipelago. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-91 

The Service, as one of the primary land management agencies on the 

Archipelago, agreed to incorporate all relevant recommendations 

from the Bear Management Plan into one or more of the alternatives 

being evaluated for the Conservation Plan. Appendix C lists all of 

the recommendations and provides specific information on how they 

are being addressed in the Conservation Plan. With few exceptions, 

the relevant recommendations would apply to all alternatives being 

evaluated. 

2.6.2 Master Agreement for Protection of Certain Lands 

and Resources Between Koniag, Inc., the United 

States of America, and the State of Alaska 

(Koniag, Inc. Large Parcel Acquisition, Phase 2). 

In 2002, representatives of the Service, Koniag, Inc., and the State of 

Alaska signed a master agreement that ensures protection of and 

guarantees public access to nearly 57,000 acres of Koniag-owned 

land in western Kodiak Refuge. The agreement is very complex and 

includes a 10-year conservation easement that protects the Karluk 

and Sturgeon drainages from development with an option to sell the 

lands to the United States at the end of the initial term, an option to 

extend the agreement for 10 additional years, or an option to return 

the lands to full management by Koniag. Easement provisions 

include the following: 

 Unlimited access for Service and ADF&G personnel for fish, 

wildlife, and habitat monitoring and research 

 Free public access to easement lands for all recreation activities 

permissible on Kodiak Refuge 

 Implementation of a free permit system operated by the Service 

for public use of Koniag lands within one-half mile of Karluk 

Lake and Karluk River. Permits are initially limited to 70 per day 

along Karluk River during the period June 10 through July 15, 

the peak of the King Salmon run. Permits will be split among 

guided and unguided users. Currently 60 percent of the permits 

are allocated to Koniag guides and 40 percent to members of the 

public. This allocation could change in the future. 

 Conducting a program of study to evaluate habitat sustainability, 

resource capabilities, and quality of experience to determine 

appropriate use levels 

 Koniag management of revenue-producing visitor services along 

the Karluk and Sturgeon rivers with Service management of 

commercial visitor services on remaining Koniag easement lands 

 Koniag’s retention of the right to operate a bear-viewing 

program in the Thumb River drainage of Karluk Lake; Koniag 

also retains the right to operate one seasonal camp each along the 

Karluk and Sturgeon rivers. 

A three-person management group made up of one representative 

each from the Service, Koniag, and the state will discuss and 

coordinate issues relating to management of Koniag easement lands. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-92 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A cooperative agreement between Koniag and the Service allows 

limited public use of Koniag lands downstream of the Refuge. 

The parties also signed the Camp Island Limited Development 

Easement that allows Koniag to develop a lodge and visitor facilities 

on a six-acre site on Camp Island in Karluk Lake. For additional 

discussion of this and other land acquisition on Kodiak Refuge, see 

Appendix H.
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-93 

2.7 Alternative A—

Current 

Management 

This alternative, the “no-action alternative,” describes current 

management of the Refuge as well as future management assuming 

present actions and initiatives are carried forward. It provides the 

baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It is 

required by NEPA. 

2.7.1 General Management Direction 

Management of the Refuge would continue to follow the 1987 Kodiak 

Refuge Conservation Plan (USFWS 1987a) and Record of Decision 

(USFWS 1987b) and as amended by the Refuge Public Use 

Management Plan (USFWS 1993). Public and commercial uses of the 

Refuge would change only as implementation of current management 

direction dictates. The Service would take the following actions: 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Adopt regulations 

to seasonally limit public use of nine bear concentration areas; 

maintain limits on commercial use of these areas until 

regulations are in place; and close two key bear denning areas to 

snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Maintain the seven public use cabins that 

currently exist, construct two additional cabins, and manage 

cabins on newly acquired lands as needed for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) would not be improved, 

and equipment or facilities such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences would not be provided unless other 

methods designed to reduce impacts in heavily used camping 

areas are not effective. Use impacts would be managed by 

restricting use through regulation. Regulations restricting 

camping near public use cabins and administrative facilities 

would be adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Continue seasonal closure of 

O’Malley River area to all users. No formal bear-viewing 

program would be operated on the Refuge.

Management Categories

Kodiak Refuge lands were placed in three management categories 

with adoption of the original Conservation Plan in 1987. Under this 

alternative, these management categories would continue to be 

applied to lands within the Refuge. (See Figure 2-2 and Table 2-3.) 

Moderate Management. Approximately 44,100 acres of land 

located along parts of the Refuge’s coast (from mean high tide line 

inland one-quarter mile) would be managed in the Moderate 

Management category. 

Minimal Management. Approximately 1.58 million acres of land, 

the remainder of the Refuge, would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-94 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Special River Management. This category was established to 

recognize the natural diversity of fish and wildlife populations, high 

concentrations of fish and wildlife, and important resource values 

unique to the Karluk, Sturgeon, Ayakulik, and Dog Salmon 

drainages. This category varies only slightly in management 

direction from the Minimal Management category. Table 2-4 depicts 

those differences. 

The category’s boundaries, intended to extend from the headwaters 

of each drainage to the refuge boundary and encompassing the 

adjacent riparian lands, were to be defined in river management 

plans for each drainage. These plans were to describe specific 

management direction for these drainages, including specific actions 

to be taken to maintain the physical, biological, and recreational 

values of the drainages. These plans were to form the foundation for 

any future regulations that might be required. These river 

management plans have not been completed. 

Acquired Lands. Most lands acquired after this revised 

Conservation Plan is adopted would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. Exceptions would be (1) any lands where 

different management direction is specified in conveyance 

documents and (2) any small parcels located within or adjacent to 

lands designated in the Moderate Management category, which 

would also be managed in the Moderate Management category. 

Table 2-3 Management category designations in Alternative A 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuge 

Moderate Management 44,100 3 

Minimal Management 1,580,174 97 

Special River 

Management1

0 0 

Total 1,624,274 100 

1 River management plans for the drainages in the Special River Management 

category have never been completed; no boundaries were ever established. 

Activities, Public Uses, Commercial Uses, and Facilities by 

Management Category

This discussion highlights the significant changes in management 

direction that applies to Alternatives B, C, and D, and management 

direction that applies to Alternative A—continuation of current 

management. Management direction under Alternative A is from the 

1987 Kodiak Conservation Plan (USFWS 1987a) and Record of 

Decision (USFWS 1987b), as modified by subsequent step-down 

management plans—primarily the Kodiak Public Use Management 

Plan (USFWS 1993) and Decision Notice (USFWS 1994b). 

Direct comparison of the management direction proposed for 

alternatives B, C, and D in Table 2-2 with a similar table in the 1987 

Conservation Plan is difficult because the organization of the tables 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-95 

Figure 2-2 Alternative A—Current Management 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-96 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2-4 Differences between Minimal Management and Special River Management 

 Minimal Management Special River Management 

Motorboats1 Permitted for traditional activities, 

subject to reasonable regulation; jet 

boats not permitted. 

Use of motorboats may be restricted for 

resource protection or public safety 

purposes; jet boats not permitted. 

Float Planes1 Permitted on all water areas and 

saltwater beaches for traditional 

activities, subject to reasonable 

regulation. 

May be restricted in some areas for 

resource protection. 

Land Planes1 Permitted only on ocean beaches and 

on frozen waterbodies. 

Permitted only on frozen waterbodies. 

Primitive Camping Permitted, subject to time limitations. May be permitted in designated areas, 

subject to reasonable regulations. 

Hydroelectric Power 

Development 

The Hidden Basin diversion may be 

permitted to expand the Terror Lake 

Hydroelectric Project if determined to 

be compatible; other new 

developments not permitted. 

Not permitted. 

Guiding, Outfitting, 

Transporting 

Permitted subject to reasonable 

regulations; use of tents is permitted; 

new permanent or temporary support 

facilities are not permitted (subject to 

the provisions of Section 1316 of 

ANILCA). 

Permitted subject to reasonable 

regulations; use levels may be limited in 

specific areas to protect resource values. 

1 To implement these actions would require the promulgation of regulations; no regulations have been completed to 

date. 

and level of detail provided for various categories of actions are quite 

different. For example, the 1987 plan had detailed descriptions of 

fisheries management activities and facilities; this document does 

not. However, the 1987 plan had very little discussion of 

nonfisheries management facilities, while Table 2-2 has several 

pages describing such facilities. Table 2-5 displays the major 

differences. Only wording changes that change management intent 

are displayed. A detailed comparison of the specific wording from 

the 1987 Conservation Plan as modified by the new direction in 

Table 2-2 is included in the planning record maintained by the 

Service’s Alaska Regional Office in Anchorage. 

The 1987 Kodiak Conservation Plan included management direction 

in four management categories, as described in the previous 

section—Moderate Management, Minimal Management, Wilderness, 

and Special River—with lands assigned only to Moderate and 

Minimal Management categories. Lands recommended for 

Wilderness designation were assigned to the Minimal Management 

category. As described in the previous section, Special River 

Management was almost identical to Minimal Management. The 

Intensive Management and Wild and Scenic Rivers categories were 

not described in the original Kodiak Conservation Plan because no 

lands were assigned to these categories. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-97 

This document describes management direction for two management 

categories—Moderate Management and Minimal Management; 

Alternatives B, C, and D all propose assigning refuge lands only to 

these categories. The Service could, in the future, designate refuge 

lands as Intensive Management through a plan amendment. Lands 

could be assigned to the Wilderness or Wild River categories only if 

Congress designated refuge lands as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System or the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

2.7.2 Management Direction by Program 

The following discussions provide an overview of management 

direction for major refuge programs as they would be implemented 

under Alternative A. Only those aspects of management that vary 

among the alternatives are described in detail. 

Fish and Wildlife Management

General fish and wildlife management strategies would not vary 

among the alternatives. For details on current fish and wildlife 

population and habitat management direction on Kodiak Refuge, see 

prior discussions in this chapter (section 2.2.10 and section 2.2.11). 

Public Use Management: Access

Management of access to the Refuge would continue as described 

previously in section 2.2.13, in the Refuge’s 1993 public use 

management plan, and in various easements and agreements 

associated with land acquisition on the Refuge (Appendix H). The 

following discussions identify current management direction. This 

direction, unless otherwise noted, is expected to continue. 

Seasonal Use Limits. An area of approximately 2,560 acres at the 

O’Malley River (Karluk Lake), as described in 50 CFR 36.39(j)(1) 

and depicted in Figure 2-3, is and would continue to be closed to all 

public access, occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from 

June 25 through September 30 annually. 

Commercial use of nine bear concentration areas on the Refuge is 

closed seasonally or restricted to day-use only. These limits are 

currently implemented through conditions placed on special use 

permits that all commercial operators using refuge lands are required 

to obtain. (See the discussion “What Is a Bear Concentration Area?” 

on page 2-101 for additional information.) 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-98 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2-5 Comparison of activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities by 

management category—current management from the 1987 Comprehensive Plan 

(Alternative A) with management proposed in the draft revised Conservation Plan 

(Alternatives B, C, and D) 

Management 

Topic 

Alternative A—1987 Kodiak 

Conservation Plan 

Alternatives B, C, & D—

Revised Kodiak 

Conservation Plan 

Comments 

Allows re-introduction (stocking) 

of native species within their 

original breeding range. 

May allow reintroduction of 

native species (within their 

natural range or zone of 

potential dispersion) to 

restore natural diversity of 

fish, wildlife, and habitats 

(under Moderate and 

Minimal Management). 

Allows introduction of species 

native to North American outside 

their original range where 

biologically justified and 

implemented in accordance with 

NEPA and a compatibility 

determination. 

May allow introduction of 

native fish species within a 

refuge drainage to areas 

where they have not occurred 

historically (under Moderate 

and Minimal Management) 

Fish and 

wildlife 

species 

introductions 

Introduction of exotic species not 

permitted. 

Nonnative species 

introductions not allowed. 

Revised plan adopts 

Service’s statewide 

management direction 

which reflects current 

Service policy (Service 

Manual 601 FW 3)but 

may allow introduction 

of native fish species 

within a refuge drainage 

into areas where they 

have not occurred 

historically. It is more 

restrictive. 

Domestic 

animals 

Pack animals (dogs, horses, 

mules, llamas, etc.) may be 

permitted subject to provisions of 

NEPA and promulgation of 

appropriate regulations. 

Dogs and dog teams allowed; 

other domestic animals, 

including horses, mules, and 

llamas, not allowed. 

Horseback riding not 

allowed. 

Regulations not 

promulgated. Domestic 

animals other than dogs 

have not been used on 

the Refuge. 

Bicycles Not included Allowed Bicycle use on the 

Refuge is unlikely 

because of terrain. 

Airplanes Float planes permitted on all 

water areas and saltwater beaches 

for traditional activities, subject 

to reasonable regulations. 

Special River Management—may 

be restricted in some areas for 

resource protection. 

Landing of planes (with wheels or 

skis)—proposed to allow only on 

frozen waterbodies and ocean 

beaches. 

Fixed wing aircraft such as 

float planes and wheeled 

planes are allowed, subject to 

reasonable regulations. 

Regulations limiting 

wheeled airplane landings were not 

promulgated. There are 

very few areas other than 

beaches and frozen 

waterbodies where 

wheeled airplanes could 

land on the Refuge. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-99 

Management 

Topic 

Alternative A—1987 Kodiak 

Conservation Plan 

Alternatives B, C, & D—

Revised Kodiak 

Conservation Plan 

Comments 

Motorboats In Moderate Management—

permitted for traditional activities, 

subject to reasonable regulation; 

jet boats may be restricted in 

areas for resource protection. Jet 

boats not permitted in other 

categories. 

Allowed Regulations restricting 

use were not 

promulgated because 

little jet boat use occurs 

on the Refuge. 

Hiking trails Trails would not be cleared or 

maintained. 

Could be constructed in all 

management categories; trail 

standards dependent on 

category. 

No trails are proposed in 

the revised plan, but it 

would allow trail 

construction and 

maintenance. 

Tent platforms Allowed in Moderate 

Management if compatible under 

the comprehensive plan; the 

public use management plan 

determined that new tent 

platforms would not be 

compatible. 

Same as public use 

management plan. 

Sand and 

gravel removal 

Not permitted. May be authorized in 

Intensive and Moderate 

categories; not permitted in 

other categories. 

Could occur—including 

noncommercial use by 

local, state, and federal 

governments—in 

Moderate Management; 

sources are very limited 

on the Refuge. 

Aquaculture 

and 

mariculture 

support 

facilities 

Moderate Management—Private 

land based support facilities not 

permitted for aquaculture; land 

based support facilities for 

mariculture may be permitted on 

a case-by-case basis, subject to 

NEPA analysis and compatibility 

determination; other categories 

not permitted. 

May be authorized in 

Intensive Management; not 

allowed in other categories. 

Revised plan adopts 

statewide management 

direction Service is 

applying to all its refuges 

in Alaska; it is more 

restrictive. 

The following areas are currently closed seasonally to access by all 

commercial users: 

 Connecticut Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31; 2,262 acres) 

 Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15; 2,879 acres) 

 Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15; 3,796 acres) 

 Lower Dog Salmon Falls (Frazer Lake) (June 25–August 31; 960 

acres) 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-100 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 2-3 O’Malley River seasonal closure 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-101 

What is a Bear Concentration Area? 

A bear concentration area is a place that draws and holds an unusually high density of brown 

bears because it affords access to an abundant, extensively distributed, high-quality food source 

or preferred denning habitat during an annually predictable period. In Kodiak Refuge, 27 areas 

of foraging concentration and three areas of denning concentration have been identified 

(USFWS n.d.). 

Characteristics of concentration areas vary. Most foraging areas consist of stream segments 

that provide bears ready access to spawning, migrating, or dying salmon. A few others consist 

of coast, estuaries, and subalpine uplands that supply salmon, new growth of sedges and 

grasses, or invertebrates such as beach hoppers. During winter, certain mountains or hills 

consistently support high densities of bears because stable and dry sites suitable for excavation 

and denning are available (Van Daele Jr. et al. 1990). 

Location and extent of bear use has been described for many concentration areas in surveys 

and studies. At concentration areas used for foraging, maximum seasonal densities usually 

range from 10 to 30 bears per square mile (USFWS n.d.); a few support as many as 60 bears 

per square mile (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1998). Densities fluctuate from year to year in response 

to variation in supply of salmon in streams and berries in adjacent upland habitats (Barnes Jr. 

and Wilker 1997). Duration of seasonal concentration ranges from six to 10 weeks (USFWS 

n.d.). However, one coastal foraging area and all denning areas support bear concentrations for 

as long as six months. 

Availability of concentration areas influences seasonal bear movements. Studies showed that 

foraging areas are consistently used by all sex and age classes (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1997), 

and serve as the primary focal point of summer and fall bear activity and movement (Barnes Jr. 

1990), (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1997; Fishbach and Reynolds 2004). Bear use of areas of salmon 

concentration is particularly extensive in western Kodiak Island. Most of this region’s population 

seasonally uses a network of primary feeding areas June through December. Major seasonal 

shifts in bear distribution correspond to change in salmon availability among different streams 

and lakes (Barnes Jr. 1990; Barnes Jr. and Smith 1997, 1998; Troyer and Hensel 1964). 

Physical condition, productivity, and population status of bears is influenced by availability of 

protein-rich foods provided within areas of food concentration. Comparison of North American 

bear populations reveals that body mass, litter size, and bear density increase with proportion of 

meat in the diet (Hilderbrand et al. 1999a). Among populations that use meat, salmon is the 

most important source (Hilderbrand et al. 1999a). In particular, energy supplied in fall bear diets 

dominated by salmon is mostly converted to fat required to support hibernation, gestation, and 

lactation (Hilderbrand et al. 1999b). For these reasons, areas with consistent abundance and 

accessibility of salmon are considered a primary indicator of bear habitat quality (Hilderbrand et 

al. 1999a; Hilderbrand et al. 1999b; Suring et al. 1998). 

Studies of bears of Yellowstone Park reveal potential for population-level impact when access to 

food concentration areas is disrupted (Craighead et al. 1995). Closure of open-pit garbage 

dumps removed a primary bear food source in the early 1970s. After dump closure, mortality of 

subadult and adult males increased, and survival rates of 66 marked bears declined by 10 

percent to 40 percent. Increased bear mortality was attributed to dump closure, loss of a highquality food source, and diminished nutritional condition. 

In conclusion, bear concentration areas are considered a conservation priority because of their 

important contribution to annual productivity and survival of many of the Refuge’s bears. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-102 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day-use 

only by all commercial users: 

 Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1—August 31; 1,746 acres) 

 Upper Thumb River (Karluk Lake) (July 1—August 31; 

613 acres) 

 Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15—August 31; 1,108 acres) 

 Little River Lake lakeshore (July 15—August 31; 480 acres) 

 Deadman Bay Creek (August 15—September 30; 951 acres) 

Unguided public use is not currently limited in these nine areas, but 

once public use regulations implementing the Refuge’s public use 

management plan are finalized, these limits would apply to all users 

and all methods of access. 

Two areas in the Terror River Highlands (see Snowmachine Use in 

subsequent text) would be closed by regulation to snowmachine use 

to protect key bear denning areas. 

Airplane Landings. Landing of airplanes is allowed throughout the 

Refuge except for the seasonally closed area at O’Malley River. 

When regulations seasonally closing the four previously identified 

areas are adopted, they would apply to all users, not just commercial 

users, as is now the case. 

Snowmachine Use. Snowmachine use is currently allowed 

throughout the Refuge when adequate snow cover is present and 

would continue to be allowed except for two areas in the Terror 

River Highlands—Baumann Creek (approximately 2,240 acres) and 

Den Mountain (approximately 2,820 acres)—which would be closed 

by regulation to snowmachine use to protect key bear denning areas. 

Boat Use. Use of motorized and nonmotorized boats, including jet 

boats, is allowed, except for the seasonally closed area at O’Malley 

River. When regulations seasonally closing or limiting access to dayuse only in the nine areas identified previously are adopted, they 

would apply to all users, not just commercial users, as is now the case. 

Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge

All commercial operators are required to have a refuge special use 

permit to conduct commercial activities on Kodiak Refuge or to use 

refuge resources. This authorization includes special conditions 

(stipulations) under which the permittee must operate. (See 

Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations—for the special 

conditions currently applied to use authorizations.) For additional 

information, see Commercial Use Management in Refuge 

Management Policies and Guidelines (section 2.2.17). Management 

of the following commercial uses may vary by alternative. 

Commercial Wildlife Viewing (Including Guided Bear Viewing).

All commercial activities authorized by permit on the Refuge are 

currently subject to the seasonal use limits discussed previously in 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-103 

this alternative. Except for the seasonal closure of the O’Malley 

River area, these limits are implemented via conditions included in 

the special use permits. Regulations applying these limits to all 

wildlife-viewing activities, guided and unguided, would be adopted. 

 

Commercial Wildlife Photography. A special use permit is 

required to conduct commercial motion picture and video activities 

on the Refuge. Photographers under permit are subject to seasonal 

use limits discussed previously; these limits are implemented via 

conditions included in the permits. Commercial still photographers, 

with certain exceptions, are not required to obtain permits, provided 

they are using Refuge areas otherwise open to the public. 

Air Transporters. Air transporters are subject to the same seasonal 

use limits as are other commercial operators described earlier in this 

alternative. These limits are implemented via conditions included in 

the special use permits. 

Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge

Wildlife Viewing (Including Unguided Bear Viewing). All Service 

lands within the refuge boundaries, with the exception of the 

seasonal closure of the O’Malley River area, are open to the 

unguided public for wildlife viewing. When regulations limiting 

public use are adopted, access by the unguided public to the nine 

bear concentration areas (see Seasonal Use Limits in previous text) 

would also be restricted seasonally. 

Public Use Cabins. Seven cabins are currently available for 

reservation by the public as part of the Refuge’s public use cabin 

program. These cabins could be relocated if more desirable locations 

were identified. Two additional cabins could be built to replace 

public use cabins that were removed from bear concentration areas. 

Cabins on newly acquired lands could also be considered for 

management as public use cabins. 

Management of Camping Areas.4

 Although no developed 

campsites or campgrounds are located on the Refuge, the unguided 

public is free to camp anywhere at any time with the exception of the 

seasonally closed area at O’Malley River. Camping areas would not 

be improved, and equipment or facilities would not be provided 

unless other methods designed to reduce impacts in heavily used 

camping areas were not effective, as has occurred on the Ayakulik 

River. If negative impacts continue, further restrictions such as 

limiting length of stay may be adopted. Proposed public use 

regulations, when adopted, would also prohibit camping in those 

areas identified under Seasonal Use Limits (in preceding text) and 

 

4

Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative A

2-104 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

in areas within one-quarter mile of public use cabins and within 200 

yards of federal or state administrative facilities. 

Staffing and Budget Needs

In fiscal year 2004, Kodiak Refuge had a staff of 18 permanent fulltime, two permanent part-time, and three seasonal employees and 26 

volunteers, with a base budget of $1,545,000. (See Table 2-6.) To 

maintain this base staff and workload, continuation of present 

funding, annually adjusted for inflation, would be required. This base 

budget is adequate to cover salaries and fixed costs, but inadequate 

to fully cover field-project expenses, especially for biological work. 

In normal years, only 50 percent of biological field-project expenses 

are provided through the base budget. The remaining 50 percent 

($104,000) is competed for and acquired through other sources each 

year. Other sources include grants, challenge cost-share programs, 

the Comprehensive Conservation Initiative, Bristol Bay/Kodiak 

ecosystem team, and other agencies. Funding for the Kodiak 

Summer Science and Salmon Camp and public use program 

activities is a similar situation. Salmon Camp has been funded 

annually through the Comprehensive Conservation Initiative, with 

equal matching funds and services from the private sector. 

Implementation of the Koniag Conservation Easement agreement is 

another responsibility the Refuge is obligated to meet. 

Projects, studies, facilities, maintenance, and staffing needs in 

addition to the base have been identified in the Service’s Refuge 

Operations Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS). These unfunded needs are required for the Refuge to 

(1) implement projects yet to be completed from the original 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, (2) implement approved stepdown management plans, (3) implement approved ecosystem goals, 

(4) implement recovery plans, and (5) meet legal mandates. These 

needs apply to each alternative. 

Table 2-6 Staffing and budget needs for Alternative A1

Needs Description 

Staff 18 permanent full-time 

positions 

2 permanent part-time positions 

3 seasonal positions 

Budget $1,545,000 

1 Budgets are based on FY 2004 dollars. 

Identified RONS needs are to implement 48 new projects and add 15 

permanent staff positions at a cost of $5,217,000. In addition, there 

are 51 MMS projects, at a cost of $3,645,000, to maintain or replace 

existing facilities, vehicles, boats, airplanes, and heavy equipment. 

A comparison of the budget and staffing levels required to 

implement each of the alternatives is included in Table 2-13. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-105 

2.8 Alternative B 

2.8.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative B. Management direction in Alternative B that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Do not promulgate 

regulations to seasonally limit use at bear concentration areas or 

to close two key bear denning areas to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear 

concentration areas; current seasonal use restrictions placed on 

commercial operators via their special use permits would be 

replaced with special conditions mirroring the voluntary 

guidelines. Regulations would be developed if the use of 

voluntary guidelines proved ineffective. 

 Public Use Cabins—Allow the public use cabin program to 

expand as demand increases, either through construction of new 

cabins or management of cabins on newly acquired lands as 

public use cabins. There would be no limit on the number of 

public use cabins on the Refuge. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) could be improved, and 

equipment or facilities—such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences—would be provided if needed to 

mitigate public use impacts. Regulations restricting camping 

near public use cabins or administrative facilities would not be 

adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

area closure regulations to allow operation of a bear-viewing 

program operated by a qualified guide under special use permit 

awarded through a competitive process. 

Management Categories

Two management categories would be applied to lands within 

Kodiak Refuge under Alternative B. (See Figure 2-4; Table 2-7.) 

Moderate Management. Approximately 44,100 acres of land, 

located along parts of the Refuge’s coast (from mean high tide line 

inland one-quarter mile), would be managed in the Moderate 

Management category. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

2-106 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 2-4 Alternative B 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-107 

Table 2-7 Management category designations in Alternative B 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuge 

Moderate Management 44,100 3 

Minimal Management 1,580,174 97 

Total 1,624,274 100 

Minimal Management. Approximately 1.58 million acres, the 

remainder of the Refuge, would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

Special River Management. The Special River Management 

category would be eliminated under this alternative; step-down 

management plans would be developed if different or additional 

management direction is necessary for the Karluk, Sturgeon, 

Ayakulik, or Dog Salmon drainages. 

Acquired Lands. Most lands acquired after this revised 

Conservation Plan is adopted would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. Exceptions would be (1) any lands where 

different management direction is specified in conveyance 

documents and (2) any small parcels located within or adjacent to 

lands designated in the Moderate Management category would also 

be managed in the Moderate Management category. 

2.8.2 Management Direction by Program 

The following discussions provide an overview of management 

direction for major refuge programs as they would be implemented 

under Alternative B. Only those aspects of management that vary 

among the alternatives are described in detail. 

Fish and Wildlife Management

General fish and wildlife management strategies would not vary 

among the alternatives. 

Studies to monitor bear use at O’Malley River and refine 

management of the bear-viewing program would be conducted as 

appropriate. 

As recommended in the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002), 

refuge biologists would study bear habitat use, develop site-specific 

management, and monitor bear and public use at bear concentration 

areas throughout the Refuge to ensure compatibility of public use 

and compliance with guidelines for human use of and behavior in 

bear concentration areas. 

Public Use Management: Access 

Seasonal Use Limits. In Alternative B, the refuge regulation closing 

the O’Malley River area to all public access, occupancy, and use 

each year from June 25 through September 30 would be modified to 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

2-108 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

allow operation of the commercial bear-viewing program described 

later in this alternative. (See Commercial Wildlife Viewing in 

subsequent text.) The area would remain closed to all other public 

use during this period. 

Proposed regulations seasonally limiting access to nine bear 

concentration areas identified in Alternative A would not be adopted. 

(See the discussion “What Is a Bear Concentration Area?” on page 

2-101 for additional information.) Instead, the Refuge, in 

consultation with ADF&G and stakeholders, would develop 

voluntary use guidelines such as limits on group size and length of 

stay, viewing distances, food preparation and consumption, waste 

disposal, and aircraft landings. These guidelines would apply to all 

visitor use, guided and unguided, in bear concentration areas. They 

would be included as new special conditions for use (replacing the 

current seasonal use restrictions) in refuge special use permits for 

commercial activities such as guided bear viewing and for air 

transporters. If these guidelines proved ineffective and it became 

necessary to formally restrict use by regulation in these areas (to 

maintain compatibility, protect resource values, or safeguard human 

health and safety), the guidelines could be used as the basis for these 

regulations. No closures of refuge lands to snowmachine use would 

be pursued. 

Airplane Landings. Landing of airplanes would be allowed 

throughout the Refuge except for the seasonally closed area at 

O’Malley River. 

Snowmachine Use. All refuge lands would remain open to 

unrestricted snowmachine use, when adequate snow cover is present. 

Two areas of key bear denning habitat in the Terror River Highlands 

would not be closed to snowmachine use. 

Boat Use. Use of motorized and nonmotorized boats, including jet 

boats, would be allowed throughout the Refuge except for the 

seasonally closed area at O’Malley River. 

Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge

Each commercial operator is required to have a refuge special use 

permit to conduct commercial activities on Kodiak Refuge or to use 

refuge resources. This authorization includes special conditions 

(stipulations) under which the permittee must operate. See 

Alternative A for additional details about special use permits.

Commercial Wildlife Viewing (Including Guided Bear Viewing).

All of the Refuge would remain open to commercial wildlifeviewing activities except for the O’Malley River area, which would 

remain closed seasonally except as noted in the following paragraph. 

Special use permit stipulations currently limiting access to nine other 

bear concentration areas would be replaced with special conditions 

mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed previously. (See 

Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text for this alternative and for 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-109 

Alternative A, page 2-97.) If necessary, these guidelines could be 

used as the basis for future regulations. 

A guided bear-viewing program would be allowed at O’Malley 

River. The current regulation seasonally closing the area to all use 

would be modified to allow this program. A bear-viewing program 

prospectus, developed by the Service in consultation with ADF&G 

and other interested parties, would be offered for competitive bid.5

The viewing program would be patterned after the program operated 

by the Service at O’Malley River in 1992, but could differ in some 

respects. Applicants would be required to submit a proposed 

operations plan and other pertinent information requested by the 

Service and outlined in the prospectus. Applications would be 

evaluated and a permit awarded for operation of the program. Kodiak 

Refuge staff, in coordination with ADF&G, would provide 

management oversight of the program, but the permittee would be 

responsible for all aspects of operation such as client booking, 

transportation, and on-site management of clients. 

The 1992 program operated between early July and mid-August and 

included the following elements: 

 Maximum of six to eight participants per viewing period, 

selected by lottery 

 Viewing period of four days 

 Participants supplied their own transportation to the site, food, 

clothing, footwear, and bedding 

 The Service provided support facilities, including weatherports 

(large tents with rigid floors), a cooking shelter with cook stoves, 

utensils and fuel, and an outhouse (all located outside the limited 

access area) 

 Participants escorted to and from the viewing site each day 

 Viewing site consisted of a small wooden platform located on an 

upland bench within 50 yards of O’Malley River 

 Participants were required to stay at viewing site during the day 

 Participants were allowed, under supervision, to fish, hike, or 

pursue other activities in designated areas adjacent to the support 

facilities site, but outside the limited use area 

Commercial Wildlife Photography. Special use permit stipulations 

for commercial motion picture and video photographers that 

currently limit access to nine bear concentration areas would be 

replaced with special conditions mirroring the voluntary use 

guidelines discussed previously (see Seasonal Use Limits in 

 

5

 The preferences for local residents and most directly affected Native corporations, established by Section 

1307 of ANILCA, would apply to this guiding opportunity; 50 CFR 36.37 includes detailed information about 

local and Native corporation preferences for guiding services, other than guiding recreational hunting and 

recreational fishing.
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

2-110 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

previous text in this section and in Alternative A, page 2-97); other 

commercial photographers would be encouraged to comply with 

these guidelines. The O’Malley River area would remain closed 

seasonally to all commercial wildlife photographers unless they are 

participants in the guided bear-viewing program at the site. See 

Alternative A for additional information about special use permits 

for commercial photography. 

Air Transporters. Special use permit stipulations currently limiting 

access to nine bear concentration areas would be replaced with 

special conditions mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed 

previously. (See Seasonal Use Limits in previous text in this 

section and in Alternative A, page 2-97.) The O’Malley River area 

would remain seasonally closed to all access except for that 

associated with the guided bear-viewing program. 

Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge

Wildlife Viewing (Including Unguided Bear Viewing). Under 

Alternative B, opportunities for the unguided public to view bears 

and other wildlife on the Refuge would not be limited, except for the 

seasonal closure at O’Malley River. (See Seasonal Use Limits in 

preceding text.) As described previously, voluntary use guidelines 

would be developed; all users would be encouraged to comply with 

these guidelines. 

Public Use Cabins. Under Alternative B, the Refuge could have more 

than nine public use cabins, as necessary to meet public demand. 

Existing cabins could be relocated. Cabins on newly acquired lands 

could be managed for public use. New cabins would only be added 

after consultation with stakeholders. Criteria such as the following 

would be considered in selecting new cabin sites and/or selection of 

cabins for addition to the public use cabin program: 

 Availability of diverse recreation activities such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, kayaking, and hiking 

 Solitude and isolation from other users and from facilities such 

as lodges and setnet sites 

 Ease of access both for users and for maintenance 

 Protection of refuge resources such as wildlife movement 

corridors and wildlife concentration areas 

Cabins could be constructed in areas designated as Minimal 

Management, if determined necessary for public health, safety, or 

resource protection and if no reasonable alternative site exists. 

Management of Camping Areas.6

 Camping would continue to be 

allowed throughout the Refuge except at the seasonally closed area 

 

6

Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-111 

on O’Malley River. Camping areas (undeveloped sites where people 

camp) could be improved, and equipment and facilities—such as 

bear-resistant food storage containers, latrines, or solar-powered 

electric fences—could be provided if needed to mitigate public use 

impacts. The Refuge would not propose regulations to restrict 

camping near public use cabins or administrative facilities. 

Staffing and Budget Needs

Additional funding and staff would be required to implement new 

projects (e.g., expand the public use cabin program, expand 

management of campsites when necessary, establish a voluntary 

guideline program for protection of bear concentration areas, and 

reopen the O’Malley site to bear viewing) proposed in this 

alternative. (See Table 2-8.) Specific funding and personnel needs by 

project are listed in the following text. 

Expanding the public use cabin program would require construction, 

replacement, or remodeling of as many as four cabins at a cost of 

$120,000 (four cabins at $30,000 each) for materials and material 

transport. Annual maintenance costs of $16,000 per year (four cabins 

at $4,000 each) would be required following construction. One 

permanent, full-time WG-7 maintenance worker, at a cost of $43,000 

per year plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for moving expenses, would 

be required for these duties and maintenance of other public use 

cabins and administrative field facilities. 

Expanded campsite management would entail providing minimal 

facilities such as bear-resistant food containers, an electric fence to 

provide an area for food and trash storage, and a temporary outhouse 

at three heavily used areas. Materials and equipment would cost 

$45,000 (three sites at $15,000 each). No additional staff would be 

required. 

Establishing a voluntary guideline program for protection of bear 

concentration areas would require both a stakeholder process and 

biological monitoring. Assuming the Refuge would start with one 

area and then move on to additional areas in subsequent years, the 

cost of establishing one field-camp project is projected to be $25,000 

per year. Staff would consist of three temporary GS-5 biological 

technicians and one permanent full-time GS-7 biological technician 

at a cost of $121,000 per year plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for 

moving expenses for the latter technician. Staff would participate in 

the stakeholder process and conduct monitoring. 

Allowing a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River would require 

both biological and public use camps. The biological camp would 

monitor bear behavior in response to human use at a cost of $25,000 

for camp materials and personnel costs of $103,000 per year (two 

GS-5 temporary biological technicians and one GS-7 full-time 

biological technician) plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for moving 

expenses for the latter technician. The public use camp to monitor 

guide and visitor activities would cost $22,000 for camp materials 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative B

2-112 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and personnel costs of $27,000 per year for one temporary GS-7 

biological technician. 

The base funding, personnel, and unfunded needs described for 

Alternative A would also be required in this alternative. Please refer 

to the Funding and Personnel Requirements section of Alternative A 

for a complete description. 

Table 2-8 Additional staffing and budget needs for Alternative B1

Needs Description 

Staff 1 WG-7 maintenance worker; 1.0 permanent full-time 

position 

2 GS-7 biological technicians; 2.0 permanent full-time 

positions 

1 GS-7 biological technician; 0.5 seasonal position 

5 GS-5 biological technicians; 2.5 seasonal positions 

Budget $ 697,000 

1 Budgets are based on FY 2004 dollars.
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-113 

2.9 Alternative C 

2.9.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative C. Management direction in Alternative C that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current 

seasonal use restrictions placed on commercial operators via 

their special use permits would be replaced with special 

conditions mirroring these guidelines. Regulations implementing 

seasonal closures or day-use only restrictions could be developed 

for some key areas based on the ongoing evaluation of these 

areas and the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. Close 

two key bear denning areas to snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Phase out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major maintenance projects, not constructing 

new cabins, and not managing cabins on newly acquired lands 

for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) would be managed as 

described in Alternative A. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

area closure regulations to allow operation of a bear-viewing 

program run by the Service in cooperation with ADF&G. 

Permits would be allocated by lottery. 

Management Categories

Two management categories would be applied to lands within 

Kodiak Refuge under Alternative C. (See Figure 2-5 and Table 2-9.) 

Moderate Management. About 32,700 acres of land, located along 

parts of the Refuge’s western coast between Rocky Point and 

Viekoda Bay (including Uganik Island) (from mean high tide line 

inland one-quarter mile) would be managed in the Moderate 

Management category. 

Minimal Management. Approximately 1.59 million acres of land, 

the remainder of the Refuge, would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. This includes coastal areas from Cape Alitak 

(south of Akhiok) east and north to Left Cape (north of Old Harbor) 

that were previously managed under Moderate Management. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

2-114 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 2-5 Alternative C 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-115 

Table 2-9 Management category designations in Alternative C 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuge 

Moderate Management 32,738 2 

Minimal Management 1,591,536 98 

Total 1,624,274 100 

Special River Management. As in Alternative B, the Special River 

Management category would be eliminated; step-down management 

plans would be developed if different or additional management 

direction were necessary for the Karluk, Sturgeon, Ayakulik, or Dog 

Salmon drainages. 

Acquired Lands. Most lands acquired after this revised 

Conservation Plan is adopted would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. Exceptions would be (1) any lands where 

different management direction is specified in conveyance 

documents and (2) any small parcels located within or adjacent to 

lands designated in the Moderate Management category, which 

would also be managed under the Moderate Management category. 

2.9.2 Management Direction by Program 

The following discussions provide an overview of management 

direction for major refuge programs as they would be implemented 

under Alternative C. Only those aspects of management that vary 

among the alternatives are described in detail. 

Fish and Wildlife Management

General fish and wildlife management strategies would not vary 

among the alternatives. 

As in Alternative B, studies to monitor bear use at O’Malley River 

and to refine management of the bear-viewing program would be 

conducted as appropriate. 

As recommended in the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002), 

refuge biologists would study bear habitat use, develop site-specific 

management, and monitor bear and public use at bear concentration 

areas throughout the Refuge to ensure compatibility of public use 

and compliance with guidelines for human use of and behavior in 

bear concentration areas. 

Public Use Management: Access 

Seasonal Use Limits. In Alternative C, the refuge regulation closing 

the O’Malley River area to all public access, occupancy, and use 

June 25 through September 30 annually would be modified to allow 

operation of the agency-run bear-viewing program described later in 

this alternative. (See Commercial Wildlife Viewing in subsequent 

text.) The area would remain closed to all other public use during 

this period. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

2-116 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Proposed regulations seasonally limiting access to nine bear 

concentration areas identified in Alternative A would be modified. 

Based on findings of the ongoing evaluation of bear concentration 

areas, regulations could be implemented limiting access to some 

areas. Areas could be seasonally closed or limited to day-use only 

and may differ from those in Alternative A. Two key bear denning 

areas (see Snowmachine Use in subsequent text) would be closed to 

snowmachine use by regulation. (See the discussion “What Is a Bear 

Concentration Area?” on page 2-101 for additional information.) 

Voluntary guidelines for all visitor use, guided and unguided, would 

be developed for bear concentration areas. These guidelines would 

be included as new special conditions for use (replacing the current 

seasonal use restrictions) in refuge special use permits for 

commercial activities. Unguided visitors would be strongly 

encouraged to follow them. If necessary to formally restrict use by 

regulation, the guidelines could be used as the basis for these 

regulations. For additional discussion, see Seasonal Use Limits in 

Alternative B, page 2-107. 

Airplane Landings. Landing of airplanes would be allowed 

throughout the Refuge except for the seasonally closed area at 

O’Malley River and at certain bear concentration areas where 

seasonal closures could be established by regulation. (See Seasonal 

Use Limits in preceding text of this alternative.) 

Snowmachine Use. Snowmachine use would be allowed throughout 

the Refuge, provided adequate snow cover is present, with the 

exception of two areas of key bear denning habitat in the Terror 

River Highlands. Baumann Creek (approximately 2,240 acres) and 

Den Mountain (approximately 2,820 acres) would be closed by 

regulation to snowmachine use. 

Boat Use. Use of motorized and nonmotorized boats, including jet 

boats, would be allowed throughout the Refuge except for the 

seasonally closed area at O’Malley River. Other bear concentration 

areas could be closed seasonally or limited to day use only. (See 

Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text of this alternative.) 

Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge

Each commercial operator is required to have a refuge special use 

permit to conduct commercial activities on Kodiak Refuge or to use 

refuge resources. This authorization includes special conditions 

(stipulations) under which the permittee must operate. See 

Alternative A for additional details about special use permits.

Commercial Wildlife Viewing (Including Guided Bear Viewing).

Management of commercial wildlife viewing would generally 

remain as in Alternative A; most of the Refuge would remain open to 

commercial wildlife-viewing activities. Special use permit 

stipulations currently limiting access in nine specific bear 

concentration areas would be replaced with special conditions 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-117 

mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed previously. (See 

Seasonal Use Limits in Alternatives A and B, pages 2-97 and 2-

107.) Based on findings of the ongoing evaluation of bear 

concentration areas, the Service could close by regulation certain 

areas to all use seasonally. Other areas could be seasonally limited to 

day-use only. (See Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text of this 

alternative.) If in the future it became necessary to protect resource 

values, for human health and safety, or to maintain compatibility at 

these or other bear concentration areas, regulations defining the type 

and level of use could be adopted. 

The Service, in cooperation with ADF&G, would develop and 

implement an agency-supervised bear-viewing program at O’Malley 

River. Current regulations closing the area to all use seasonally 

would be modified to allow this program. Operation of the viewing 

program would be patterned after the program operated by the 

Service at O’Malley River in 1992 (described in Alternative B, pages 

2-105 through 2-112), but could differ in some respects. 

Commercial Wildlife Photography. Special use permit stipulations 

for commercial motion picture and video photographers that 

currently limit access to nine bear concentration areas would be 

replaced with special conditions mirroring the voluntary use 

guidelines discussed previously (see Seasonal Use Limits in 

Alternative B, page 2-107); other commercial photographers would 

be encouraged to comply with these guidelines. The O’Malley River 

area would remain seasonally closed to all commercial 

photographers unless they are participants in the bear-viewing 

program. Certain other bear concentration areas could be seasonally 

closed or restricted to day use only by regulation. (See Seasonal Use 

Limits in preceding text of this alternative.) See Alternative A for 

additional information about special use permits for commercial 

photography. 

Air Transporters. Special use permit stipulations currently limiting 

access to nine bear concentration areas would be replaced with 

special conditions mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed 

previously. The O’Malley River area would remain seasonally closed 

to all access except for that associated with operation of the bearviewing program. Certain bear concentration areas could be closed 

seasonally by regulation; other concentration areas could be 

restricted to day use only by regulation. (See Seasonal Use Limits in 

preceding text for this alternative.) 

Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge

Wildlife Viewing (Including Unguided Bear Viewing). Under 

Alternative C, opportunities for the unguided public to view bears 

and other wildlife on the Refuge would be available throughout most 

of the Refuge. The seasonal closure at O’Malley River would be 

modified to allow participation in the agency-run bear-viewing 

program, but the area would remain closed to general public use 

during this period. Certain other bear concentration areas could 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

2-118 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

potentially be closed to unguided users or limited to day-use only 

based on the findings of the ongoing evaluation of bear concentration 

areas. (See Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text of this 

alternative.) As described previously, voluntary use guidelines would 

be developed; all users would be encouraged to comply with these 

guidelines. Additional regulations, which would affect use of these 

areas by the unguided public, could be adopted in the future if 

voluntary use guidelines proved ineffective. 

Public Use Cabins. The public use cabin program would be phased 

out by not undertaking major maintenance projects, not constructing 

new cabins, and not managing cabins on newly acquired lands for 

public use. 

Management of Camping Areas7

. Camping would continue to be 

allowed throughout the Refuge except at the seasonally closed area 

on O’Malley River and at any other bear concentration areas where 

seasonal use limits were implemented (see Seasonal Use Limits in 

preceding text of this alternative). Camping areas (undeveloped sites 

where people camp) would not be improved; equipment or facilities 

would not be provided unless other methods designed to reduce 

impacts were not effective. If impacts were to continue, they would 

be managed by restricting use through regulation. A regulation 

would be adopted prohibiting camping within one-quarter mile of 

public use cabins and federal and state administrative facilities. 

Staffing and Budget Needs

Additional funding and staff would be required to implement the 

new projects (e.g., establish regulations and enforce closures to 

protect bear concentration areas and operate a bear-viewing program 

at O’Malley) proposed in this alternative (Table 2-10). Specific 

funding and personnel needs by project are listed below. 

Establishing a voluntary guideline program for protection of bear 

concentration areas would require both a stakeholder process and 

monitoring. Assuming the Refuge would start with one area and then 

move on to additional areas in subsequent years, the Service 

projected costs for establishing one field camp would be $25,000 per 

year. Staff would consist of three temporary GS-5 biological 

technicians and one permanent full-time GS-7 biological technician 

at a cost of $121,000 per year plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for 

moving expenses for the latter technician. Staff would participate 

with the stakeholder process and conduct monitoring. 

Allowing a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River would require 

both biological and public use camps. The biological camp would 

monitor bear behavior in response to human use at a cost of $25,000 

 

7

Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative C

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-119 

for camp materials and personnel costs of $103,000 per year (two 

GS-5 temporary biological technicians and one GS-7 full-time 

biological technician) plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for moving 

expenses for the latter technician. This public use camp would 

include seven weatherports to provide visitors and staff with housing 

at a cost of $77,000 for camp materials. Staff would consist of two 

temporary GS-7 biological technicians and one full-time GS-7 

biological technician at a cost of $122,000 per year plus a one-time 

cost of $50,000 for moving expenses for the latter technician. These 

technicians would operate the bear-viewing program. A full-time 

GS-6 permit technician would be needed to conduct the lottery 

process and issue permits at a cost of $61,000 per year plus a onetime cost of $50,000 for moving expenses. 

The base funding, personnel, and unfunded needs described for 

Alternative A would also be required in this Alternative. Please refer 

to the Funding and Personnel Requirements section of Alternative A 

for a complete description. 

Table 2-10 Additional staffing and budget needs for Alternative C1

Needs Description 

Staff 5 GS-5 biological technicians; 2.5 seasonal positions 

2 GS-7 biological technicians; 1.0 seasonal position 

3 GS-7 biological technicians; 3.0 permanent fulltime positions 

1 GS-6 permits administrator; 1.0 permanent fulltime position 

Budget $734,000 

1 Budgets are based on FY 2004 dollars 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

2-120 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.10 Alternative D 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

2.10.1 General Management Direction 

Although most of the general management direction described in 

Alternative A would continue, some specific direction and actions 

occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued 

under Alternative D. Management direction in Alternative D that 

differs from Alternative A is summarized below. In addition, Refuge 

Goals and Objectives (section 2.1), Management Policies and 

Guidelines (section 2.2), and Management Categories (section 2.3) 

apply to this alternative. 

 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas—Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current 

seasonal use restrictions placed on commercial operators via 

their special use permits would be replaced with special 

conditions mirroring these guidelines. Regulations implementing 

seasonal day-use only limits could be developed for some areas 

based on the ongoing evaluation of these areas and the 

effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. Close one key bear 

denning area to snowmachine use. 

 Public Use Cabins—Maintain the seven public use cabins that 

currently exist, construct two additional cabins, and manage 

cabins on newly acquired lands, as needed, for public use. 

 Management of Camping Areas—Camping areas 

(undeveloped sites where people camp) could be improved and 

equipment and facilities—such as food storage containers, 

latrines, or electric fences—could be provided if they are the 

least-intrusive management needed to mitigate public use 

impacts. Regulations restricting camping near public use cabins 

and administrative facilities would be adopted. 

 Management of O’Malley River—Modify the O’Malley River 

closure regulations to allow operation of a bear-viewing program 

combining agency-supervised use with guided use. Unguided 

and guided visitors would not be present on site at the same time. 

Permits for agency-supervised use would be allocated to the 

public by lottery. Qualified bear-viewing guides would apply for 

the guided-use opportunity, which would then be available to 

their clients via private bookings. 

Management Categories

Two management categories would be applied to lands within 

Kodiak Refuge under this alternative. (See Figure 2-6 and Table 

2-11.) 

Moderate Management. About 31,500 acres of land, located along 

parts of the Refuge’s western coast between Spiridon and Viekoda bays 

(including Uganik Island) (from mean high tide line inland one-quarter 

mile) would be managed in the Moderate Management category. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-121 

Minimal Management. Approximately 1.59 million acres of land, 

the remainder of the Refuge, would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. This includes coastal areas from Cape Alitak 

(south of Akhiok) east and north to Left Cape (north of Old Harbor) 

and from Rocky Point (Seven Mile Beach) to Spiridon Bay, which 

was previously managed under Moderate Management. 

Special River Management. As in Alternatives B and C, the Special 

River Management category would be eliminated; step-down 

management plans would be developed if different or additional 

management direction is necessary for the Karluk, Sturgeon, 

Ayakulik, or Dog Salmon drainages. 

Acquired Lands. Most lands acquired after this revised 

Conservation Plan is adopted would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. Exceptions would be (1) any lands where 

different management direction is specified in conveyance 

documents and (2) any small parcels located within or adjacent to 

lands designated in the Moderate Management category, which 

would also be managed under the Moderate Management category. 

Table 2-11 Management category designations in Alternative D 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuge 

Moderate Management 31,521 2 

Minimal Management 1,592,753 98 

Total 1,624,274 100 

2.10.2 Management Direction by Program 

The following discussions provide an overview of management 

direction for major refuge programs as they would be implemented 

under Alternative D. Only those aspects of management that vary 

among the alternatives are described in detail. 

Fish and Wildlife Management

General fish and wildlife management strategies would not vary 

among the alternatives. 

As is the case with Alternatives B and C, studies to monitor bear use 

at O’Malley River and to refine management of the bear-viewing 

program would be conducted as appropriate. 

As recommended in the Bear Management Plan (ADF&G 2002), 

refuge biologists would study bear habitat use, develop site-specific 

management, and monitor bear and public use at bear concentration 

areas throughout the Refuge to ensure compatibility of public use 

and compliance with guidelines for human use of and behavior in 

bear concentration areas. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

2-122 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 2-6 Alternative D—Preferred Alternative 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-123 

Public Use Management: Access

Seasonal Use Limits. In Alternative D, the refuge regulation 

annually closing the O’Malley River area to all public access, 

occupancy, and use June 25 through September 30 would be 

modified to allow operation of the bear-viewing program described 

later in this alternative. (See Commercial Wildlife Viewing in 

following text.) The area would remain closed to all other public use 

during this period. 

Proposed regulations seasonally limiting access to nine bear 

concentration areas identified in Alternative A would not be adopted. 

The Refuge, in consultation with ADF&G and stakeholders, would 

develop voluntary use guidelines for bear concentration areas under 

this alternative. These guidelines could include limits on group size 

and length of stay, viewing distances, food preparation and 

consumption, waste disposal, and aircraft landings. These guidelines 

would apply to all visitors, guided and unguided, in bear 

concentration areas. They would be included as new special 

conditions for use (replacing the current seasonal use restrictions) in 

refuge special use permits for commercial activities such as guided 

bear viewing and for air transporters. If these guidelines proved 

ineffective and it becomes necessary to formally restrict use by 

regulation in these areas (to maintain compatibility, protect resource 

values, or safeguard human health and safety), the guidelines could 

be used as the basis for these regulations. Future regulations could 

also consider other options such as requiring permits for visitors to 

these areas. Based on the ongoing evaluation of human use of bear 

concentration areas, regulations could potentially be implemented 

limiting access in some areas to day-use only on a seasonal basis. 

One key bear denning area (see Snowmachine Use in subsequent 

text) would be closed to snowmachine use by regulation. 

No additional seasonal closures, such as those identified in Alternative 

A, would be proposed at this time. (See the discussion “What Is a Bear 

Concentration Area?” on page 2-101 for additional information.) 

For further information, see discussion on page 2-124 and Seasonal 

Use Limits in Alternative B, page 2-107. 

Airplane Landings. Landing of airplanes would be allowed 

throughout the Refuge except for the seasonally closed area at 

O’Malley River. 

Snowmachine Use. Snowmachine use on the Refuge would be 

allowed throughout the Refuge, provided adequate snow cover is 

present, with the exception of one area of key bear denning habitat in 

the Terror River Highlands. Den Mountain (approximately 2,820 

acres) would be closed by regulation to snowmachine use. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

2-124 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Implementing Management of Bear Concentration Areas 

under the Preferred Alternative 

The Refuge, in consultation with the State of Alaska, would develop management 

strategies that protect Kodiak bears and facilitate compatible public use of the Refuge. 

These strategies include potential seasonal access limits in some bear concentration 

areas.* Areas that could be subject to these limits have not been identified. 

Development and implementation of site-specific voluntary use guidelines and 

seasonal use limits, if necessary, would follow the process described below. 

Kodiak Refuge, in cooperation with ADF&G and the Kodiak Unified Bear Subcommittee 

(KUBS—chartered by the local fish and game advisory committee) would use a public 

process to (1) develop general guidelines for responsible bear viewing, (2) develop 

site-specific voluntary guidelines for some bear concentration areas, possibly including 

seasonal use limits and/or day-use only restrictions, and (3) define the area at Den 

Mountain to be closed seasonally to snowmachine use. 

Implementation of voluntary guidelines would initially be tested at one or two sites. Bear 

use and public use in these trial areas would be monitored. Results would be used to 

modify voluntary guidelines or, if necessary, to propose regulations limiting access. If 

voluntary guidelines prove effective, the process would be applied to additional areas 

as staffing and funding allow. Current administrative restrictions on commercial 

operators would gradually be replaced through this process. 

If regulations became necessary, an additional formal process would be required. Draft 

regulations would be published in the Federal Register. The public would be provided 

opportunity to review and comment on the proposed regulations (a minimum comment 

period of 30 days is required) either in writing or at public meetings, which would be 

held in Kodiak (and other communities near the Refuge, if necessary). Once the review 

is completed, comments would be addressed, and the proposed regulations would be 

revised accordingly and published as final regulations in the Federal Register. Thirty 

days after publication, regulations could be implemented. The regulation process can 

take as little as six months or as long as several years. 

Using traditional information sources and venues, the Refuge would notify the public of 

these guidelines and regulations as they are being implemented. In addition, regional 

municipal governments, tribal governments, Native corporations, and guiding and 

outfitting businesses would be notified of management changes. Conditions on special 

use permits for commercial activities would mirror new guidelines and regulations. 

* Bear concentration areas are places that draw an unusually high density of brown 

bears because of access to a food source or a preferred denning site. For additional 

detail, see the discussion on page 2-101 and Chapter 3, section 3.2.2. 

Boat Use. Use of motorized and nonmotorized boats, including jet 

boats, would be allowed throughout the Refuge except for the 

seasonally closed area at O’Malley River. Other bear concentration 

areas could be limited to day-use only by regulation. (See Seasonal 

Use Limits in preceding text for this alternative.) 

Public Use Management: Commercial Use of the Refuge

Each commercial operator is required to have a refuge special use 

permit to conduct commercial activities on Kodiak Refuge or to use 

refuge resources. This authorization includes special conditions 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-125 

(stipulations) under which the permittee must operate. See 

Alternative A for additional details about special use permits. 

Commercial Wildlife Viewing (Including Guided Bear Viewing).

Management of commercial wildlife viewing would generally 

remain as in Alternative A; the majority of the Refuge would remain 

open for commercial viewing activities. Special use permit 

stipulations currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas 

would be replaced with special conditions mirroring the voluntary 

use guidelines discussed previously. (See Seasonal Use Limits in 

Alternatives A and B, pages 2-97 and 2-107.) Based on findings of 

the ongoing evaluation of bear concentration areas, some areas could 

potentially be seasonally limited to day use only. 

The Service, in cooperation with ADF&G, would develop and 

implement a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River. The 

regulation now seasonally closing the O’Malley River area to all use 

would be modified to allow this use. The viewing program would 

combine agency-supervised use with guided use; agency-supervised 

viewers and commercially guided viewers would not be present at 

the same time. Permits for agency-supervised visits would be 

allocated to individuals by lottery. Qualified bear-viewing guides 

would apply for guided-use opportunities, which would then be 

available to their clients via private bookings. The viewing program 

would be patterned after the program operated by the Service at the 

O’Malley River site in 1992 (described in Alternative B), but would 

probably differ in some respects. 

Qualified bear-viewing guides would be selected through a screening 

process, possibly similar to the prospectus approach described in 

Alternative B.8

 Selected guides could offer a viewing opportunity 

similar to that being offered by the agency program or could 

negotiate alternative plans of operations, which would require 

approval of the refuge manager. Staff operating the agency program 

would provide management oversight of the guided program, but 

guides would be responsible for all aspects of operation such as 

client booking, transportation, and on-site management of clients. 

For further discussion, see “Implementing Management of Bear 

Concentration Areas under the Preferred Alternative” on page 2-124. 

Commercial Wildlife Photography. Special use stipulations for 

commercial motion picture and video photographers that currently 

limit access in nine bear concentration areas would be replaced with 

special conditions mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed 

previously (see Seasonal Use Limits in Alternatives A and B, pages 

2-97 and 2-107); other commercial photographers would be 

 

8

 The preferences for local residents and most directly affected Native corporations, established by Section 

1307 of ANILCA, would apply to this guiding opportunity; 50 CFR 36.37 includes detailed information about 

local and Native corporation preferences for guiding services, other than guiding recreational hunting and 

recreational fishing.
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

2-126 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

encouraged to comply with these guidelines. The O’Malley River 

area would remain seasonally closed to all commercial 

photographers unless they are participants in the bear-viewing 

program. Certain other bear concentration areas could potentially be 

restricted to day-use only seasonally by regulation if voluntary 

guidelines proved ineffective. See Alternative A for additional 

information about special use permits for commercial photography. 

Air Transporters. Special use permit stipulations currently limiting 

access to bear concentration areas would be replaced with special 

conditions mirroring the voluntary use guidelines discussed 

previously in this alternative. The O’Malley River area would remain 

closed seasonally to all access except that associated with the bearviewing program. Some bear concentration areas could be limited to 

day-use only by regulation if voluntary guidelines proved ineffective. 

Public Use Management: Unguided Use of the Refuge

Wildlife Viewing (Including Unguided Bear Viewing). Under 

Alternative D, opportunities for the unguided public to view bears 

and other wildlife would be available throughout most of the Refuge. 

The seasonal closure at O’Malley River would continue except for 

those participating in the bear-viewing program. Certain other bear 

concentration areas could potentially be limited seasonally to dayuse only based on findings of the ongoing evaluation of bear 

concentration areas. (See Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text for 

this alternative.) As described previously, voluntary use guidelines 

would be developed; all users would be encouraged to comply with 

these guidelines. Additional regulations, which would affect use of 

these areas by the unguided public, could be adopted in the future if 

voluntary use guidelines proved ineffective. 

Public Use Cabins. Under Alternative D, the Refuge could have 

more than nine public use cabins. Seven public use cabins are 

currently available to the public by reservation. These cabins could 

be relocated, and two new cabins could be built. Cabins on recently 

acquired lands could also be considered for management as public 

use cabins. New cabins would only be added after consultation with 

stakeholders. Criteria such as those listed in Alternative B would be 

considered in selecting new cabins sites and cabins for addition to 

the public use cabin program. 

Management of Camping Areas9

. Camping would continue to be 

allowed throughout the Refuge, except at the seasonally closed area 

on O’Malley River. If voluntary guidelines proved ineffective 

camping could be prohibited seasonally by regulation at other bear 

concentration areas. (See Seasonal Use Limits in preceding text for 

this alternative.) Camping areas (undeveloped sites where people 

 

9

Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-127 

camp) could be improved, and equipment or facilities—such as bearresistant food storage containers, latrines, or solar-powered electric 

fences—could be provided if they are the least-intrusive 

management needed to mitigate public use impacts. If use impacts 

continue, they could be managed by restricting use through 

regulation. A regulation would be adopted prohibiting camping 

within one-quarter mile of public use cabins and federal and state 

administrative facilities. 

Staffing and Budget Needs

Additional funding and staff would be required to implement the 

new projects (e.g., expand management of campsites when 

necessary, construct and convert public use cabins, establish a 

voluntary guideline program for protection of bear concentration 

areas, reopen the O’Malley site to bear viewing) proposed in this 

alternative. (See Table 2-12.) Specific funding and personnel needs 

by project are listed in the following text. 

Expanding the public use cabin program would require construction, 

replacement, or remodeling of two cabins at a cost of $60,000 (two 

cabins at $30,000 each) for materials and material transport. Annual 

maintenance costs of $8,000 per year (two cabins at $4,000 each) 

would be required following construction. One permanent, full-time 

WG-7 maintenance worker, at a cost of $43,000 per year plus a onetime cost of $50,000 for moving expenses, would be required for 

these duties and maintenance of other public use cabins and 

administrative field facilities. 

Expanded campsite management would entail providing minimal 

facilities such as bear-resistant food containers, an electric fence to 

provide an area for food and trash storage, and a temporary outhouse at 

two heavily used areas. Materials and equipment would cost $30,000 

(two sites at $15,000 each). No additional staff would be required. 

Establishing a voluntary guideline program for protection of bear 

concentration areas would require both a stakeholder process and 

biological monitoring. Assuming the Refuge would start with one 

Table 2-12 Additional budget and staffing needs for Alternative D1

Needs Description 

Staff 1 WG-7 maintenance worker; 1.0 permanent full-time 

position 

2 GS-7 biological technicians; 1.0 seasonal positions 

3 GS-7 biological technicians; 3.0 permanent full-time 

positions 

2 GS-6 permits administrators; 2.0 permanent full-rime 

positions 

1 GS-7 refuge officer; 1.0 permanent full-time positions 

Budget $ 1,063,000 

1 Budgets are based on FY 2004 dollars. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Alternative D

2-128 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

area and then move on to additional areas in subsequent years, 

establishing one field camp is projected to cost $25,000 per year. 

Staff would consist of two temporary, GS-7 biological technicians 

and one permanent full-time GS-7 biological technician at a cost of 

$121,000 per year plus a one-time cost of $50,000 for moving 

expenses for the latter technician. Staff would participate with the 

stakeholder process and perform the biological monitoring. 

Additional staff would be required if the permit-system option is 

determined necessary. One full-time GS-6 permit technician to 

develop and implement a permit system and one full-time GS-7 

refuge officer to enforce the permit system would be needed at a cost 

of $128,000 per year plus a one-time cost of $100,000 for moving 

expenses for both. 

Allowing a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River would require 

both biological and public use camps. The biological camp would 

monitor bear behavior in response to human use at a cost of $25,000 

for camp materials and personnel costs of $135,000 per year (two 

GS-7 full-time biological technicians) plus a one-time cost of 

$100,000 for moving expenses for the two. This public use camp 

would include seven weather ports to provide visitors and staff with 

housing at a cost of $77,000 for camp materials. Staff would consist 

of the two temporary GS-5 biological technicians and one full-time 

GS-7 biological technician hired for the voluntary guideline program 

described previously. No costs for these positions were included in 

this calculation, but would become necessary if the voluntary 

guidelines program is not implemented. These technicians would 

operate the bear-viewing program. A full-time GS-6 permit 

technician would be needed to conduct the lottery process and issue 

permits at a cost of $61,000 per year plus a one-time cost of $50,000 

for moving expenses. 

The base funding, personnel, and unfunded needs described for 

Alternative A would also be needed in this alternative. Please refer to 

the Funding and Personnel Requirements section of Alternative A for 

a complete description. 

2.11 Summary 

Comparison of the 

Alternatives 

The following tables compare the alternatives by major topic. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2-13 Comparison of the alternatives 

Category Alternative A— 

Current Management 

Alternative B Alternative C 

P

Protection of Bear Concentration Areas 

Implement public use management plan by adopting regulations to seasonally restrict all public access at nine bear concentration areas; continue to restrict commercial operators until regulations are in place. Close two areas of key bear denning habitat, Baumann Creek (2,240 acres) and Den Mountain (2,820 acres), to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current restrictions on commercial operators would be replaced with these guidelines. No regulations to seasonally restrict public access, as recommended in the public use management plan, would be 

proposed at this time. No denning areas closed to snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary guidelines for public use of bear concentration areas; current restrictions on commercial operators replaced with these guidelines. Seasonal closures and/or day-use-only restrictions may be proposed for some areas based on results of ongoing monitoring of these areas (may not be the same areas as in Alternative A). Close two denning areas to snowmachine use. 

Devfor pconcrestroperwith Searestrfor sresuof thsamCloacre

Management of Public Use Cabins 

Allow nine public use cabins (seven exist now; could construct two more). Additionally, abandoned cabins or cabins on newly acquired lands could be managed as public use cabins. 

Allow more public use cabins as needed to meet demand (more than two new cabins could be constructed or acquired). Consult stakeholders prior to constructing, replacing, or relocating cabins. 

Allow natural attrition of public use cabins; eventually phase out cabin program. 

Samconconrelomanland

Management of Camping Areas1

Camping areas not improved; no facilities provided. Implement Kodiak public use management plan by adopting regulations prohibiting camping within one-quarter mile of public use cabins and 200 yards of administrative facilities. 

Improve camping areas and provide facilities if needed to mitigate impacts. No regulations restricting camping near cabins or administrative facilities. 

Same as Alternative A. Imp

provintruto mregucammile adm

Management of O’Malley River 

Maintain seasonal closure of former bear-viewing site at O’Malley River (2,560 acres). 

Reopen O’Malley site to bear viewing for a commercially guided bear-viewing program similar to the 1992 program. 

Reopen O’Malley site to bear viewing for a government-run program similar to the 1992 program. 

Reoviewboth privopptime
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives

2-130 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Category Alternative A— 

Current Management 

Alternative B Alternative C 

P

Staffing and Budget Needs 

Current (FY 2004): 18 permanent full-time 2 permanent part-time 3 seasonal $1,545,000 (Base Funding)

Additional: 3 permanent full-time 0 permanent part-time 6 seasonal $697,000 + Base Funding 

Additional: 4 permanent full-time 0 permanent part-time 7 seasonal $734,000 + Base Funding 

Add7 pe0 pe2 se$1,0

Management Categories (acres)2:  Moderate  Minimal  Special River

 44,100 

1,580,174  0 

 44,100 

1,580,174 

Category eliminated 

 32,738 

1,591,536 

Category eliminated 

1 Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the minimum development, eq

necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-of outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 

2 Acreages were developed by Arc/Info analysis of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps. These areas have not been surveyed. Ac

over time as data sources improve. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps were derived from Bureau of Land Management Maste
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Summary Compari

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2-14 Comparison of impacts by alternative

Resource or 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Brown bear populations 

No significant effects on size and productivity of bear population. 

Negative impacts affecting local population but not sufficient to affect integrity of refuge population in long term. 

Same as Alternative A. Sam

Local economy Negligible effects overall on 

Kodiak economy. 

Negligible effects overall on Kodiak economy, but slight positive effect from increased bear-viewing and cabins programs. 

Negligible effects overall, but slight positive effect from increased bear viewing perhaps offset by slight negative effect from elimination of cabins 

Sam

Subsistence Negligible effects. Same as Alternative A and 

increased opportunity for subsistence users to participate in refuge management through stakeholder planning for bear concentration areas. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

Guides and commercial operators 

Negligible effects. Slight increase in guided bearviewing opportunities. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Bear hunting Negligible effects; hunting 

regulated by state and Federal Subsistence Board. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future. 

Sam

Deer hunting No changes to deer-hunting 

opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future. 

Sam

Recreational fishing 

Negligible effects on recreation fishing opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to anglers in the future. 

Sam
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives

2-132 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Resource or 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Wildlife viewing 

If proposed regulations are implemented, would reduce wildlife-viewing opportunities because of closure of additional areas to general public access during bear-viewing season, plus no O’Malley program. 

Greatest potential for providing viewing opportunities because of unregulated use in bear concentration areas, reopening O’Malley, and new public use cabins. 

Bear concentration area opportunities similar to Alternative A; O’Malley program may attract more viewers if lower cost than Alternatives B and D. Reduced opportunity for those who would use public use cabins. 

Maconproto tincoppaddwo

Wilderness character 

Overall impact negligible. Addition of structures and not improving campsites could result in localized negative impacts. 

Long-term negative effect due to indefinite expansion of cabin program, improved camping areas, and guided bear viewing at O’Malley. However, lands would still retain overall wilderness character and be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Over time, elimination of the cabin program could result in localized positive effects on wilderness character; however, the effects on the overall wilderness character of the Refuge would be negligible. 

OvAdhaveffewoeffestrueffebio
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-133 

2.12 References Cited 

ADEC. 1990. “Impact maps and summary report of shoreline 

surveys of the Exxon Valdez oil spill—Kodiak area.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation. (Report to the Exxon

Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council) 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 240 pp. 

Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. 2003. “Alaska 

Subsistence Migratory Bird Harvest Surveys 

Background.” Anchorage, Alaska. 3 pp. 

Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group. 1998. Alaska Interagency 

Wildland Fire Management Plan. At 

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/forestry/fire/fireplans.htm 

Allen, S., and A. Collins. 2002. “An assessment of bear viewing 

opportunities relevant to management of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

77 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G. 1990. “The influence of salmon availability on 

movements and range of brown bears on southwest 

Kodiak Island.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8: 

305–313. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1997. “Population ecology of 

brown bears on Aliulik Peninsula, Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Final Report; National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Project 94-237. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

National Biological Service and Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game. 43 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1998. “Estimates of brown bear 

abundance on Kodiak Island, Alaska.” Ursus 10: 1–9. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker. 1997. “Distribution, patterns of 

use, and behavior of brown bears associated with a 

bear viewing program on Thumb River, Kodiak 

Island, Alaska.” Job Completion Report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. National Biological Survey and Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 25 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker. 1998. “Distribution, patterns of 

use, and behavior of brown bears associated with a 

bear viewing program on Thumb River, Kodiak 

Island, Alaska.” Job Completion Report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. National Biological Survey and Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 32 pp. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-134 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Bayha, K., S. Lyons, and M.L. Harle. 1997. “Strategic Plan for 

Water Resources Branch.” WRB-97-1. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Realty. 25 pp. 

Brown, B. 2003. “Orange hawkweed project progress report.” 

Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 7 pp. 

Burris, O.E., and E. McKnight. 1973. “Game transplants in Alaska.” 

Technical Bulletin #4. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. 57 pp. 

Caughly, G., and A.R.E. Sinclair. 1994. Wildlife ecology and 

management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell 

Scientific Publ. 

Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly 

bears of Yellowstone: their ecology in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem, 1959–1992. Washington, 

D.C.: Island Press. 

DOI. 2001. “Departmental Manual.” Accessed November 13, 2003. 

At http://elips.doi.gov/app_dm/index. 

cfm?fuseaction=home on the World Wide Web, 

produced by U.S. Department of the Interior. Source 

last updated December 1, 2001. 

Fall, J.A., ed.,. 1991. “Subsistence harvest and uses in seven Gulf of 

Alaska communities in the second year following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill.” Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 300 pp. (Technical Paper No. 218) 

Fall, J.A., and C. Utermohle. 1999. “Subsistence harvests and uses in 

eight communities ten years after the Exxon Valdez

oil spill.” Technical Paper No. 252. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 646 pp. 

Fishbach, A.S., and J.H. Reynolds. 2004. “Brown bear use of 

proposed O’Malley bear viewing site.” Unpublished 

report. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 20 pp. 

Harle, M.L. 1994. “Water resources threats analysis.” Unpublished 

report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Water Resources 

Branch. 30 pp. + appendices. 

Heglund, P.J. 2002. “Recommendations and transcript.” Unpublished 

report: Final Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

fisheries, wildlife, and habitat management 

workshop. Kodiak, Alaska: Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. 80 pp. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-135 

Hilderbrand, G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. 

Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C. Servheen. 1999a. “The 

importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body 

size, population productivity, and conservation of 

North American brown bears.” Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 77: 132-138. 

Hilderbrand, G.V., S.G. Jenkins, C.C. Schwartz, T.A. Hanley, and 

C.T. Robbins. 1999b. “Effect of seasonal differences 

in dietary meat intake on changes in body mass and 

composition in wild and captive brown bears.” 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1623–1630. 

Mishler, C. 2001. “Black ducks and salmon bellies: an ethnography 

of Old Harbor and Ouzinkie, Alaska.” Juneau, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 

Division of Subsistence. 

Nowacki, G., P. Spencer, M. Fleming, T. Brock, and T. Jorgenson. 

2001. “Unified ecoregions of Alaska: 2001.” (map) 

1:4,000,000. Alaska Geospatial Clearinghouse, U.S. 

Geological Survey; Forest Health Monitoring 

Clearinghouse Dataset. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1994. “Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

for Emperor Geese.” Portland, Oregon: Pacific 

Flyway Study Committee, c/o U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 27 pp. + appendices. 

Paetkau, D., G.F. Shields, and C. Strobeck. 1998. “Gene flow 

between insular, coastal and interior populations of 

brown bears in Alaska.” Molecular Ecology 7(10): 

1283–1292. 

Schoen, J., and M. Kirchhoff. 1990. “Seasonal habitat use by Sitka 

black-tailed deer on Admiralty Island, Alaska.” 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 371–377. 

Schreiner, E.G. and A Woodward. 1994. "Responses of vegetation to 

reductions in goat density." In D.B. Houston, E.G. 

Schreiner, and B.B. Moorhead, eds..Mountain goats 

in Olympic National Park: biology and management 

of an introduced species. Scientific Monograph 

NPS/NROLYM/ NRSM-94/25. U.S.D.I. National 

Park Service, Denver, Colorado. pp. 129-144.. 

Spencer, Paige. Plant ecologist, National Park Service. E-mail on 

field observations related to wildlife impacts on 

vegetation, received by Bill Pyle, biologist, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. April 11, 2005. 

Suring, L.H., K.R. Barber, C.C. Schwartz, T.N. Bailey, W.C. 

Shuster, and M.D. Tetreau. 1998. “Analysis of 

cumulative effects on brown bears of the Kenai 

Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska.” Ursus 10: 

107–117. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-136 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Troyer, W.A., and R.J. Hensel. 1964. “The brown bear of Kodiak 

Island.” Unpublished report on file. Kodiak, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. 233 pp. 

USDI. 2001. “Department of the Interior--Alaska Policy on 

Government-to-Government Relations with Alaska 

Native Tribes.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 3 pp. ( Policy signed on January 18, 2001.) 

USFWS and NFMS. 1998. Procedures for conducting consultation 

and conference activities under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. At http://www.fws. 

gov/endangered/consultations/s7handbook

/s7handbook.htm. 

USFWS. 1973. “The Endangered Species Act of 1973.” Accessed 

November 13, 2003. At http://endangered. 

fws.gov/esa.html on the World Wide Web, 

produced by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Source 

last updated March 20, 2001. 

USFWS. 1987a. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Wilderness 

Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 533 pp. 

USFWS. 1987b. “Record of Decision: Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness 

Review.” December 2, 1987. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 1990. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: fishery 

management plan.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. 63 pp. 

USFWS. 1992a. “Cultural Resources Handbook.” Accessed 

September 19, 2004. At http://policy.fws. 

gov/614fw1.html on the World Wide Web, 

produced by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1992b. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Land Protection 

Plan.” Options for the protection of fish & wildlife 

habitats. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 62 pp. 

USFWS. 1993. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Public Use Regulations.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 1994a. “Climatic Factors Monitoring.” Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 7 Habitat 

Committee, Climatic Subcommittee. 12 pp. 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2-137 

USFWS. 1994b. “Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact: Final public use management plan and 

environmental assessment for public use 

regulations.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp. 

USFWS. 1994c. “Native American Policy.” National Policy Issuance 

#94-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 11 pp. (Policy signed on June 28, 1994; 

issued as national policy on August 24, 1994.) 

USFWS. 1999. “Population status and trends of sea ducks in 

Alaska.” Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird 

Management. 

USFWS. 2000. “Notes of introduced species workshop, June 7–9, 

2000, Camp Island, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 11 pp. 

USFWS. 2002. “Stock assessment—Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris),

Southwest Alaska stock.” Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals 

Management. 8 pp. 

USFWS. n.d. “Unpublished data on brown bear denitrifies from 

aerial surveys and other Refuge field work.” Located 

in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge files 

maintained by the refuge biologist. Kodiak, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Van Daele, L.J., V.G. Barnes Jr., and R.B. Smith. 1990. “Denning 

characteristics of brown bears on Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Intl. Conf. Bear Res. Mange. 8: 257–267. 

Van Daele, L., and J. Crye 2002. “Elk management report of surveyinventory activities 1 July 1999–30 June 2001, Unit 8.” 

In C. Healy, ed. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, 

Survey-Inventory Management Report, Project 13.0. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation. pp. 10–23. 

Van Daele, L.J. 2001a. “Unit 8 deer.” In M. Hicks, ed. Annual 

management progress report of survey-inventory 

activities. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game. pp. 108. (Federal Aid to Wildlife 

Restoration Program Report Project Grants W-27-2 

and W-27-3, Study 2.0) 

Van Daele, L.J. 2001b. “Unit 8 furbearer management report.” In C. 

Haley, ed. Furbearer management report of survey 

and inventory activities, 1 July 1997–30 June 2000. 

Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game. pp. 115-118. (This publication may be 

viewed at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/ 

pubs/techpubs/mgt.cfm.) 
Chapter 2: Management Alternatives

2-138 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Van Daele, L.J., Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Wildlife Conservation. 2003. Letter regarding 

mountain goat population size and proposed hunting 

permit number, to P. Holmes, Kodiak Fish and 

Game Advisory Committee. January 28, 2003. 

Waits, L.P., S.L. Talbot, R.H. Ward, and G.F. Shields. 1998. 

“Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of the North 

American brown bear and implications for 

conservation.” Conservation Biology 12(2): 408–417. 

Williams, L. 2003. “Patterns of harvest and use of mountain goats on 

Kodiak Island, GMU 8.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 141 pp. 

Wolfe, R.J., and C. Mishler. 1996. “The subsistence harvest of 

harbor seals and sea lions by Alaska Natives in 

1995.” Technical Paper. No. 238. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

Zwiefelhofer, D.C. 2002. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 2002 

Bald Eagle Nesting and Productivity Surveys.” 

Unpublished annual refuge report. Kodiak, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 19 pp. 
Chapter 3 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-1 

3. Affected Environment 

This chapter describes the physical, biological, social, and economic 

components of the ecosystem that could be affected by actions 

associated with management of Kodiak Refuge. This chapter is 

divided into six major headings: 3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem 

Setting, 3.2 Biological Environment, 3.3 Human Environment, 

3.4 Wilderness Values, 3.5 River Values, and 3.6 Refuge 

Infrastructure and Administration.

3.1 Geographic and 

Ecosystem Setting 

3.1.1 Land Status 

Major legislation affecting land ownership in Alaska units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System includes the Homestead Act of 

1862, as amended (including the Soldier’s Additional Homestead); 

the Trade and Manufacturing Site Act of May 14, 1898; the Native 

Allotment Act of 1906; the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 

1971 (ANCSA), and the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge or Refuge) was 

established on August 19, 1941, by Executive Order (EO) 8857. The 

EO withdrew nearly two million acres from unreserved public 

domain, including all lands on Kodiak Island south of the divide 

running between the heads of Ugak and Kizhuyak bays and all lands 

on Uganik Island. A one-mile-wide strip along the coastline within 

the refuge boundary remained open to settlement in accordance with 

public land laws. With its withdrawal, Kodiak Refuge became part of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service (Service). On May 9, 1958, Public Land Order 

(PLO) 1634 was signed. It revoked EO 8857 and made important 

Refuge boundary changes intended to resolve conflicts between 

livestock grazing and bear use in areas outside the Refuge. The 

Refuge was reduced in size to approximately 1,820,000 acres. The 

northeastern boundary of the Refuge was shifted westward to a 

mountain ridge running between the heads of Viekoda and Kiliuda 

bays, thus removing the Shearwater and Kupreanof peninsulas from 

the Refuge. The coastal strip was closed to settlement and other 

excepted purposes. In addition, a one-mile-square area surrounding 

each of eight Native villages was excepted from the withdrawal. 

With passage of ANILCA “. . . all public lands on Afognak and Ban 

islands of approximately fifty thousand acres . . .” were added to the 

Refuge (Section 303[5][A] of ANILCA). 

Kodiak Refuge boundaries encompass approximately 

1,775,700 acres1

 of land, in both federal and private ownership. Of 

this acreage, approximately 148,900 acres are either selected by or 

conveyed to individual Natives, Alaska Native corporations, or other 

 

1

As of January 3, 2003. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

private individuals. The remaining land—approximately 1,635,400 

acres or 92 percent of the lands within the refuge boundary—is under 

the jurisdiction of the Service. Table 3-1 presents a breakdown of the 

land status within the Refuge; Figure 3-1 depicts the land status. 

Table 3-1 Land status within Kodiak Refuge 

Category Conveyed 

Land1

Selected 

Land1

Total1

 

Fish & Wildlife 

Service–managed 

lands — — 1,624,274 

Native corporation 

lands 142,005 352

 142,040 

Native allotments 3,391 1,730 4,138 

Other federal land3 — — 2,487 

Other private land 1,727 0 1,727 

Koniag, Inc., 

subsurface4 198 0 198 

Total 147,123 1,765 1,775,647 

1 All figures are in acres. 

2 The Service retains primary management authority over selected lands 

until conveyance occurs. 

3 Lands withdrawn as part of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

(FERC License No. 2743); the Service retains secondary management 

authority. 

4 Surface is under the jurisdiction of the Service; not included in totals. 

With passage of ANCSA in 1971, five villages (now represented by 

three corporations; see Table 3-2) were entitled to not more than 

345,600 acres of land within the refuge boundary. These villages lie 

along the coastline of Kodiak Island, outside the refuge boundary. 

Village corporations for Karluk and Larsen Bay merged with 

Koniag, Inc., the regional Native corporation, in 1980. The village 

corporations for Akhiok (Natives of Akhiok, Inc.) and Kaguyak 

(Kaguyak, Inc.) merged, forming Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. All lands 

conveyed under ANCSA located within the refuge boundaries at the 

time ANCSA was passed remain subject to the laws and regulations 

governing use and development of the Refuge, as specified in 

Section 22(g) of ANCSA. In addition, the United States retained 

right of first refusal (at the time of the first sale) should the Native 

village corporations decide to dispose of any of these lands. 

The land status of Kodiak Refuge has been undergoing changes over 

the past decade because of the settlement of civil and criminal 

charges related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). Refuge lands 

selected by individual Natives and Alaska Native corporations also 

continue to be adjudicated by the Bureau of Land Management. As 

of publication of this document, there were 40 Native allotments 

(less than 1 percent of the total acreage) within the refuge boundary. 

Of these allotments, 28 have been conveyed, and 12 remain to be
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-3 

Figure 3-1 Generalized land status—Kodiak Refuge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-5 

Table 3-2 ANCSA Native corporations and village relationships 

ANCSA 

Native 

Regional 

Corporation 

ANCSA Village Corporation Village 

Karluk Native Corp.1

Nu-Nachk Pit, Inc.1

Karluk 

Larsen Bay 

Old Harbor Native Corporation Old Harbor 

Koniag, Inc. 

Akhiok-Kaguyak Inc.2 Akhiok 

Kaguyak 

1 Merged with Koniag, Inc., in 1980. 

2 Formerly Natives of Akhiok, Inc., and Kaguyak, Inc. 

adjudicated. Most of the Native allotments are located along rivers, 

on lake shores, and on the coastline. Some 142,005 acres (8 percent 

of the land within refuge boundaries) have been conveyed or interim 

conveyed to Native corporations. Except for selections under Section 

14(h)(1) of ANCSA, no Native regional corporation selection 

remains to be adjudicated within the Refuge. No State of Alaska 

selections or conveyances are located within refuge boundaries. 

Land status on the Refuge will continue to change in the future. The 

Service will continue to acquire lands through donation, exchange, or 

purchase; the Bureau of Land Management will continue to 

adjudicate the remaining land selections within refuge boundaries; 

and Congressionally mandated programs—such as those resulting 

from the Vietnam Veterans Native Allotment Act—will continue to 

affect the status of lands within refuge boundaries. 

3.1.2 Acquisitions and Exchanges 

An active land-acquisition program within Kodiak Refuge has been 

underway for a number of years. This program, as described in the 

following discussion, is summarized in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 and 

depicted on Figure 3-2; for more detailed information on the 

conservation easements, see Appendix F. 

While negotiations to acquire large parcels of land from the Native 

corporations have been ongoing for many years, the civil and 

criminal settlements resulting from the EVOS in 1989 provided 

funding to finalize these acquisitions. In 1995, negotiations were 

completed by the EVOS Trustee Council (Trustee Council) with 

Akhiok-Kaguyak, Incorporated, and Old Harbor Native Corporation 

to purchase lands in fee from these corporations, returning 

approximately 99,400 acres to refuge status. Both corporations also 

included additional lands in protective conservation easements. 

Also in 1995, negotiations between the Trustee Council and Koniag, 

Inc., resulted in the purchase in fee of 59,426 acres; an additional 

56,860 acres were protected by a temporary nondevelopment 

easement that expired in 2001. Although it provided no right of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-3 Summary of land-acquisition program on Kodiak 

Refuge 

Acquired Lands Number of 

Parcels 

Acreage 

From Koniag, Inc. 4 59,426 

From Old Harbor Native 

Corp. 3 28,591 

From Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. 6 70,865 

From Afognak Joint 

Venture 2 5,491 

Native allotments 66 8,781 

Other small parcels ~65 ~953 

Total ~146 ~174,107 

Table 3-4 Summary of easements acquired by the Service on 

Kodiak Refuge 

Source of Easement 

Acquired 

Easement Type Acreage 

Koniag, Inc. Temporary Conservation 

Easement 

Limited-Development 

Easement 

56,683 

38 

Old Harbor Native Corp. Permanent Conservation 

Easement 3,107 

Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. Permanent Conservation 

Easement 44,863 

Total 104,691 

public access, this temporary easement allowed the parties additional 

time to negotiate a more permanent protection agreement for these 

lands, located primarily within the Karluk and Sturgeon river 

drainages. In 2002, a new temporary conservation easement for these 

lands replaced the nondevelopment easement. The new conservation 

easement runs until 2012 and may be extended (at Koniag’s option) 

for an additional 10 years. A limited development easement covering 

lands on Camp Island was established at the same time and runs 

concurrent with the conservation easement. An agreement between 

Koniag and the United States, via the Service, provides funding for 

purchase of the Koniag lands at the conclusion of the term of the 

existing conservation easement should Koniag wish to sell. 

The Trustee Council purchased lands and interests in lands owned by 

Afognak Joint Venture and Koniag, Inc., primarily for inclusion into 

the Alaska State Park System, but approximately 5,500 acres located 

adjacent to the Red Peaks–Ban Island Unit of Kodiak Refuge were 

incorporated into the Refuge. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-7 

Figure 3-2 Overview of land-acquisition program—Kodiak Refuge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-9 

The Native corporations relinquished all their remaining village 

selections within the Refuge as a result of these agreements. 

Small-parcel acquisition has also been occurring concurrently with 

the large-parcel acquisitions just described. Using a combination of 

funding received from EVOS settlements (criminal and civil) and 

Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations as well as from 

donations from private parties, the United States has purchased 

numerous small parcels from landowners wanting to sell their lands. 

The majority of the lands acquired in the small-parcel program were 

Native allotments, conveyed to individual Alaska Natives pursuant to 

the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906. The Service has completed 

acquisition of 66 allotments comprising about 8,800 acres. The 

acquisition of these allotments is critical to completing the habitat 

protection accomplished in the large-parcel acquisitions because the 

allotments were generally located at strategic points at the mouths of 

rivers, heads of bays, and along important wildlife migration routes. 

Other small parcels were also acquired as part of the small-parcel 

program. The greatest number of these, some 65, were parcels about 

10 acres in size that were conveyed to members of Nu-Nachk-Pit, 

Inc., the village corporation of Larsen Bay by the tribal council 

following Nu-Nachk-Pit’s merger with Koniag, the regional Native 

corporation. These parcels, totaling approximately 650 acres, were 

acquired from the Kodiak Island Borough, The Conservation Fund, 

and individual property owners. 

Donations of land, and money to purchase land, have also been a 

factor in acquiring private lands within the Refuge. Numerous 

conservation organizations—including The Conservation Fund, the 

Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, and Wildlife Forever—provided 

acquisition funds or purchased land for donation to the United States. 

A total of about 9,700 acres has been acquired through the smallparcel program. Although the pace of acquisition has slowed, and 

many of the private lands with high habitat values have been 

purchased, the Service remains ready to make offers to interested 

sellers for high-quality wildlife habitat. 

Land exchanges within Kodiak Refuge have had limited effect on 

land ownership, although proposed exchanges could transfer several 

thousand acres between the United States and corporations formed 

under the ANCSA. To date, only two small exchanges have returned 

about 10 acres to the protection of the Refuge, in exchange for about 

3 acres of land formerly within the Refuge and another 2 acres 

formerly within Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. 

3.1.3 Environmental Contaminants 

Portions of Kodiak, Afognak, and some smaller islands in the 

Kodiak Archipelago have been the sites of Department of Defense 

and U.S. Coast Guard activities since the 1940s. Kodiak experienced 

an intensive military buildup during World War II, the remains of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

which are still being investigated and remediated by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers at a number of locations. The U.S. Coast Guard 

has also performed site investigations at its base in Kodiak Harbor. 

Most of these sites are located a considerable distance from the 

Refuge, and any associated environmental contamination is not 

expected have any significant impact on the Refuge. 

One military site from the 1940s—the 7,650-acre Lazy Bay Air 

Warning Station—is located on private lands within the Refuge at 

the southwestern end of Kodiak Island. Originally withdrawn from 

the Refuge in 1942 for use by the Department of War, the 

withdrawal was revoked in 1961. These lands were subsequently 

selected by and conveyed to Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc., under ANCSA. 

Without further investigation, it is not known whether there are any 

environmental contaminants issues associated with this site. 

Contaminants investigations have been performed by the Service, or 

Service contractors, at two locations on the Refuge. In 1996, the 

Service investigated and remediated petroleum contamination and 

debris associated with an abandoned boat-repair facility located at 

Uganik Bay. In 1994, a fish-processing plant in operation from the 

1890s to the 1930s and located on private lands on the northern shore 

of Olga Bay was investigated to determine if the site was suitable for 

acquisition by the Service. A number of contaminants sources were 

observed along with considerable debris. It was not acquired by the 

Service because of the cost of cleanup. 

Since 1994, the Service has acquired approximately 174,000 acres 

within Kodiak Refuge. Each acquisition was inspected for potential 

sources of contaminants; none was observed. 

The threat of spills is one of the most significant contaminant issues 

for Kodiak Refuge. The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill affected Kodiak 

and Afognak islands, including portions of the Refuge. The Refuge 

has also experienced smaller marine spills in the past. It is likely that 

marine oil or fuel spills will continue to occur in the future; the 

frequency, timing, and magnitude of these events are unpredictable. 

3.1.4 Ecosystems 

An ecosystem is made up of three things: 

 The species that live in an area 

 The environment in which those species live 

 The relationships and linkages between those species and their 

environments 

To understand how the alternatives in this plan will affect the 

ecosystem, it is necessary to understand these components. 

Ecological units can be viewed from many different scales, ranging 

from the continental to the microscopic. From a refuge planning 

standpoint, the scale needs to be larger than the refuge but not so 

large that the refuge is so dwarfed by the ecological unit that it is 

impossible to determine the refuge’s relevance to the surrounding 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-11 

land. In a hierarchy of ecosystems, the ecoregion level is an 

appropriate level for refuge planning. 

Alaska Ecosystems

The Service has identified ten ecosystems in Alaska. Each of these 

ecosystems is a dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated nonliving environment. The 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Service’s Bristol 

Bay/Kodiak Ecosystem, which encompasses most of the Alaska 

Peninsula, Bristol Bay Lowlands, and Kodiak Archipelago—

approximately 60,600 square miles of southwestern Alaska. 

The Bristol Bay/Kodiak Ecosystem is arguably Alaska’s most 

productive region for fish and wildlife. The ecosystem’s large, 

diverse, and productive fishery resources are its driving force. 

Salmon are the principal mode by which nutrients from the ocean are 

transported to this system. As salmon return to spawn and die, their 

bodies provide the critical nutrients to support the primary producers 

in the food chain (e.g., micro-invertebrates, insects, and vegetation), 

which in turn provide food and shelter for the next generation of 

young salmon. At the same time, salmon supply food for animals 

much higher in the food chain (e.g., bears, fox, birds, and people). 

Salmon are also of primary importance to the region’s economy and 

culture. Local residents have relied on, and continue to rely on, this 

ecosystem to provide not only food and income but a way of life. 

The commercial and recreational fisheries provide millions of dollars 

in income and thousands of jobs for the regional and state 

economies, as do hunting and wildlife-viewing. 

The management of Kodiak Refuge plays an important role in the 

continuing function of the Bristol Bay/Kodiak Ecosystem by 

providing a healthy environment for fish, wildlife, and people. A 

number of other federal lands also contribute to the importance and 

productivity of this ecosystem, including Katmai National Park and 

Preserve, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, and Alaska 

Maritime, Alaska Peninsula, Becharof, Izembek, and Togiak national 

wildlife refuges. 

3.1.5 Physical Environment 

Kodiak Island (Island) is one of a group of islands that lie at the 

western border of the Gulf of Alaska between 56 degrees 30 minutes 

and 58 degrees 40 minutes north latitude and 150 degrees 40 minutes 

and 154 degrees 50 minutes west longitude. The Kodiak Archipelago 

extends 177 miles by 67 miles to encompass about 5,000 square 

miles. The Refuge’s interior lands and waters are linked to the 

Pacific Ocean by several rivers. 

The Refuge’s area of influence encompasses the entire Archipelago, 

including the City of Kodiak and seven Island villages. Portions of 

the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge are adjacent to or near 

Kodiak Refuge. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3.1.6 Climate 

Kodiak Refuge is within the maritime climatic zone. Temperature 

variations are generally small (except at higher elevations); humidity 

and precipitation are high; fog and clouds are frequent. The overall 

mean annual temperature is about 40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

Because of the warming effect of the Alaska Current (a northern 

eddy of the Japanese Current), the climate is more temperate than is 

normal for the latitude. Summer air temperatures are seldom higher 

than 75° F, and winter rarely below 0° F. Periods of subfreezing 

temperatures regularly occur from October through April; at higher 

elevations subfreezing temperatures can occur throughout the year. 

Moist air is always present over the Kodiak Archipelago, brought in 

by the Aleutian low in the winter and by the continental low in the 

summer; precipitation occurs year-round. Rain is generally light, but 

of long duration. More than 100 wet days (days on which 0.1 inch or 

more precipitation occurs) are expected per year, whereas most of 

Alaska, including Anchorage, has fewer than 50 wet days per year. 

At Kodiak, the driest times are late winter and mid-summer; even 

then the probability of a wet day remains high (Johnson and Hartman 

1969). Average precipitation on Kodiak Island varies with location 

and period of record. Average precipitation at Kodiak Airport is 

76.27 inches (1973 to 2004) and at the Kodiak Navy Air Station was 

59.12 inches (1931–1972). It is wetter along the eastern side of the 

Island, which is open to the Pacific, than on the western side. 

Maximum precipitation, falling around the high peaks above Kiliuda 

Bay (Karlstrom and Ball 1969), is about 115 inches, five times as 

much as the 23 inches on the Shelikof Strait side, at Karluk River, 

and Larsen Bay (Jones et al. 1978). The Archipelago’s cool, wet 

climate means that lightning occurrences and natural fires are rare. 

3.1.7 Landforms 

Kodiak Island is approximately 100 miles long by 60 miles wide and 

covers an area of about 3,600 square miles. This makes it the second 

largest island in the United States. 

Kodiak Island has a rugged 930-mile coastline. The northern portion 

of the Island is very rocky and irregular and is characterized by 

numerous glacially scoured straits, inlets, and fjords with branching 

arms. Sea bluffs are generally steep and rocky. Numerous offshore 

rocks and islets occur along the coast. The southwestern coastline is 

relatively smooth and has few indentations. 

Islands of the Kodiak Archipelago were intensely scoured and eroded 

by at least three glaciations bringing ice down Cook Inlet and across 

Shelikof Strait as well as from local mountains. Accordingly, the 

islands are entirely mountainous from interior to shoreline, the only 

exceptions being the flat bottoms of glacial valleys and moderate relief 

on some glacial deposit aprons forming lowland shores, capes, and 

peninsulas. More subdued mountain topography characterizes the 

lowlands of southwestern Kodiak Island. Commonly called the Kodiak 

Refugium, this area was the only area of the Island not covered by 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-13 

glaciers during the Pleistocene Era, about 12,000 to 20,000 years ago 

(Karlstrom and Ball 1969). The highest peaks in the Refuge are 

Koniag Peak and Mount Glottof, both more than 4,000 feet high. On 

the Afognak Unit of the Refuge, ten or more individual glacial horns 

reach elevations greater than 2,000 feet. 

Drainages flow predominately northwest and southeast, following 

valleys deepened and straightened by glacial ice. The straits and 

elongated bays are fjords, representing former valleys over-deepened 

by ice to below present sea level. The Refuge’s many elongated 

lakes occupy ice-scoured trenches, which are dammed by moraines. 

Except for the Ayakulik-Red and Karluk rivers, which drain large 

glacial lakes, the Island’s rivers are small, short, and steep. They 

flow in valleys straightened by glaciers and end quickly in bays. The 

Island’s bays are indented to such an extent that no place on the 

Island is more than 15 miles from the sea. Valleys are generally 

steep-walled, U-shaped, and have hanging tributaries. V-shaped and 

terraced canyons may be found where moraines have been breached 

or in areas where stream piracy or lateral diversion has occurred (as 

is common in a glacial landscape). 

3.1.8 Geology 

Geologically, the Kodiak Archipelago is an appendage of the Kenai 

Peninsula; they share the same rock types and structures and are 

separated by only 40 miles of salt water. Before glacial times, the 

two were probably connected by an unbroken chain of mountains; 

they then separated when Cook Inlet ice, spilling through a low 

divide in the vicinity of the Barren Islands, eroded the rock in that 

area to below sea level (Capps 1937). Karlstrom and Ball (1969) 

suggest that the preglacial Kodiak Islands and the Alaska Peninsula 

also may have been connected above sea level, with Shelikof 

Strait—like all of Cook Inlet—then being either a broad alluvial 

valley or an interior basin. 

As is the Kenai Peninsula and indeed is true in many other parts of 

Alaska, the Kodiak Islands are “accreted” continental parts. Simply 

put, they are mostly wedges of original mud collected in ocean 

trenches at the margins of convergent crustal plates. The mud was 

scraped off onto bending edges of the continental plate or subducted 

with oceanic crust as the oceanic plate was underthrust. Kodiak Island 

rocks are in belts showing several episodes of such accretion in the 

geologic past, which are successively younger from northwest to 

southeast. Most rocks are shales—representing original mud deposited 

in ocean trenches—and also graywackes representing turbidity current 

deposits that included coarser rock fragments. Other rocks represent 

deep ocean siliceous ooze and clay mixed with blocks of subcrust 

brought upward against the downward-moving accretions. 

A summary of information on bedrock geology, surficial deposits, 

glacial geology, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions was provided in the 

original Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement/Wilderness Review

(Kodiak Conservation Plan or Conservation Plan, USFWS 1987). 

3.1.9 Soils 

Volcanic ash of various thicknesses covers most of the lower 

elevations and furnishes most of the parent material for soil 

development on Kodiak Refuge. Ash is absent from bare-rock slopes 

and from the higher-elevation peaks that form the islands of the 

Kodiak Archipelago. The Archipelago is a continuation of the 

nonvolcanic coastal mountains that border the Gulf of Alaska and 

displays features typical of glaciated landscapes. 

Ash commonly overlies permeable glacial drift such as moraine 

deposits and gravelly outwash. A characteristic component of soils 

formed from these parent materials and in this environment is 

thixotropic clay, a gel-like material that exhibits fluidity under 

stress—such as an earthquake—but that may harden quickly to its 

normal solid state once the stress is removed. 

Organic soils occur in western areas along lowland rivers or valley 

bottoms and in depressions in the underlying moraine deposits. 

These soils consist of undecomposed sedge peat, fibrous peat, and 

other organic materials often containing deposits of volcanic ash. 

The soils on the Kodiak Archipelago have been field-mapped at an 

exploratory scale of 1:500,000. Their distribution, as soil subgroups 

or associations of subgroups, is shown by Rieger et al. (1979) at a 

published scale of 1:1,000,000; a map can be found in the original 

Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan (USFWS 1987). 

3.1.10 Oil and Gas Occurrences and Potential 

The Kodiak Islands onshore bedrocks are about 90 percent 

Mesozoic, with no petroleum potential, and 10 percent Tertiary, with 

very slight petroleum potential in certain sections. All the Mesozoic 

rocks and the Paleocene rocks (Ghost Rocks Formation) are 

deformed, indurated (i.e., hardened by heat, pressure, or cementing 

material), and lack porosity. Some Eocene and lower Oligocene 

rocks (Sitkalidak Formation) have sandstones, but these are likely 

unsorted or cemented and thus have only slight oil and gas potential. 

Middle Oligocene to lower Miocene rocks (Sitkinak and Narrow 

Cape formations) have better reservoir characteristics, but they occur 

only in a narrow fringe at points along Kodiak Island’s southeastern 

shore. These rocks, being close to the fault zone, also may be 

deformed at depth. 

Offshore, in middle and upper Tertiary rocks, petroleum prospects 

are favorable along the southeastern side of Shelikof Strait (Magoon

et al. 1979) and along the Kodiak Shelf (Ehm 1983; Plafker 1971; 

von Huene et al. 1971). The present Kodiak shelf edge appears to 

coincide with an arch, which may have formed to allow basin 

deposition of upper Tertiary sediments behind it (landward). 

Southeast of Kodiak Island, the upper Tertiary section is about 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-15 

13,000 feet thick. Below this, lower and middle Tertiary rocks may 

contain hydrocarbon source beds as at Yakataga and other districts in 

the Gulf of Alaska. Favorable structures are likely in the arch, which 

is about 50 feet deep and 70 miles long over Albatross Bank. In the 

Shelikof Strait, the southeastern side has Tertiary rocks that overlie 

middle Jurassic rocks—the hydrocarbon source of the upper Cook 

Inlet and Kenai Refuge oil fields. The U.S. Minerals Management 

Service estimates that the Cook Inlet–Shelikof Strait Lease Sale 88 

area has 120 million barrels of oil and 680 billion cubic feet of gas 

(DOI/MMS 1984). 

3.1.11 Minerals 

There are no active mining claims on Kodiak Refuge. Public Land 

Order 1634 (May 9, 1958) withdrew all refuge lands from location, 

entry, and patent under the mining laws; under Section 304(c) of 

ANILCA this withdrawal was applied to those lands on Afognak and 

Ban islands added to the Refuge by ANILCA and any subsequent 

refuge land acquisitions. Thus, no new mining claims will be 

allowed in the future. However, some subsurface within the Refuge 

is privately owned and could be developed for mineral extraction 

3.1.12 Water Resources 

One of the four specific purposes of Kodiak Refuge, as articulated in 

ANILCA, is to ensure the conservation of water resources, 

specifically, “to ensure . . . water quality and necessary water 

quantity within the Refuge” for the conservation of fish and wildlife 

populations and habitats in their natural diversity. The mostly 

pristine waters of the Refuge are habitat for an abundant salmon 

population, which in turn supports the Kodiak brown bear 

population. In addition to providing spawning grounds for five 

species of Pacific salmon, the waters on the Refuge provide essential 

habitat for a host of other fish and wildlife, for hydroelectric power, 

for municipal water supplies, and for subsistence, commercial, and 

recreational hunting and fishing activities. 

Three major glaciations affected the topography of Kodiak Island. 

Remnant glaciers still remain along the mountain crest from Mount 

Glottof to Grayback Mountain. The valleys, freshly deepened and 

straightened by ice, are still unfilled with alluvium. Their rivers and 

streams are comparatively small. Drainages generally trend 

northwest toward Shelikof Strait or southeast toward the Pacific 

Ocean. Drainages on the southeastern side of the Island tend to be 

short and high-gradient and with small drainage areas. Drainages on 

the northwestern side generally have larger drainage basins with 

considerably more flow. The lengths of all streams are abbreviated 

by deep bays resulting from hundreds of feet of sea-level rise since 

glaciation. Afognak Island lacks well-defined watershed 

boundaries—because the granite trend is absent—and drainages head 

at broad saddles in less resistant rock (USFWS 1987). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Most lakes on the Refuge are the result of glaciation. Small rockbasin lakes at higher elevations—known as cirque lakes, paternoster 

lakes, glint lakes, or tarns—are ice-scoured depressions. The large 

valley-filling lakes, such as Karluk and Akalura lakes, are dammed 

by moraines (USFWS 1987). 

Water Quantity. Although water is a fundamental and essential habitat 

that all fish and wildlife resources require, hydrologic information is 

limited. Wiley and Curran (2003) and Curran et al. (2003) calculated 

statistics on runoff rates, stream-flow duration, and recurrence 

intervals based on basin characteristics. Mean annual runoff is 

estimated to be from four to eight cubic feet per second per square 

mile (cfs/mi2

). Lowest flows occur during the coldest weather, with 

flows decreasing in December and beginning to rise again in April. 

Winter flows may be sustained by lake discharge or by groundwater in 

larger alluvium-floored valleys. High flows occur in late May or June 

during snowmelt; in late summer and fall with increased rain fall, 

during midwinter thaws, or during rain-on-snow events. The highest 

discharge peaks occur in October and November. Plows in streams 

heading at glaciers may be augmented in summer by glacial melt. 

Table 3-5 is a list of existing stream discharge data, primarily from 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS data are available 

through its Web site. 

The Service initiated a five-year water resource inventory and 

assessment (USFWS 1998) on the Refuge in 2002. As part of this 

assessment, stream-gauging stations were installed on the Akalura 

River, Ayakulik River, Sturgeon River, Karluk River, South Olga 

Creek, Dog Salmon Creek and East Fork tributary, and East Fork 

Uganik River. At the conclusion of the inventory and assessment, 

stream discharge data will be available. 

Water Quality. The USGS (1989) provides an index of USGS water 

quality–monitoring sites in Alaska. About 115 sites are located in the 

Kodiak area; most are located off-refuge in the vicinity of the City of 

Kodiak and have a period of record of one to three years. On-refuge 

sites are located on the mainstem and tributaries to the Akalura, 

Karluk, and Ayakulik rivers and on an unnamed stream near Old 

Harbor. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s (ADF&G) 

Division of Commercial Fisheries has been involved in the 

enhancement and rehabilitation of salmon stocks in the Kodiak 

Commercial Fisheries Management Area since the early 1900s 

(Schrof and Honnold 2003). 

Ongoing studies and monitoring of the limnology and water quality 

of lakes have been a key component of the enhancement effort since 

the 1980s. Specific information related to water quality of lakes can 

be obtained through the ADF&G’s Division of Commercial 

Fisheries. In general, streams and lake waters probably contain less 

than 60 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids. Extrapolations of 

suspended sediment measurements of the Uganik River, from lowest 

through highest flows ever recorded, are less than 10 milligrams per
Chapter 3: 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-5 Existing stream-discharge data on or near Kodiak Refuge 

Watershed Period of Record Drainage Area (mi2) Mean 

Discharge(cfs

Akalura Creek at Olga Bay 1975–1976 18.4 60.8 Canyon Creek near Larsen Bay 1974–1975 8.82 41.4 Dog Salmon near Ayakulik 1960–1961 72.9 252 Falls Creek near Larsen Bay 1974–1975 5.67 18.7 Falls Creek near Port Lions 1980–1983 4.3 NA Hidden Basin Creek near mouth 1983–1984 11.92 NA Hidden Basin Creek near Port Lions 1982–1984 3.01 NA Karluk River at outlet of Karluk Lake 1975–1976; 1979–1982 100 359 Kizhugiak River near Port Lions 1986–1994 42.5 267 Kizhugiak River near Port Lions 1980–1986 42.5 221 Larsen Bay Creek near Larsen Bay 1980–1984 3.92 NA Little Kitoi Creek near Afognak 1960–1961 2.63 8.04 Middle Fork Pillar Creek near Kodiak 1969–1970 2.02 11.9 Monashka Creek near Kodiak 1972–1976 5.51 42.6 Myrtle Creek near Kodiak 1964–1970 4.74 43.7 Spiridon Lake outlet near Larsen Bay 1962–1965 23.3 50.6 Terror River near Kodiak 1963–1968 15 132 Terror River at mouth near Kodiak 1964–1968; 1981–present 46 263 Uganik River near Kodiak 1951–1970 123 660 Upper Thumb River near Larsen Bay 1974–1982 18.8 78.2 Hydro Creek near Old Harbor 1993–1996 4.6 47 East Fork Hydro Creek near Old Harbor 1995–1996 1.96 NA Humpy Creek, near Larsen Bay 1986–1987 NA NA 

1 USGS (1989); also http://ak.water.usgs.gov/

2 Unpublished data, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

liter. Winter dissolved oxygen and pH in 22 lakes surrounding the 

City of Kodiak were measured by the Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game (Jones et al. 1978). The most frequent measurements were 12 

and 16 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen; the pH ranged from 

5.8 to 6.5. 

Unique Refuge-Specific Water Resources 

Habitat. The waters on Kodiak Island provide a unique habitat for 

five species of Pacific salmon. The glacially formed lakes and 

drainages located in or near the Kodiak Refugium were identified as 

being of special value. (See Chapter 1.) Karluk River and Lake, 

Frazer Lake and Dog Salmon Creek, Ayakulik-Red River, Sturgeon 

River, and Uganik River and Lake are of particular value for their 

large salmon runs. The abundance of salmon in these waters supports 

high concentrations of brown bears, bald eagles, and other wildlife. 

In addition, the waters of Kodiak provide the opportunity for 

subsistence, commercial, and recreation activities. 

Impounded Waters. Two hydropower sites exist within the boundaries 

of Kodiak Refuge, a third is anticipated, and others have been 

considered. The City of Kodiak, with a population of approximately 

7,000, is supplied with power primarily from the Terror Lake 

Hydroelectric Project (20 megawatt capacity). This hydropower 

project is unique, being the largest such project on Kodiak Island and, 

at the time of its construction, the only federally licensed hydroelectric 

project on national wildlife refuge lands in Alaska. 

Terror Lake dam is situated on the Terror River approximately eight 

miles upstream from its mouth at Terror Bay. The dam is 195 feet 

high, 2,300 feet long, and contains a reservoir with a surface 

area of 1,000 acres and a normal storage volume of 

108,000 acre-feet. The controlled release of water from the dam 

has a mandated minimum discharge range of 60 to 150 cubic feet per 

second for instream flow requirements for the maintenance of fish 

habitat. An 11-foot-diameter tunnel at the reservoir bottom routes 

water out of the Terror Lake watershed to penstock and generating 

plants located off-refuge in the Kizhuyak River basin. In 1993, the 

Kodiak Electric Association proposed enhancing the site with a 

release-water project that would necessitate constructing a new 

penstock, transmission line, and generating station 1.8 miles 

downstream of the dam. The release-water project is dormant at this 

time. The community of Larsen Bay has a small (400 kilowatt) 

hydroelectric plant powered by Humpy Creek (AEIDC 1979, Chatto 

2000, DCED 2000a, DNR 2000, Hosking 1984). 

Small, low-head hydropower projects affecting refuge watersheds 

have been considered for the communities of Ahkiok, Karluk, and 

Old Harbor. 

Three villages adjacent to Kodiak Refuge use impounded surface 

water as their primary public water supply sources. Larsen Bay is 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-19 

supplied by Humpy Creek impoundments and is alternatively 

supplied from the penstock of the hydroelectric plant. Dammed 

streams with small reservoirs on Lagoon Creek and an unnamed 

stream supply water to the villages of Old Harbor and Ahkiok, 

respectively (DCED 2000b). 

The Alaska Department of Fish & Game operates and maintains 

(under long-term leases) three fish weir sites and one fishway on 

waters on Kodiak Refuge: on the Ayakulik River, on Akalura Creek, 

and on Dog Salmon Creek. The seasonal period of operation for 

weirs runs from May through September. The weirs span waters 

ranging from 25 feet to 190 feet wide. Fluctuating levels of 

backwater occur immediately upstream of the weir sites during 

periods of operation and maintenance. The fishway at the Frazer 

Lake outlet waterfalls is a piling-supported aqueduct allowing 

salmon passage around the 100-foot high falls (ADF&G 2000). 

3.2 Biological 

Environment 

3.2.1 Vegetation 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lies exclusively within the Kodiak 

Archipelago Ecoregion, one of 32 ecoregions in Alaska (Nowacki et 

al. 2001). The Kodiak Archipelago Ecoregion is considered one of 

the coastal rainforest ecoregions, yet is unique in that it is composed 

completely of islands, has a unique climate due to its location within 

the Gulf of Alaska, and has experienced repeated, extensive 

glaciation with the occurrence of one glacial refugium. The Kodiak 

Archipelago is also unique in that it has undergone constant changes 

because of the effects of major physical events, including glaciation 

and the 1912 Katmai ash fall; major biological events, including the 

spread of Sitka spruce and the recent introduction of several species 

of plants and animals not native to the Archipelago (e.g., browsers 

and grazers such as Sitka black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, snowshoe 

hare, and mountain goat [Fleming and Spencer 2005]). 

Through a vegetative mapping effort initiated in 2001, six main land 

cover groups have been identified. These land cover groups have then 

been separated into detailed vegetation types and communities. Table 

3-6 defines each of the vegetation communities; Figure 3-3 (Fleming 

and Spencer 2005) depicts the distribution of these communities. 

Refuge lands are located on Kodiak, Uganik, Afognak, and Ban 

islands. Afognak Island is northeast of Kodiak Island and is home to 

stands of old growth Sitka spruce trees. On Afognak, the refuge 

manages more than 48,000 acres of closed Sitka spruce forest, forb 

meadows, and alpine habitats with scattered birch stands. Much of 

the rest of Afognak, which is in private holdings, has been logged 

and is in various stages of regeneration. West of Afognak lies the 

much smaller Ban Island. Ban Island has alder and forb meadows on 

the southern side, rising to an alpine zone along its crest. Lower 

slopes on the northern and eastern sides include Sitka spruce forest. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table 3-6 Kodiak Archipelago vegetation communities1

Spruce Krumholtz A low-growing form of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensisi) at the upper limits of spruce growth. Most st

slopes, on ridge tops, and along the northern coasts of the islands north of Kodiak Island. These trees and snow scouring and have multiple trunks. One 1.5-inch stem was 26 yr old. Grasses and forbs grobranches, with alpine heath or alpine forb meadow in unprotected areas. 

Sitka Spruce Regeneration 

Logged areas generally 15–30 years post-logging, which are regrowing with Sitka spruce. Some areawith aerial re-seeding, while others are regenerating from nearby unlogged stands. Spruce cover is in These are vigorous young trees, usually less than 20 yr old, with bluejoint grass and salmonberry-eld

between trees. Dense alder often grows along logging roads and yarding areas. 

Open Spruce Forest Sitka spruce in slightly more open stands, generally 20% to 60% cover. Openings in these stands sup

salmonberry where sunlight reaches the floor. Shaded areas have feathermoss and devil’s club groun

Closed Spruce Forest Sitka spruce in dense stands of 70% to 100% crown closure. Much less shrub understory. Under the 

cover is a continuous moss cover, usually feathermoss. In slightly more open stands that have gaps b

devil’s club and scattered ferns are found. In stands closer to 70% crown closure, elderberry, alder, aopenings. Trees range from 60 to 250 yr old. Dense stands are primarily on the northern islands and of peninsulas south of the City of Kodiak. 

Open Birch Forest Kenai birch (Betula kenaica) in open stands, also on gentle lower hillslopes from Olga Bay to the no

Island. Often old trees with little regrowth. Understory in open stands is often scattered alder, grass, Birch tend to grow slightly further uphill and are probably drier than cottonwood. 

Dense Birch Forest Kenai birch in dense stands on gentle lower hillslopes and old riparian terraces. These closed stands 

tend to have old trees, no shrub understory, no regrowth, and a ground cover of grasses and ferns. 

Mixed Deciduous: Cottonwood, Birch and Alder 

A mixed species community with varying proportions of cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), birch a

and occasional tall willow. 

Sparse-Open Cottonwood Forest 

Riparian and gentle hillside stands of cottonwood with densities from 10% to 60%. In riparian areas, understory of tall willows with grasses, some alder, ferns, and assorted forbs. Trees tend to be old, w

understory. The only younger trees tend to be on recently exposed ground such as abandoned river coften have alder understory and associated elderberry, bluejoint reedgrass, and ferns. 

Dense Cottonwood Forest 

Scattered stands of riparian cottonwood with cover generally >70%. These stands are primarily from head of Deadman Bay to the northern part of Kodiak Island. Stands tend to be dominated by mature 

cottonwood. Tree understory cover is frequently dominated by bluejoint reedgrass, ferns and scatter
Chapter 3: 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Open Alder Alder forming patches of 20% to 50% cover. Elderberry and salmonberry fringe these patches, with 

between the shrub patches. Occasionally alder forms windblown prostrate patches at upper limits of 

there doesn’t seem to be obvious environmental control on alder density. This class has been subdivitypes, named according to the types associated with the open alder clumps: Open alder with forb meadow Open alder-scattered Sitka spruce Open alder-scattered cottonwood and/or birch Open alder-salmonberry-elderberry 

Dense Alder Alder stands forming dense thickets of 60% to 100% closure. Elderberry and salmonberry usually ar

around the edges of the alder patches. Beneath the alder, ground cover is litter, with scattered maiden

spindly salmonberry. 

Low Willow Open to closed thickets of low willows (Salix pulchra, S. barclayei). Low willow stands often occur 

mountain valleys, growing along the streams and up gentle slopes where they grade into alpine forb types. In the Refugium area of southwestern Kodiak, a low, wet community is typically found in broslopes, in similar physiographic position to alder stands throughout the glaciated portion of Kodiak I

Tall Willow Occasional stands of tall willows (Salix sitchensis, S. alexensis) growing outside of cottonwood stan

larger rivers. 

Alder and Willow Mix Low willows mix into alder stands, particularly along streams and at upper limits of alder growth. Th

slightly moister soils than do pure alder stands. Seems to be limited to hills and mountain valleys of 

Kodiak Island. 

Salmonberry-Elderberry This type, dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), grow

in alder thickets, but may occasionally form larger patches. Proportions vary, although cover of salmhigher. Ferns, grasses, and some forbs may coexist with the shrubs, but these are generally dense com

Salmonberry-Devil’s Club-Elderberry 

This community occurs primarily in recently logged areas, where it appears the original devil’s club 

flourishes with sunlight, and elderberry and salmonberry move into previously forested stands. 

Alpine Tundra Variety of small alpine communities, often a mosaic of prostrate shrub tundra, alpine heath, and alpi

bedrock, snowbank accumulation, and exposed surfaces. Sometimes, very prostrate spruce or alder f

cover. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Alpine Heath High-altitude crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) and leutkea (Leutkea pectinata) heath with blueberry 

Cover often as much as 70% of unit, with moss on rock, scattered fruticose lichens, and sparse for

anemone. 

Prostrate Shrub Tundra Sparsely vegetated bedrock with prostrate ericaceous shrubs, generally at high altitudes. Usually dom

and leutkea, with blueberry, alpine azalea, and other mat-forming shrubs. Rock generally 50% to 70% 

Heath Crowberry-dominated cover with scattered dwarf willows, blueberry, cranberry, Labrador tea, and b

Racomitrium lanuginosum is a dominant ground cover and gives the areas a dusty appearance. Heath of flat to gentle slopes of southern Kodiak Island and in stringers and patches on higher parts of alpinstringers in forb meadows on steep slopes. A subtype—Heath Bedrock—grows on bedrock knobs in forest on Shuyak Island. 

Heath Hummocks Crowberry forming nearly continuous mats over hummocks 4–10 inches tall. Blueberries, cranberrie

often present. Primarily in valley floors in southwestern and southern portions of Kodiak Island and 

Heath Hummocks with Forbs 

Crowberry hummocks with dense forbs growing between them, giving appearance of forb meadow. fireweed, goldenrod, lupine, and Jacob=s ladder. Occurs primarily on the Aliulik Peninsula of southe

Heath with Forbs Crowberry dominated heath with moderate forb cover. Forbs are primarily lupine, Jacobs ladder, sho

Similar to hummocks with forbs, except heath has no hummocky form. 

Alpine Forb Meadow Similar to general forb meadow, but grows on steeper slopes above the alder zone. Very diverse coll

grasses and ferns. Growth is seldom more than 2 feet deep. Woody plants are sparse—maybe a few sspots. Heath stringers often run down dry micro-ridges. 

Fern Forb Meadow Forb meadows dominated by lady fern (Athyyrium filix-femina) with fireweed, pushki, and bluejoint 

slightly cooler, moister environments, forming whole hillsides with scattered patches of alder or in s

Fireweed Forb Meadow Forb meadow as described previously, dominated by fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium) usually w

and often pushki. Large expanses on gentle slopes from Raspberry Island south to Karluk Lake. 

Forb Meadow-Mixed Varied and widespread type throughout the Archipelago. Rich mixture of forbs, grasses, and ferns fo

meadows, often with salmonberry in swales. Stands are 3 feet or more deep. Groundcover is scattere

Forb meadows grow on all slopes and aspects with mesic moisture regime. Windswept coastal headl

hillside slopes, woven thickly throughout alder stands, and regrowth in logged areas. 

Salmonberry-Forb Meadow 

Forb meadows dominated by salmonberry mixed with grasses, lady fern, and a diversity of forb specoften in openings of open alder or subalpine hill slopes. The salmonberry bushes are the same height 

species, generally 1.5–3 feet deep. 

Elymus Forb Grasslands near marine waters with Elymus arenarius and mix of forbs, often pushki, goldenrod, fireweedElymus Grasslands Grasslands dominated by Elymus arenarius, beachpea, and beach fleabane generally narrow beach ri

salt spray or storm tides. 
Chapter 3: 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Bluejoint Reedgrass/Forb Meadow 

Forb meadows dominated by bluejoint reedgrass (Calanogrostis canadensis), usually with ferns and recent logging, these areas tend to be areas where groundcover was disturbed. On upper hillsides, gr

slightly drier, higher ground, often with salmonberry and ferns in moister swales. 

Mixed Grasslands Stands often dominated by bluejoint grass but mixed with other grasses, sedges, and forbs. Occurs in 

just higher and inland of sedge marshes, fringes of wetlands, recently logged areas, and patches in fo

Dwarf Shrub/Moss Wetlands 

Wetland areas with sparse cover (approximately 10%) of dwarf birch and/or low willows and moss g

forbs, sedges, and crowberry heath grow under the shrubs. Common species include marsh five-fingand cottongrass. This type occurs in the refugium area of southwestern Kodiak Island and the Trinity Island. 

Sweet Gale Wetlands Wetland areas dominated by sweet gale (Myrica gale) and sedges, often cottongrass, with moss grou

wetlands with dwarf birch. Located in draining or drying ponds and gentle deltas. 

Sweet Gale-Dwarf Birch Wetlands 

Some areas of wetlands and drained beaver ponds support moderate cover of sweet gale and dwarf b

with the moss/sedge type described earlier. Not common, but scattered throughout Archipelago. 

Ericaceous Lichen Bog Hummocky wetlands dominated by evergreen shrubs, such as dwarf birch, and blueberry with frutic

surfaces of the hummocks. Occurs mostly in Refugium area of southwestern Kodiak Island. 

Graminoid Wetland Wetland type dominated by grasses and sedges. Wetter than sedge/moss wetlands and having no mo

Primarily occurs in refugium area in southwestern Kodiak Island. 

Sedge/Moss Wetlands A wide variety of mosses and various sedges grow on wetlands and drained lake beds throughout the 

valleys have multiple generations of beaver ponds that often support sedge/moss wetlands. Sphagnum

cover, with sedges, cottongrass, and rushes and scattered forbs such as marsh five-finger, sundews, a

Crowberry and blueberry may grow on higher hummocks. 

Sedge Marsh Pure stands of Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei), flooded by tides on daily to monthly basis, along t

inland. Heads of long fjords. 

Aquatic Emergents Common in shallow ponds and wetlands throughout the Archipelago. Shallow lakes are often covere

horsetails with bog buckbean and mare’s tail (Hippuris sp.) in shallow slow streams or standing wate

Eelgrass Dense eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds grow in shallow protected tidal lagoons at mouths of streams a

islands. 

Kelp Beds Some tidal mudflats have moderate cover of popweed (Fucus distichus) and other algae. Bull Kelp Thick communities of bull kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana) grow just offshore of rugged rocks and islan

Island. 

Clear Fresh Water Areas of fresh water lakes where water depth generally exceeds one meter. Marine Water Offshore waters of Gulf of Alaska and Shelikof Strait. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Shallow or Sedimented Fresh Water 

Fresh water lakes with shallow, generally mud bottoms. 

Shallow or Sedimented Marine Water 

Generally tidal lagoons; depends on tide stage. 

Snow and Permanent Ice 

Persistent, late-lying snowbanks and small glaciers on north-facing exposures of highest mountains. 

Sand, Asphalt and Gravel Roads 

Areas of human development around City of Kodiak, villages, and logging areas. 

Bedrock Mountaintops down spine of Kodiak Island, generally granite, some bedrock knobs on Shuyak Island 

Often has snowbanks and stringers of prostrate shrub tundra or talus. 

Talus Mostly broken bedrock below outrcrops of bedrock on steep slopes and cliffs. Also includes scree s

where ultramafic sedimentary outcrops occur in the Kodiak Island Refugium. 

Mud Flats Tidal mud or sand flats subject to daily flooding; scattered kelp. Sand and GravelBeaches Large marine beaches along coast; driftwood and floats. Sand and Gravel-River Bars 

Annual flooded gravel bars in large rivers and in flashy rivers of Shearwater Peninsula. 

1 Complete descriptions and photographs can be found in Fleming and Spencer (2005) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-25 

Figure 3-3 Distribution of vegetation communities on the Kodiak Archipelago 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-27 

The majority of refuge lands are on Kodiak and Uganik islands. 

These lands are very different from the forested lands of Afognak 

Island. Although less dominant over the landscape, spruce forests are 

present south to a line extending roughly from Viekoda Bay 

southeast to Narrow Cape. To the south is a series of long fjords, 

river valleys, and intervening ridges reaching northwest off the 

granite spine of Kodiak Island and with short, steep valleys to the 

southeast. Deciduous forests grow along the rivers, with alder and 

forb meadow blanketing the side hills, and alpine or barren types 

above 2,500 feet. Kodiak Island’s remnant glaciers perch in steep 

mountains found in this area. 

The lowland area of southwestern Kodiak Island, commonly referred 

to as the Kodiak Refugium, is the only area of Kodiak Island that 

was not covered by glaciers during the Pleistocene Era, about 12,000 

to 20,000 years ago. Large proglacial lakes, which formed in valleys, 

are now large wetlands on the valley floors. This area is considered 

unique to Kodiak Island, with heath-dominated vegetation similar to 

that found on Arctic and Bering sea coasts. South of Olga Bay and 

on the lower Aliulik Peninsula, the landscape is similar to that of the 

Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula and has rolling, subdued 

terrain covered by crowberry (Empetrum) heath and forb meadows. 

Cover Mapping. The first Kodiak Archipelago vegetative mapping 

effort was completed in 1984. Land cover classes that were recorded 

represented units of land with minimum areas of 500 acres. Names 

applied to cover classes were derived from the categories developed 

by Viereck, Dyrness, and Batten (1982). A new mapping effort was 

completed in 2005 by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Alaska 

Geographic Science Center, using Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite images. 

(See Figure 3–3.) One of the project objectives is to develop, test, 

and select the best analysis procedure(s) for interpretation, 

delineation, and classification of a vegetative and land cover map for 

the entire Kodiak Archipelago. By using images from different 

portions of the growing season, more detail in mapping categories is 

achieved. 

From this latest mapping effort, information has been collected about 

occurrence and aerial extent of land cover classes. With this 

information, community composition within and outside the refuge 

boundaries may be compared. Figure 3-4 lists vegetation 

communities and their level of abundance within Kodiak Refuge and 

on the Kodiak Archipelago. 

Although parts of the Refuge, especially Afognak Island, are covered 

in Sitka spruce forest, it is easy to see that the majority of this forest 

is outside the refuge boundary. On the other hand, the Refuge 

includes large tracts of shrub, dwarf shrub, and meadow lands, which 

are highly productive areas for migratory birds, salmon, and many 

mammals. Other specialized habitats occur within the Refugium area 

of southwestern Kodiak Island. For example, the area harbors a 

unique assemblage of low-growing forb species whose distribution 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 3-4 Percentage cover of terrestrial and fresh water 

vegetation types within Kodiak Refuge and the Kodiak 

Archipelago 

on Kodiak Island is restricted alpine settings or in the case of the 

Refugium, ridges and mountain slopes composed of ultramafic 

sedimentary rock scree. Wetland types—including dwarf shrub/moss 

wetlands, ericaceous lichen bog, sedge moss wetlands, and 

graminoid wetlands—are limited to the Refugium and are found in 

no other areas of the Archipelago. Other wetland types—including 

sweet gale wetlands and areas of aquatic emergents—are 

concentrated in the Refugium. 

Nonnative Invasive Plants and Influence of Introduced Fauna.

Numerous invasive nonnative plants have been introduced into the 

City of Kodiak and likely into the villages, canneries, and old 

ranches around the islands. To date, exotic plants do not seem to be 

having serious ecosystem impacts, although the Service is working 

to eradicate a population of orange hawkweed that has invaded 

Camp Island in Karluk Lake. Invasive plants have high potential, 

however, to cause major impacts as they have done in many areas of 

the country outside Alaska. 

Native fauna of the Archipelago is limited to six land mammals: 

brown bear, river otter, red fox, short-tailed weasel, tundra vole, and 

the little brown bat. We surmise that none of these species, except 

perhaps the tundra vole, exerted much influence on the historical 

development and composition of vegetation communities. This 

context likely changed after many non-native herbivorous mammals 

were introduced to the Archipelago. 

In the past 80 years, humans have introduced mammal species that 

have established viable populations on the Archipelago: beaver, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-29 

mountain goat, Roosevelt elk, muskrat, red squirrel, reindeer, Sitka 

black-tailed deer, and snowshoe hare. Except for marten, all these 

species are grazers or browsers that could have unintended effects on 

the vegetation communities and ecosystem dynamics of the 

Archipelago. For example, some species such as beaver and red 

squirrel, could affect plant communities directly by damming 

streams or building large spruce-cone caches. Goats could impact 

alpine tundra areas and could overgraze some alpine forb habitats. 

The deer population, which fluctuates significantly depending on 

winter weather, may be affecting localized stands of vegetation. 

When populations are high and during period of deep winter snow, 

they browse heavily on available vegetation, including sprouts and 

seedlings. On Kodiak Island, refuge staff have seen some severely 

hedged stands of deciduous shrubs as well as shrub and tree stands 

dominated by oldest age classes. Prevalence of hedging and old age 

classes could be associated with single or combined affects of 

browsing by vole, hare, and deer. Studies, such as those proposed 

under the objectives of Chapter 2, are needed to ascertain the 

influence of, and recommend management strategies for, non-native 

fauna in Kodiak Refuge. 

Influence of Fire. Although naturally ignited fires on the Refuge are 

rare, human-caused fires do occur more frequently. Table 3-7 

represents the fire history of Kodiak Refuge from 1984 through 

2002. Most fires on the Refuge occur in early spring or late fall when 

dried grasses are easily ignited. Little is known about effects of fire 

on the vegetation communities of the Archipelago. 

Table 3-7 Fire history on Kodiak Refuge, 1984–2002 

Year Refuge acres burned Cause 

1984 146 

2 

Human 

Natural 

1989 6 Human 

1992 5 Human 

1996 1,750 Human 

1997 8,900 Unknown 

1999 5 Human 

2000 700 Human 

2002 310 Human 

Total 11,824 

3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife 

As of 2004, 286 species of fish and wildlife have been recorded on 

Kodiak Refuge and adjacent areas: 13 freshwater and anadromous 

fish, 242 bird, and 30 mammal species. Appendix G is a list of fish 

and wildlife species found on the Refuge. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Fish

Refuge lands include some of the most pristine and productive 

salmon habitat in the Kodiak Archipelago. There are 348 streams in 

the Archipelago that are identified by ADF&G as having salmon 

returning to them annually, and 117 (34 percent) of these streams 

flow within the refuge boundary. These watersheds range in size 

from the 236-square-mile Karluk River drainage to small ones of less 

than five square miles (USFWS 1987). Drainages located on the 

southwestern portion of the Refuge (Kodiak Refugium) provide one 

of the highest diversities of freshwater habitat and species abundance 

per unit area found anywhere in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest. It is 

estimated that, in 1989 during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, when there 

was a very limited commercial salmon fishery, the total numbers of 

spawning salmon in refuge streams exceeded 26 million fish 

(ADF&G 2002a, USFWS 1989). 

These large salmon runs play a key role in maintaining the health 

and productivity of the Kodiak Archipelago ecosystem. Beyond their 

intrinsic and economic values, spawning salmon and their 

decomposing carcasses offer a vital source of energy and nutrients 

for many other species. A report by Cederholm et al. (2000) 

summarizes research conducted by a variety of agencies over the 

years and demonstrates the interdependence of salmon, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats.

Salmon also support many people through subsistence, recreation, 

and commercial activities and indirectly through service and support 

industries to the fishers. The average commercial salmon harvest in 

the Kodiak Archipelago from 1982 through 2004 was approximately 

18.7 million fish worth an ex-vessel value to fishermen of 

approximately 35.4 million dollars (range 13.6 to 103.8 million 

dollars). Refuge-based salmon stocks consisted of approximately 

78 percent (14.6 million fish) of this total harvest (Brennan 2005). 

Further information on the economic values of salmon is presented 

later in this chapter.

Generally, Kodiak salmon are managed for wild production. Salmon 

restoration and enhancement are fishery management tools. 

Currently there are three enhancement projects operating within 

refuge boundaries: Frazer Lake fish pass on southwestern Kodiak 

Island, Hidden Lake on northwestern Afognak Island, and Spiridon 

Lake on the western side of Kodiak Island. These projects are 

authorized by the Refuge, managed by ADF&G, and funded by the 

Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association. 

The intent of these enhancement projects is to increase the amount of 

salmon available for commercial harvest. Fishery monitoring data for 

these projects indicate successful enhancement projects and has 

provided for an effective commercial fishery. Environmental 

assessments and findings of no significant impact were completed in 

1991 for Spiridon Lake and in 1992 for Hidden Lake. Special use 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-31 

permits have been issued and are valid only as long as the project 

goals and operations do not change significantly. A report on each 

lake by ADF&G is due to the Refuge by the beginning of each 

March. 

Fish Diversity. Five species of Pacific salmon are native to the 

streams on the Refuge: Chinook (king), sockeye (red), pink 

(humpback), chum (dog), and coho (silver). In addition, resident 

rainbow trout, steelhead trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char are 

found on the Refuge. 

Of the 117 streams on the Refuge, many support more than one 

species of salmon. Two of these streams, the Ayakulik and Karluk, 

support large (>10,000) runs of Chinook, 10 support sockeye, 62 

have coho, all 117 have pink salmon depending on the year, 46 have 

chum, eight have steelhead, seven have populations of resident 

rainbow trout, and most support Dolly Varden. Arctic char have only 

been documented in Karluk Lake. Table 3-8 displays the various 

salmonid species found on the Refuge and basic life history 

information (ADF&G 1985). 

Table 3-8 General information on fish species of Kodiak Refuge 

Species Immigration Spawning Years in 

Fresh 

Water 

Years 

at Sea 

Age at 

Return 

Size at 

Return 

(lbs) 

Sockeye Late-May–

September 

Late-July–

October 

1–3 2–3 4–6 4–8 

Pink July–August August–

September 

0.5 1–1.5 2 3–4 

Chum June–August Mid-July–

September 

0.5 1–4 2–5 7–18 

Coho August–

September 

October–

December 

1–3 1–2 2–5 7–20 

Chinook Late-May–

June 

July–August 1–2 2–4 4–6 15–40 

Steelhead August–

January 

Late-April–May 1–4 2–3 5–8 8–25 

Rainbow N/A April–May 0–9 0 N/A < 8 

Dolly Varden July–

November 

September–

December 

3–4 0.3–1 4.5–6 < 10 

There are approximately 450 miles of freshwater streams within the 

refuge boundary. Approximately 73 percent of these stream miles are 

used by salmon for spawning or rearing. In addition, there are 

16 lakes ranging in size from approximately 0.4 to 15.2 square miles 

that are used by spawning or rearing salmon and Arctic char. The 

freshwater salmon habitats on the Refuge are some of most 

productive within the ADF&G Kodiak Management Area. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Sockeye Salmon. The commercial value and economic importance 

of sockeye make it an extremely important fish species on the 

Refuge. Sockeye normally start entering refuge freshwater systems 

in late May. Early-run sockeye spawn in late July through midAugust, while late-run sockeye spawn in mid-September through 

October. Spawning habitat consists of gravel-bottomed streams and 

lake beaches. Sockeye fry emerge from the gravel in late spring 

(March through June) and migrate to lakes where they remain for 

one to three years feeding mainly on zooplankton. Sockeye smolt 

migrate to saltwater mid-May through early July, peaking in late 

May or early June. Smolt emigration from Afognak Island systems 

peaks about a week later than on Kodiak Island systems. Most smolt 

emigrate from the Upper Station system from mid-May through 

June, with an age 0 component emigrating from late July through 

August. Sockeye spend two to three years in the northern Pacific 

Ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Sockeye 

populations in the Karluk, Upper Station, and Akalura drainages 

include both early and late run fish. 

Pink Salmon. Pink salmon are the second key commercial species 

on the Refuge. The size of the pinks returning to each drainage varies 

depending upon even or odd year strength of the individual stock. 

The even-year cycle dominates total refuge returns with the largest 

spawning populations occurring in the Ayakulik and Karluk 

drainages. Spawning typically occurs from intertidal waters upstream 

to headwater areas. Returning pinks arrive in large numbers by midJuly and are abundant through mid-August. Pinks usually do not 

spawn until August and September. Eggs develop in the gravel 

during winter, and juveniles emerge from mid-March into May (later 

emergence on Afognak Island). Pink salmon fry migrate almost 

immediately to saltwater. There they spend the next one to one and 

one-half years maturing; at age two they return to spawn. 

Chum Salmon. Chum salmon are the third most abundant salmon 

species occurring on the Refuge. Chum salmon returning to the 

Sturgeon River in early June constitute one of the earliest and most 

important runs for brown bear on the Refuge (Chatto 1998, Price 

2001). Throughout Kodiak, returning chums arrive in large numbers 

by mid-July and are abundant through mid-August. Chum salmon 

rarely spawn before mid to late July. Spawning typically occurs from 

the intertidal waters upstream to headwater areas and can occur up 

through the end of September in some streams. Eggs develop in the 

gravel during the winter, and emergence usually occurs in April and 

May when fry move immediately downstream to saltwater. Chums 

return to spawn after spending one to four years in the ocean. 

Coho Salmon. Coho spend considerable time in freshwater before 

spawning; they enter streams in August and September after one year 

in the ocean and spawn from October through December. Spawning 

habitat is usually small- to medium-sized gravel at the head of riffles 

in shallow tributaries and narrow channels, but some coho also select 

mainstream areas for spawning. Coho fry emerge from the gravel in 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-33 

late spring and spend one to three years in freshwater before 

migrating to the sea as smolts in May through mid-July. 

Chinook Salmon. Chinook salmon on the Refuge are found in the 

Karluk, the Ayakulik-Red, and the Dog Salmon river drainages. 

Chinook start entering river systems in late May, and runs usually 

peak during mid-June. Preliminary data from recent studies have 

shown that populations of Chinook in the Karluk and Ayakulik rivers 

may be genetically distinct, both between and within drainages 

(Spearmann 2004). Spawning takes place in July and August; adults 

select medium to large gravels in mainstream river areas and some 

tributaries. Chinook fry emerge from the gravel in the spring and 

typically remain in freshwater one to two years. Chinook smolts 

enter the ocean and spend two to four years at sea prior to returning 

to freshwater streams to spawn. 

Steelhead and Rainbow Trout. Major populations of native 

steelhead occur on the Karluk and Ayakulik drainages. Steelhead 

production in these rivers is one of the highest in Alaska. Other 

systems where steelhead are present include Dog Salmon, Sturgeon, 

Uganik, Upper Station, Akalura, and Little river drainages. Recent 

studies have shown the populations of steelhead in the Karluk, 

Ayakulik, and Sturgeon rivers are genetically distinct (Krueger et al.

1999). 

Adult steelhead normally enter freshwater systems August through 

January; peak migration periods are unknown. Spawning usually 

occurs late April through May in riffle areas having small gravel 

substrate. After spawning, steelhead adults return to the ocean. 

Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel in late summer and may spend 

one to four years in freshwater prior to migrating to the sea as 

smolts. Ocean residence for steelhead is two to three years; some fish 

may return to spawn as many as three times. 

The distribution of rainbow trout is nearly identical to that of 

steelhead. The major rainbow trout areas are the Dog Salmon, Upper 

Station, Little River, Karluk, Ayakulik, and Uganik drainages. 

Dolly Varden and Arctic Char. The Refuge supports anadromous 

and resident populations of Dolly Varden. These are the most widely 

distributed sport fish on the Refuge. Dolly Varden are fall spawners, 

returning to streams from midsummer through late fall. Spawning 

occurs from September through the end of December. After 

spawning, anadromous Dolly Varden seek lake or river systems in 

which to overwinter. Dolly Varden return to their natal stream to 

spawn. Kodiak Refuge lakes known to be important Dolly Varden 

overwintering areas include Uganik, Little River, Ayakulik, Karluk, 

Akalura, and Upper Station. Dolly Varden fry emerge in the spring 

and remain in the streams for three to four years before migrating to 

sea. They may remain at sea only six to eight weeks before returning 

to freshwater lakes for overwintering. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Little is known about Arctic char. We do know there is a population 

in Karluk Lake and that these char are not anadromous. A population 

estimate study was initiated in Karluk Lake in the summer of 2001 

and it is expected to run through 2006. 

Birds

Kodiak Refuge’s coastline—including cliffs, inlets and bays, interior 

valleys, alpine, and tundra areas—provide abundant habitat for a 

variety of birds. A total of 242 bird species have been observed on 

the Kodiak Archipelago with more than 160 species recorded on the 

Refuge (see Appendix G). The Refuge provides nesting habitat for 

more than 100 bird species, of which the bald eagle is the most 

prominent. About 600 nesting pairs use the Refuge—likely one of 

the highest densities in North America for a resident population of 

nesting bald eagles. Some 2,500 to 3,000 bald eagles also winter 

here. More than 1.5 million pelagic seabirds and sea ducks winter in 

bays and estuaries adjacent to the Refuge. 

Waterfowl.. Annual production is estimated to be approximately 200 

to 400 broods within the four surveyed production areas (Ayakulik, 

Spiridon, Olga Flats, and Karluk). Because of the scattered 

distribution and the unknown status of refuge wetland habitats, 

expanding waterfowl production estimates to the entire Refuge 

would not provide accurate estimates. Species, listed in descending 

order of estimated relative abundance, include: mallard, greenwinged teal, American widgeon, Barrow’s goldeneye, common and 

red-breasted merganser, greater scaup, northern pintail, gadwall, and 

harlequin ducks. 

Refuge staff annually monitor the presence, abundance, and 

distribution of harlequin ducks on Kodiak Refuge’s major 

watersheds relative to changes and increases in public use patterns. 

Harlequin ducks’ need for pristine, fast-water habitats has 

strengthened the species image as an indicator of high quality and 

productive riparian areas. Increased awareness of the susceptibility 

of harlequin duck to human disturbance (Cassirer et al. 1996, Hunt 

1994, Rinkelberg 1997, Wallen 1987) and the inclusion of the 

harlequin duck as a Bristol Bay–Kodiak Island ecoregion monitoring 

species has enhanced the duck’s regional management status and 

focused local data collection efforts on Kodiak Refuge’s major 

riparian areas. 

More than 1,172 harlequin duck observations have been made on the 

Refuge, including a minimum of 54 broods containing 172 young 

that were found on interior freshwater habitats. Harlequin duck 

broods have been documented in eight major watersheds and one 

minor watershed of Kodiak Refuge since 1994 (Zwiefelhofer 2002b). 

Results of genetic testing found no genetic differences among 

wintering populations of harlequin duck in the Northern Gulf of 

Alaska (Lanctot et al. 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-35 

From 1996 through 2002, a total of 585 (430 males, 155 females) 

harlequin ducks was banded. Thirty-two hunter-kills of Kodiak 

banded harlequin ducks (30 males, two females) occurred on the 

Kodiak Archipelago from September 1, 1996, through December 31, 

2002. Mortality from recreational hunting of banded male harlequin 

ducks was approximately 7 percent (30 of 430) during this period. 

Kodiak Archipelago has the highest recreation harvest of sea ducks 

of any hunting area in Alaska. During the 2002-2003 hunting season, 

21 individuals were registered to guide sea-duck hunters on Kodiak 

Island. The majority of the recreation harvest centers on acquisition 

of sea ducks for taxidermy trophies and not as food. 

Winter seabird and sea duck surveys conducted since 1979 estimate 

the winter population of sea ducks at 150,000 to 200,000 ducks in 

the nearshore waters surrounding Kodiak Island (Forsell and Gould 

1981). Population increases have been seen in Barrow’s goldeneye, 

harlequin ducks, common mergansers, and red-breasted mergansers. 

Relatively stable populations were found for surf scoters, black 

scoters, and long-tailed ducks (oldsquaw). White-winged scoters 

have shown a small decline over the past 20 years. Following the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill, declines were seen in Barrow’s goldeneye, 

long-tailed ducks, and all scoters but not in harlequin ducks or 

mergansers. 

Winter aerial surveys have been conducted on Kodiak Island for 

Steller’s eiders (1992, 1993, 1994, and 2001) and emperor geese 

(1987–1988). Steller’s eider counts along the eastern coast of Kodiak 

Island ranged from 2,900 to 5,300 (Larned 1994, 2001); emperor 

geese numbers on Tugidak, Sitkinak, and southern Kodiak islands 

ranged from a low of 300 (in 1988) to a high of 2,000 (in 1987) 

birds. The North American breeding population of Steller’s eiders is 

considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Due to 

extensive population declines, king eider, black scoter, and longtailed duck are listed as species of concern (Gotthardt et al. 2002). 

Marsh and Waterbirds. Red-necked grebe, common loon, and redthroated loon are known to nest on Kodiak Refuge; they occur in low 

densities scattered throughout a variety of wetlands around the 

Archipelago. An estimated 2,500 to 3,000 loons and 3,600 to 4,000 

grebes made up of four loon species (Pacific, common, red-throated, 

and yellow-billed) and two grebe species (horned and red-necked) e 

winter in Kodiak marine waters. Population increases were seen over 

the past 20 years in horned grebe, red-necked grebe, and the 

assemblage of loon species. Combined estimates of loon winter 

populations from four winter survey areas (Uyak and Uganik bays, 

eastern and western Sitkalidak Island) included 2,000 to 2,200 

Pacific loons, 400 to 500 common loons, and 150 to 200 each of redthroated and yellow-billed loons. Yellow-billed loon is designated a 

State of Alaska Species of Special Concern. 

Shorebirds. While Kodiak Refuge has only minimal shorebird 

habitat, at least 42 species of shorebirds have been observed on the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-36 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Archipelago. While no estimate of relative shorebird abundance on 

Kodiak Refuge exists, species known to nest on the Refuge include 

semipalmated plover, greater yellowlegs, wandering tattler, spotted 

sandpiper, common snipe, least sandpiper, surfbird, rock sandpiper, 

short-billed dowitcher, and red-necked phalarope. 

Marine birds. More than 140 seabird colonies, occupied by 

350,000 breeding birds, are found along the Kodiak Archipelago’s 

rugged coastline (Sowls et al. 1978). Tufted puffin and black-legged 

kittiwake make up about 57 percent and 30 percent of these breeding 

seabirds, respectively. Other breeding seabirds found along the 

Refuge coastline include glaucous-winged gull; mew gull; pigeon 

guillemot; pelagic, red-faced, and double-crested cormorants; horned 

puffin; marbled and Kittlitz’s (nests in high alpine areas of the 

Refuge) murrelets; common and thick-billed murres; Leach’s and 

fork-tailed storm petrels; and Arctic and Aleutian terns. 

Results from winter seabird surveys conducted in Uyak and Uganik 

bays and eastern and western Sitkalidak Island since 1979 indicated 

that more than 1,500,000 birds winter in the nearshore waters 

surrounding Kodiak Island (Forsell and Gould 1981). Common 

murre is the most abundant seabird, making up about 65 percent of 

the total wintering population. Other prominent wintering species 

include glaucous-winged and mew gulls; crested auklet; pelagic, redfaced, and double-crested cormorants; pigeon guillemot; marbled 

and Kittlitz’s murrelets; and northern fulmar. Kittlitz’s murrelet is 

under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

(see Threatened and Endangered Species). Overall combined density 

of marine birds in four study areas showed considerable variation, 

but no discernable trend, over the 20-year period of surveys. Among 

individual species, relatively stable populations were found for 

cormorants, common murre, and marbled murrelet. Contrastingly, 

pigeon guillemots have declined by more than 50 percent. 

Raptors. Eighteen raptor species are found on the Refuge. Bald eagle 

is the most common and abundant raptor to be found along the 

Kodiak coastline and major drainages. Other raptors nesting on the 

Refuge include rough-legged hawk, northern goshawk, golden eagle, 

northern hawk owl, Peale’s peregrine falcon, and short-eared and 

boreal owls. Raptor migrants and accidental visitors to the Refuge 

include northern harrier (marsh hawk), gyrfalcon, merlin, snowy 

owl, Steller’s sea eagle, and American kestrel. In 1921, a type 

specimen confirming the presence of Steller’s sea eagles in North 

America as casual visitors was taken for the Smithsonian Institution 

at Karluk Lake on the Refuge (Bent 1961). 

During 2002, a total of 1,133 bald eagle nests was located on the 

Refuge; 628 nests were active or occupied. Of those nests 

determined to be active or occupied in May, 598 (95 percent) were 

rechecked. A total of 319 of the 598 nests checked were successful in 

producing a total of 520 young (Zwiefelhofer 2002a). Since aerial 

surveys began on the Refuge in 1963, bald eagle nesting activity has 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-37 

increased nearly 248 percent, with an estimated 160 percent increase 

in total nest production. A total of 154 color markers were attached 

to Kodiak bald eagle nestlings prior to fledging (1982–1987) with 54 

of the nestlings also fitted with radio transmitters to determine 

juvenile and subadult bald eagle migration and movement patterns. 

Based on the collected telemetry and banding data (unpublished), 

bald eagles hatched on Kodiak Refuge appear essentially resident. A 

winter influx of Kenai Peninsula bald eagles (unpublished banding 

and telemetry data) does occur and probably depends on annual 

mainland weather conditions. Kodiak Archipelago’s wintering bald 

eagle population is conservatively estimated at 2,500 to 3,000 birds. 

Upland Game Birds. The only upland game birds occurring on the 

Refuge are rock ptarmigan and willow ptarmigan. These species are 

distributed throughout the Refuge in suitable habitat. Rock 

ptarmigan are mainly limited to high, rocky subalpine and alpine 

terrain, while willow ptarmigan occupy wetter tundra and low shrub 

habitats of lower elevations, especially in western Kodiak Island. 

Ptarmigan populations are considered to be abundant over the entire 

Refuge; in local areas, however, population numbers tend to be 

highly cyclic. 

Passerines. Sixty-eight passerine species have been identified on the 

Kodiak Archipelago. Among these, 44 species have been observed 

on the Refuge. Common (northern) raven, downy woodpecker, 

black-billed magpie, belted kingfisher, black-capped chickadee, 

northwestern crow, red-breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, American 

dipper, winter wren, northern shrike, pine grosbeak, common 

redpoll, pine siskin, red crossbill, song sparrow, and snow bunting 

have been documented as year-round residents of the Refuge. 

Additionally, 19 less common species of passerines are known to 

nest on the Refuge. Gray-cheeked thrush, golden-crowned sparrow, 

Wilson’s warbler, varied thrush, and American dipper are species 

that nest on Kodiak Refuge and are considered priority for 

conservation in the Western and Southwestern Alaska Region 

because of threats on their winter or migratory ranges, or because of 

their limited distribution in Alaska (Boreal Partners in Flight 

Working Group 1999). The Kodiak subspecies of winter wren is a 

listed as a species of concern (Gotthardt et al. 2002) 

Native Land Mammals

Only six species of land mammals occurred naturally on Kodiak 

Island: brown bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi), red fox (Vulpes 

vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), short-tailed weasel (Mustela 

erminea), tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus operarius), and little 

brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). These species are common throughout 

the Refuge in suitable habitats. 

Kodiak Brown Bear. The Kodiak brown bear flourishes throughout 

the Kodiak Archipelago. The Kodiak brown bear has been 

recognized as an endemic subspecies (Ursus arctos middendorffi) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-38 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

based on morphometrics (Hall 1984, Kurten 1973, Rausch 1963); 

preliminary genetic analysis, however, has not supported this 

endemic subspecies status (Talbot and Shields 1996). Conservation 

efforts continue to treat the Kodiak brown bear as a distinct 

subspecies and population of special conservation value (Miller and 

Schoen 1999) because it holds a special symbolic value for the 

public, possesses a distinctly unique skull shape, and apparently has 

unique genetic characteristics. 

The Kodiak brown bear has been isolated from mainland brown 

bears for some 12,000 years and has survived several historical 

periods of intense exploitation and ecological disruption (Van Daele 

2003b), including overfishing of salmon streams, unregulated 

hunting, and commercial fur trade exploitation. Collectively, these 

factors may have limited genetic diversity of Kodiak brown bears 

(Paetkau et al. 1998, Waits et al. 1998). Because of potential 

conservation implications, such as resistance to introduced wildlife 

diseases, the Service and ADF&G are cooperating on a study to 

determine genetic diversity of Kodiak brown bears. 

Habitat alteration and associated human activities may also influence 

bear populations (ADF&G 2002b, Van Daele 2003b). On Afognak 

Island, the second-largest island in the Archipelago, bear habitat 

differs substantially from habitat on Kodiak Island. On Afognak, a 

large portion of private forest lands outside the Refuge has been 

logged. Population data for Afognak bears is limited, bear habitat 

requirements are poorly understood, and influence of different land 

uses has not been ascertained. To address these gaps and to improve 

bear conservation, the Refuge expects to support collaborative 

research on Afognak Island’s bears over the next 15 years (ADF&G 

2002b). 

Today, the refuge brown bear population is considered healthy and 

its habitat secure. This status is attributed largely to joint 

conservation and management efforts by the Refuge and ADF&G 

(Van Daele 2003b). The refuge bear population is estimated at 

2,200 animals (Van Daele 2001a). High regional bear densities have 

been documented seasonally in the Terror River drainage (Smith and 

Van Daele 1990), Uganik alpine area (Atwell et al. 1980), and 

Karluk Lake drainage (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1997a, 1998, Troyer and 

Hensel 1964). The density estimated for the Karluk Lake area, 

1.48 bears per square mile, is the highest reported concentration of 

brown bears in North America (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1998). 

Apparently, Kodiak brown bears have smaller home ranges, 

averaging 4 to 19 square miles for females and 9 to 54 square miles 

for males, compared to brown bears elsewhere in North America 

(Ballard et al. 1982, Barnes Jr. and Smith 1990, Barnes Jr. and 

Wilker 1998, Berns et al. 1980, Smith and Van Daele 1990). The 

small size of bear home ranges is indicative of the high quality of 

Archipelago bear habitat. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-39 

Brown bears of the Refuge usually emerge from winter dens between 

early March and late May. Adult males and single adult females 

generally are the first to emerge, followed by females with one- to 

three-year-old juveniles, subadults, and females with cubs (Smith 

1981, Smith and Van Daele 1990, Van Daele and Barnes Jr. 1990). 

Females with cubs often remain near their dens for a few weeks 

before they move to feeding areas (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1998). 

After bears emerge from dens in spring, they disperse widely to 

forage on succulent emerging forbs, sedges, and grasses on mountain 

slopes (Clark 1957). Some animals also descend to near sea level to 

feed on herbaceous vegetation, amphipods, kelp, and carrion (Barnes 

Jr. and Wilker 1998, Clark 1957). The arrival of salmon in streams 

and lakes causes an abrupt change in bear distribution and feeding 

habits. Bear use increasingly focuses in places along lowland streams 

and lake shores where salmon can be easily caught (Barnes Jr. 1990). 

Primary areas where foraging bear concentrations occur include 

Karluk Lake, Red Lake, Dog Salmon River, Aliulik Peninsula, and 

heads of bays (Barnes Jr. 1990, Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1998, Smith 

and Van Daele 1990, Troyer and Hensel 1969, USFWS 1993a, 

Wilker and Barnes 1998). Depending on the area, salmon are 

available to bears from mid-June through about mid-December. 

During a brief period between late June and early August, bears also 

congregate in alpine areas in the central and northern portions of the 

Refuge. There they feed primarily on nutrient-rich sedges and forbs 

newly emerged after the snow melts (Atwell et al. 1980, Smith and 

Van Daele 1990). 

Berries are integral seasonal components of bear diets (Clark 1957, 

Troyer and Hensel 1969). On Kodiak Island, bears begin foraging on 

salmonberries in late June. During mid July, use gradually shifts to 

elderberries—even before the crop ripens (Troyer and Hensel 1969). 

By early August, elderberry foraging tends to dominate daytime bear 

activity (Troyer and Hensel 1969), evidence of which can be readily 

observed on brushy mountain slopes. In late summer and fall, bears 

also feed on lowbush cranberry, highbush cranberry, blueberry, 

bearberry, crowberry, and devilsclub (ADF&G 2002b, Clark 1957, 

Troyer and Hensel 1969). Failure of berry crops can affect bear 

productivity, alter bear distribution, and promote confrontations with 

people (ADF&G 2002b). As local supplies of berries wane, bear 

foraging increasingly reverts to fall-run salmon and other food 

sources. Sockeye and coho salmon contribute importantly to bear 

diets prior to hibernation (Barnes Jr. 1984, 1990, Berns et al. 1980, 

Berns and Hensel 1972, Clark 1957, Smith and Van Daele 1990). 

Brown bears on the Refuge begin entering winter dens in late 

October, but some animals may not start denning until late December 

or early January (Van Daele et al. 1990). Dens have been found over 

a wide elevation range, although most occur at elevations above 

1,000 ft. Apparently, denning bears usually seek dry and cold sites 

characterized by prolonged freezing temperatures and minimal 

surface water; snow depth and directional orientation are relatively 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

unimportant. Additionally, elevation, slope grade, and duration of 

denning differ between regions of the Refuge. In the Terror River 

region, denning averages 205 days, and most sites occur in steep 

alpine habitat. In contrast, denning averages 162 days in the Karluk 

Lake region, where most sites occur on moderate to steep midelevation mountain slopes. Remarkably, some bears in the 

southwestern portion of the Refuge may not den at all (Barnes Jr. and 

Smith 1997b). Areas that appear to be particularly important for 

denning have been identified in the Terror, Uganik, Sturgeon, and 

Ayakulik-Red river drainages; in the Karluk Lake area; and at the 

headwaters of Dog Salmon Creek, Deadman Bay, and Uyak Bay 

(Barnes Jr. 1990, Barnes Jr. and Smith 1997b, Berns et al. 1980, 

Lentfer et al. 1972, Smith and Van Daele 1990, Troyer and Hensel 

1969, Van Daele and Barnes Jr. 1990). 

Kodiak brown bears have a relatively low reproductive rate, as do 

brown bears throughout the world. Females usually produce and 

wean their first litters when the sows are 6 years and 10 years, 

respectively. The average reproductive cycle is four years (Barnes Jr. 

and Smith 1992, Troyer and Hensel 1969). Breeding activity has 

been observed on Kodiak Island between May 1 and July 15; most 

cubs are born in late January or early February (Hensel et al. 1969). 

Litter size averages 2.3 cubs (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1990, Hensel et 

al. 1969, Smith and Van Daele 1990, Troyer and Hensel 1964). 

About 45 percent of the offspring survive to weaning (Barnes Jr. and 

Smith 1992). 

Management of recreational hunting is a principal component of bear 

population management. ADF&G takes the lead, in accordance with 

a 1982 memorandum of agreement with the Service. (See 

Appendix B.) ADF&G coordinates closely with the Refuge on 

decisions affecting hunting opportunities. ADF&G bear population 

objectives provide reasonable targets for sustaining a healthy bear 

population, maintaining hunting opportunities, and regulating bear 

mortality rates. These objectives include the following (ADF&G 

2002b): 

 Maintain a stable brown bear population that will sustain an 

annual harvest of 150 bears composed of at least 60 percent 

males. 

 Maintain diversity in sex and age composition of the brown bear 

population, with adult bears of all ages represented in the 

population and in the harvest. 

 Limit human-caused mortality of female brown bears to a level 

consistent with maintaining productivity. 

Regarding the last objective, ADF&G applies a guideline to maintain 

annual female mortality at or below 6 percent of bear population size 

(ADF&G 2002b). 

Recreational hunting for brown bears has been a major activity in the 

Kodiak Archipelago since the late 1940s (Van Daele 2003b) (See 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-41 

Table 3-9). Since the 1960s, the bear population has increased, 

management of recreational hunting has been refined, and harvest 

opportunities have been expanded (ADF&G 2002b). Annual 

recreation harvest in Game Management Unit (GMU) 8 (Kodiak 

Archipelago) averaged 160 bears between fall 1990 and spring 2000 

(ADF&G 2002b). Approximately 70 to 75 percent of the harvested 

bears in GMU 8 were taken on the Refuge. Males account for more 

than 68 percent of the total recreation harvest in the unit. 

A federal subsistence bear hunt, instituted in 1997, is administered 

by the Refuge. This hunt occurs on refuge lands and has afforded 

residents of six remote communities opportunities to harvest as many 

as 11 bears per year. Actual harvest has averaged two bears per year 

since hunt inception. 

Defense-of-life-or-property incidents constitute a third source of 

human-caused bear mortality in the Kodiak Archipelago. Number of 

Table 3-9 Summary of documented level and sources of 

brown bear mortality averaged by time period, Kodiak 

Archipelago, July 1, 1960–June 30, 20031

Period (average)2

Category 1960/61–

1969/70 

1970/71–

1979/80 

1980/81–

1989/90 

1990/91–

1999/2000 

2000/01–

2002/03 

Recreational Hunting 

 Males 77.0 82.8 107.0 111.1 133.5 

 Females 48.7 52.9 57.8 48.2 43.5 

 Unknown 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 

 Total 127.6 136.8 165.4 160.0 177.0 

 Males 

(%) 

60.0 61.0 65.0 69.0 75.0 

Non-recreation Related3

 Males 5.3 2.0 5.1 6.2 4.0 

 Females 4.4 3.1 8.9 7.2 3.5 

 Unknown 0.0 1.0 2.5 4.8 7.5 

 Total 9.7 6.1 16.5 18.2 15.0 

All sources 

 Males 82.3 84.8 112.1 117.3 137.5 

 Females 53.1 56.0 66.7 55.4 47.0 

 Unknown 1.9 2.1 3.1 5.5 7.5 

 Total 137.3 142.9 181.9 178.2 192.0 

1 Data source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation, Kodiak, Alaska 

2 Values averaged for ADF&G’s regulatory year (e.g., 2002-2003), defined as an 

annual period between July 1 and June 1. Recreational and subsistence bear 

hunts occur in fall and spring of each regulatory year. 

3 Includes death attributed to defense of life or property, federal subsistence 

hunting, research, and illegal take. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-42 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

defense-of-life-or-property kills, the primary source of nonrecreational mortality reported in Table 3-9, increased markedly 

from the 1960s through the 1990s. This trend was attributed to 

increased backcountry use by recreationists, especially deer hunters 

(Smith et al. 1989). Since the early 1990s, defense-of-life-orproperty mortalities attributed to hunting declined by more than 50 

percent, mainly in response to hunter education efforts, a diminished 

deer population, and reduction in deer hunting (ADF&G 2002b). 

From 1986 through 2000, defense-of-life-or-property mortalities 

averaged 11 bears per year (ADF&G 2002b), with approximately 60 

percent occurring on the Refuge. None of these defense-of-life-orproperty mortalities was associated with bear-viewing, which 

became an important visitor activity during the same period (Allen 

and Collins 2002). 

To monitor status of Kodiak brown bears, understand their habitat 

needs, and clarify management concerns, the Refuge has a history of 

collaboration with ADF&G and the Alaska Science Center. The 

primary means of monitoring bear population status on the Refuge 

has been intensive aerial surveys, which were collaboratively 

developed by the Refuge, the Alaska Science Center, and ADF&G 

(Barnes Jr. and Smith 1998). The surveys are flown over six survey 

units, which were selected through knowledge of bear distribution 

and movements based on observations, harvest records, and 

radiotelemetry. Each year the Refuge works with ADF&G to 

complete a survey of one of the survey units. Units are surveyed on a 

rotating basis, which may be altered to accommodate special 

management concerns. Survey results are used to guide ADF&G 

harvest allocations and refuge land management decisions. The 

secondary means of monitoring the Kodiak brown bear population is 

monitoring of harvest and defense-of-life-or-property mortality. The 

Refuge works with ADF&G to monitor all recreation, subsistence, 

defense-of-life-or-property mortalities, and illegal harvest of bears. 

Since 1983, the Refuge has annually monitored summer bear use 

along a standard set of streams on southwestern Kodiak Island. Data, 

collected via repeated aerial surveys, are used to estimate regional 

bear population composition (percentage of singles, maternal 

females, cub by age class). Evaluation of composition trends 

provides a basis for understanding trends in reproductive success and 

cub survival (Barnes Jr. and Smith 1990). A persistent and major 

change in these parameters, potentially triggered by major change in 

food supply, could affect population size and potentially require 

adjustment in hunter harvest rates. In recent years, a modified survey 

of selected areas of the Karluk Lake Basin (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 

1998) has provided site-specific monitoring of bear abundance. 

Results have been used to determine how changes in visitor 

management influence bear abundance (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 2000). 

River Otter. River otter are found throughout the Refuge in suitable 

habitat, which includes coastal areas from Bluefox Bay on Afognak 

Island to Olga Bay on the southern and eastern sides of Kodiak 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-43 

Island. The Refuge’s population density is known only from trapping 

records; this does not constitute a complete census for all possible 

habitat types. Areas with good access near saltwater bays have the 

greatest reported abundance. Because they are highly sought after for 

their pelts, river otter are the furbearer on the Refuge most 

susceptible to trapping pressure. 

Red Fox. Found in all its color phases, this species is common 

throughout the Refuge. Observations in the field and reports indicate 

stable fox populations. Red fox is sought on the Island for its durable 

pelts and may be taken by both traps and gun on Kodiak Island. 

Little Brown Bat. The little brown bat enjoys one of the widest 

distributions of land mammals in North America, ranging from 

Fairbanks to central Quebec, and south into central Mexico. 

Throughout their range, little brown bats play an important ecological 

role because they eat their own weight in insects (primarily 

mosquitoes, small flies, and moths) nightly. Little brown bats, unlike 

similarly sized mammals, have a very low reproductive rate because 

adult females typically produce a single pup each summer. Although 

little brown bats are known to inhabit lowland coniferous and 

deciduous forest and woodlands on major islands in the Archipelago, 

essentially nothing is known of their habits, and no efforts have been 

made to monitor their distribution or status. Colonies of little brown 

bats use cabins and abandoned structures on the Refuge. 

Nonnative Land Mammals

Thirteen species of nonnative land mammals were deliberately 

introduced to the Kodiak Archipelago during the 20th century. Nine 

species established populations, including: Sitka black-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos 

americanus), Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), reindeer 

(Rangifer tarandus), beaver (Castor canadensis), red squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), 

muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), and marten (Martes americana) (see 

Table 3-10). Limited populations of arctic ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus parryii) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) also 

were established during the historic period. Ground squirrels are 

known to occur on Ugak Island and in the vicinity of the state airport 

in Kodiak. Rats are known to occur in the City of Kodiak. 

Among introduced game species, seven established substantial 

populations that occupy large portions of the Archipelago. In 

particular, Sitka black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, mountain goat, and 

snowshoe hare are highly valued by recreation and subsistence 

hunters. Because of their cultural and traditional use among rural 

residents of the Archipelago, Sitka black-tailed deer (ADF&G 1992), 

Roosevelt elk (USFWS 1997a), and snowshoe hare have been 

determined to be subsistence species by the Federal Subsistence 

Board and ADF&G. All goat hunting occurs under state regulations, 

recently modified by the Alaska Board of Game in response to 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-44 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-10 History of mammal species introduction to Kodiak 

Archipelago 

Species Year 

Introduced 

Release 

Location 

Population 

Status 

Beaver 1925, 1929 Northeastern 

Kodiak and 

Raspberry 

islands 

Widespread and 

common 

Roosevelt elk 1929 Afognak 

Island 

740–860 in 2002 

Marten 1924 Afognak 

Island 

Small population 

Mountain goat 1952, 1953 Kodiak Island Estimated at more 

than 1,500 in 2003 

Muskrat 1929 Long Island Not known on 

refuge lands 

Red squirrel 1952 Afognak and 

Kodiak 

islands 

Common in 

forested areas 

Reindeer 1924 Kodiak Island 250–300 limited to 

the southern end of 

Kodiak Island 

Sitka black-tailed 

deer 

1924, 1930, 

1934 

Long and 

Kodiak 

islands 

Widespread and 

common 

Snowshoe hare 1934 Afognak and 

Kodiak 

islands 

Widespread and 

common 

Sources: Burris and McKnight (1973, pp. 52–57); Stovall (2000a); Van Daele 

and Crye (2002); Van Daele (2003c) 

recommendations crafted by the local state and federal advisory 

groups working together (USFWS 2003). Maintaining sustainable 

populations of these species is important to residents of the 

Archipelago and the Refuge. 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer. Sitka black-tailed deer were first introduced 

in the Kodiak Island area in 1924 when a small release was made on 

Long Island (four miles east of the City of Kodiak). The highly 

successful spread of deer on Kodiak Island apparently started with 

the introduction of nine deer to the Broad Point area in 1934 (Burris 

and McKnight 1973). Until the early 1960s, deer were found mainly 

in the Sitka spruce forest areas on the northeastern portion of the 

Island (Batchelor 1968); since then, however, deer have expanded 

their range throughout the Kodiak Archipelago. 

Major declines in the deer population, the result of a high incidence 

of starvation due to severe cold weather and heavy snows, have 

occurred approximately every 10 years since the winter of 1969-

1970. The most recent die-off occurred during the winter of 1998-
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-45 

1999. In contrast, intervening periods were characterized by 

moderate to high winter survival and population increases. During 

the 1980s, shortly after deer colonized all of Kodiak Island, the 

population apparently peaked at more than 100,000 animals (Smith 

1989). Current population is estimated at 60,000 deer for the 

Archipelago (Van Daele 2004b). 

Deer seasonally occupy virtually all habitats, from sea level to alpine 

areas. The highest densities of deer on the Refuge occur in grassbrush vegetation because of the variety and abundance of food and 

cover found in these areas (Smith 1979). Deer are primarily found at 

low elevations during the fall, winter, and spring. A large portion of 

the population uses the higher-elevation subalpine areas during midsummer and early fall. Southerly exposed hillsides, bluffs, capes, and 

beaches that receive winter sun are favored feeding and foraging 

sites for deer during winter (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990). 

Deer feeding in alpine and subalpine areas probably use fireweed as 

their primary food and browse red elderberry, Nootka rose, 

salmonberry, cow parsnip, reedgrass, and hairgrass to a lesser extent 

(Merriam 1964). Smith (1979) and Selinger (1995) observed that red 

elderberry and highbush cranberry were preferred foods of deer on 

Kodiak Island. A decline in highbush cranberry has been reported by 

local residents in the vicinity of Uganik Bay after deer moved into 

the area. During the 1980s and 1990s, highbush cranberry apparently 

disappeared throughout much of its range on Kodiak (USFWS 

2000). This has been attributed to deer and other nonnative browsers 

such as snowshoe hares (USFWS 2000). 

Deer hunting for subsistence and recreation on Kodiak Island is very 

popular. Most hunting is limited to a one- to two-mile coastal band 

because of easier access. Public use cabins provide other centers of 

hunting. Journal entries written by cabin users indicate that deer 

observations tend to increase or decrease depending on hunting 

pressure. Deer harvest is thought to decrease the number of deer that 

succumb to winter starvation (Van Daele 2001b). Average estimated 

annual deer harvest from 1989 through 1999 was 8,340 animals on 

the Kodiak Archipelago (Van Daele 2001b). As deer populations 

fluctuate over time, changes in harvest levels, introduction or 

removal of gender hunts, or other management techniques may be 

adopted by the Alaska Board of Game to maintain the deer 

population. 

Bear predation is not believed to be a significant limiting factor on 

deer. There are few recorded incidents of brown bear predation on 

deer in the Kodiak area, although some predation undoubtedly 

occurs. 

Annual deer mortality surveys have been completed within key 

wintering areas since 1992. Primary survey areas included Chief 

Cove, Olga Bay, and Sitkalidak Strait on Kodiak Island. These areas 

were chosen based on deer concentrations observed during winter 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-46 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

aerial coastal surveys (Stovall 2000b). These surveys along with 

monitoring winter weather conditions do not provide direct estimates 

of deer population trends, but do provide basic understanding on 

extent and pattern of winter mortality. Between 1997 and 2001, deer 

browse surveys were conducted within these same wintering areas. 

Survey results indicated deer browse preferences for elderberry, 

blueberry, and willow. Fluctuation in intensity of browsing 

apparently corresponded with regional winter conditions and size of 

the wintering deer population (Stovall 2000b). 

Reindeer. Thirty-two reindeer were introduced to Kodiak Island in 

1924 for husbandry purposes. The animals were actively herded until 

the late 1930s, when they escaped and were never rounded up. That 

herd was approximately 1,500 animals. The herd has now declined to 

an estimated 200 to 400 animals distributed in heathland, muskeg, 

and grassland on southwestern Kodiak Island. Although the 

population declined, perhaps because of disease or poor range 

conditions, they are presently considered stable. The state has a yearround, no-bag-limit hunt for these feral reindeer. Hunting pressure is 

very light, however, primarily due to problems with access to the 

scattered reindeer herds. Reindeer harvest averages five to 

10 animals per year. 

Roosevelt Elk. Roosevelt elk were transplanted to Afognak Island in 

1929, and hunting for this species began in 1950 (Burris and 

McKnight 1973). The present population on Afognak and 

surrounding islands has averaged from 900 to 1,500 animals over the 

last 10 years. The number of elk harvested annually ranges between 

80 and 120 animals (Van Daele and Crye 2002). The Waterfall Herd, 

which averages 180 to 250 animals, uses the Afognak (Red Peaks) 

portion of the Refuge, primarily in summer. The average number of 

elk harvested from the Waterfall Herd is eight to 12 animals. 

Currently, ADF&G biologists are conducting studies of elk to assess 

population composition, seasonal movements, and habitat use. Elk 

are occasionally sighted on Kodiak Island; however, no wild herds 

have become established. 

Mountain Goat. Originally introduced outside the refuge boundary 

in the early 1950s, mountain goat populations have gradually 

expanded into suitable refuge habitats (Burris and McKnight 1973). 

Small bands have been seen as far west and south as Ayakulik River 

and the Aliulik Peninsula. The total population for Kodiak Island is 

currently estimated at 1,500 animals (Van Daele 2004b), with about 

50 percent occurring within the Refuge. Most of these animals 

inhabit the mountainous northeastern half of the Island; however, the 

population of goats found on the southern half of Kodiak Island is 

increasing. Aerial surveys of alpine goat composition are done 

annually by ADF&G both on and off the Refuge. 

Beaver. Originally introduced in 1925, beaver are now common 

throughout the Kodiak Archipelago (Burris and McKnight 1973). 

Beaver impoundments have significantly modified some aquatic and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-47 

riparian habitats on southwestern Kodiak Island by flooding. These 

impoundments apparently provide additional waterfowl and coho 

salmon rearing habitat, but some beaver dams may disrupt 

movements of adult salmon into small tributary streams. Though the 

net effect of this change is unknown, it is not believed to be 

significant in most areas. 

Marine Mammals

Productive marine environments provide important habitat to marine 

mammals in the Kodiak Archipelago. The refuge land base 

contributes to this productivity by supplying nutrients to rivers, 

estuaries, and the ocean. In turn, these nutrients form a foundation 

for the marine food web. Nutrients used by marine-dwelling 

plankton, invertebrates, and forage fish transfer up the food chain, 

ultimately sustaining a diversity of marine mammals, including sea 

otters, seals, porpoises, and whales. 

The Refuge’s specific responsibilities for marine mammals are 

limited primarily to sea otters. Kodiak Refuge has no jurisdiction 

over sea otter habitat, which typically occurs in exposed, nearshore 

ocean environments. However, the Service is charged to manage sea 

otter populations, as directed in the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

of 1973. Consequently, the Service established a Marine Mammal 

Management division to direct sea otter management in Alaska. 

Kodiak Refuge contributes to management by providing staff and 

logistical support for outreach, monitoring, and research. 

Sea Otters. Sea otters were hunted to near extinction throughout their 

range during the commercial fur harvests of the 1700s to early 

1900s. In 1911, sea otters were protected from further commercial 

harvest under the International Fur Seal Treaty. A remnant colony of 

sea otters was located in the Kodiak Archipelago near Shuyak Island 

and Latex Rocks. The sea otter population in this region slowly 

expanded; currently all waters around major islands in the 

Archipelago are occupied. Range expansion is still occurring around 

Kodiak Island. 

Today, sea otters occur primarily around Shuyak, Afognak, and 

Raspberry islands and near northern and western portions of Kodiak 

Island. Large numbers of otters use Paramanof and Foul bays 

adjacent to the Afognak Island unit of the Refuge. Service surveys 

have shown that sea otters have reoccupied portions of their former 

range along the northwestern side of Kodiak Island as far south as 

Uyak Bay. Approximately 200 sea otters have been observed in each 

major bay in this area. Sea otter population trend data from Uyak and 

Uganik bays have been collected (incidental to sea bird surveys) by 

the Refuge since the 1980s. The trend data are complicated by 

factors such as active population range expansion into the study area 

in the early 1980s and by unquantified Native subsistence harvest of 

sea otters in the study area. Marking, tagging, and reporting of 

subsistence harvest of sea otters was not initiated until fall 1989. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-48 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

In the mid-1980s, the sea otter population in the area of northern 

Kodiak Island was rapidly expanding and exhibited high survival and 

recruitment rates. Extensive food resources, predominately bivalves, 

were present throughout the region. Population range expansion was 

expected to continue in waters around Kodiak Island. Systematic 

surveys conducted since the late 1980s indicated that the 

Archipelago sea otter population declined 56 percent, from a peak of 

13,526 animals counted in 1989 to 5,893 animals counted in 2001. 

During the same period, population surveys indicated severe decline 

of sea otter populations in the western Alaska Peninsula and 

Aleutians (USFWS 2002). Consequently, the southwestern Alaska 

population of the northern sea otter, which includes the Kodiak 

Archipelago population, was listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, 70:46365–46385, August 

9, 2005; effective on September 8, 2005). 

Seals. Harbor seals are common throughout Kodiak Archipelago 

with most of the major bay systems supporting resident harbor seal 

colonies of 80 to 100 seals year-round. They seasonally use a limited 

amount of lagoon and estuary habitat included within the refuge 

boundary. 

Threatened and Endangered Species—Plants and Animals

Endangered humpback, sei, northern right, and fin whales occur in 

marine waters off the Refuge. In 1998, Steller sea lions were 

classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Several 

known Steller sea lion haulouts are located along the Refuge’s 

coastline. Endangered short-tailed albatross are occasionally 

observed in offshore marine waters adjacent to the Refuge. Steller’s 

eider, a federally threatened sea duck species, is commonly found in 

nearshore coastal waters adjacent to the Refuge. In 2005, the 

southwestern Alaska population of the northern sea otter was listed 

as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Kittlitz’s 

murrelet, a small seabird that breeds along the coastline and nests at 

very low densities in the high alpine regions of the Refuge, is 

identified as a candidate species2 for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, 69:24876–24904, May 4, 

2004). No other endangered, threatened, or candidate species are 

known to occur on the Refuge. 

3.2.3 Concerns Regarding Fish and Wildlife Populations 

and Habitats 

The fish and wildlife populations and habitats discussed in this 

section have been identified by the public or by refuge staff as being 

of particular concern to the continued health of the Refuge and the 

resources it supports. 

 

2

A candidate species is one for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication 

of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-49 

Bear Concentration Areas

Bears use areas where they are best able to meet their basic 

requirements of feeding and reproduction. For management 

purposes, the Refuge defines “bear concentration areas” as discrete 

places where substantial numbers of brown bears seasonally 

congregate (USFWS 1993b). These areas vary in location, size, and 

seasonal use. Denning areas are used from October through late-May 

(Van Daele and Barnes Jr. 1990). Berry, forb, and sedge feeding 

areas—ranging from coastal flats to alpine slopes—are used during 

their prime growing seasons (ADF&G 2002b, Atwell et al. 1980). 

Streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries are used during salmon runs 

(Barnes Jr. 1990, Smith and Van Daele 1990). Seaside beaches are 

used when deer congregate near them (when beach-cast kelp is 

plentiful) or when marine mammal carcasses are present (Barnes Jr. 

and Smith 1997b). 

The need to protect bear concentration areas varies by the degree to 

which human access and use of these areas coincides with bear use. 

On Kodiak Refuge, managers are most concerned about bear 

concentration areas that can be readily accessed by floatplane, boat, 

or snowmachine (ADF&G 2002b, USFWS 1993b). While accessible 

feeding-concentration areas occur in several places, accessible 

denning areas are presently limited to highlands in the Terror River 

vicinity. 

Areas used by feeding bears could potentially provide refuge visitors 

with outstanding opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. These recreation uses, however, may occur at the 

expense of a concentration area’s bears if not carefully managed 

(ADF&G 2002b, Wilker and Barnes 1998). Primary management 

concerns consist of the potential for unrestricted public use to 

diminish quality of bear habitat by persistently displacing bears, 

reducing bear use levels, and diminishing bear foraging efficiency 

(USFWS 1993b). 

This concern is based on the collective role these areas apparently 

play in bear survival (Craighead et al. 1995, Hilderbrand et al. 1999) 

and on studies that describe relative impact of different visitor 

management strategies (Aumiller and Matt 1994, Sellers and 

Aumiller 1994, Wilker and Barnes 1998). For example, Wilker and 

Barnes (1998) evaluated response of bears to two management 

strategies (unrestricted public access and managed bear-viewing) at 

O’Malley River on the Refuge from 1991 through 1994. Unrestricted 

public access—consisting of a mixture of hiking, viewing, 

photography, and fishing occurring at different times and places—

displaced bears. In contrast, bear use recovered after methods, 

timing, and distribution of visitor activity were limited under 

managed bear-viewing. A similar response was documented at 

McNeil River, Alaska (Aumiller and Matt 1994, Sellers and 

Aumiller 1994). Use of the McNeil area by single adult bears 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-50 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

progressively increased after management limited methods, timing, 

and distribution of camping, hiking, and viewing in the early 1970s. 

Visitor activity newly introduced to a concentration area can initially 

disturb and displace bears unaccustomed to it (Barnes Jr. 2004). 

Bears that encounter such activity stop their normal activity pattern 

and move away from the disturbance source (Wilker and Barnes 

1998). Gradually, most bears resume normal activity upon 

habituating to a routine, predictable pattern of visitor activity (Barnes 

Jr. and Wilker 1998, Sellers and Aumiller 1994). Conversely, most 

bears will not habituate to irregularly timed and inconsistently 

distributed visitor activity (Wilker and Barnes 1998). Instead, they 

are displaced, which leads to localized reduction in bear use and 

abundance (Wilker and Barnes 1998). 

Apparently, some bears inherently avoid people—regardless of their 

experience with them. This is especially true of adult males, who 

may be intolerant of other bears during the nonbreeding season 

(Mattson et al. 1987; Olson et al. 1997). Such intolerant bears 

apparently shift their activity to times when visitors are absent or 

move to another feeding area (Olson et al. 1997; Sellers and 

Aumiller 1994; Warner 1987). Bears driven away from preferred 

feeding areas can incur nutritional stress, increased competition, 

reduced productivity, and diminished survival (Craighead et al.

1995; Hilderbrand et al. 1999). 

Overnight camping can be particularly problematic in bear 

concentration areas. Occurrence of moderate to high bear densities 

vastly increases probability of bear–human encounters and the 

potential for conflict. Curious bears may seek the source of food and 

garbage smells around camps. Any human food, garbage, or 

harvested fish and game obtained by curious bears act as a reward to 

the bear and compels it to actively seek additional camps and further 

rewards. When this happens, a bear may exhibit persistent aggressive 

behavior, which is especially difficult to deter, poses potential danger 

to visitors, and often results in death of the offending animal 

(Herrero 2002). Consequently, managers of accessible concentration 

areas often prohibit camping in order to lower the risk to bears, 

humans, and their property (Herrero 2002, Walker 2002). 

Visitor activity in areas of concentrated denning can harm bears. 

Jonkel (1980) attributed den abandonment to snowmachine 

disturbance and foot traffic. Reynolds et al. (1987) reported 

abandonment of dens and newborn cubs due to operation of seismic 

equipment and helicopters near dens. 

On Kodiak Island, studies documented concentrated denning, 

primarily by adult females, in two areas in the Terror Lake vicinity 

(Van Daele and Barnes Jr. 1990). In response to concern about 

accessibility to snowmachines and vulnerability to impact, the 

Refuge recommended seasonal closure of these areas in the 1990s 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-51 

(USFWS 1993b). Further analysis suggests that accessibility and 

vulnerability differ between areas (Van Daele 2004a). 

At Den Mountain, most bears excavate dens on relatively open and 

steep upper mountain slopes (Van Daele and V.G. Barnes Jr. 1990). 

This area is vulnerable to disturbance for the following reasons (Van 

Daele 2004a): 

 It occurs close to places traditionally accessed by snowmachine 

operators along western Kizhuyak Bay. 

 Gentle and moderate terrain affords operators a relatively 

unfettered opportunity to travel between the bay and mountain 

when suitable snow cover exists. 

 Operators can, once they reach the mountain, readily access 

open, moderate slopes immediately below prime denning habitat. 

 Operators interested in high-marking can penetrate this habitat. 

In contrast, denning habitat at Baumann Creek is situated mainly on 

steep, rocky canyon slopes. This habitat is relatively impervious to 

snowmachine access because of surrounding physical barriers such 

as cliffs. 

Bear Viewing

Bear-viewing—observing wild bears in their natural habitat—is an 

increasingly important recreation activity on the Refuge. Viewing of 

Kodiak brown bears ranges from distant viewing of unhabituated 

bears to close-range viewing of habituated bears. Guided, shortduration (three-hour observation time), close-range viewing is the 

primary venue (Allen and Collins 2002). However, some people 

prefer extended trips where they camp off-site and spend several 

days viewing bears for six to eight hours per day (Walker 2002). 

Bear-viewing was the subject that commanded the greatest interest 

and debate in the development of the Kodiak Archipelago Bear 

Conservation and Management Plan (ADF&G 2002b). This debate 

focused on the means of managing accessible bear concentration 

areas for viewing and other wildlife-dependent recreation uses. 

The Refuge has several concerns with bear-viewing. First, it is 

concerned with bear disturbance and displacement. Evidence 

indicates that bears are least disturbed and displaced in concentration 

areas where they gradually habituate to routine, predictable human 

activity (Wilker and Barnes 1998). Conversely, an uncoordinated 

mixture of human activities (e.g., viewing, hiking, fishing, and 

camping occurring at different times and places) can cause bear 

disturbance, displacement, and localized reduction in bear use and 

abundance (Sellers and Aumiller 1994, Wilker and Barnes 1998). To 

minimize these impacts, land-management agencies and commercial 

guides have in some places successfully applied a combination of 

guidelines and restrictions to promote responsible conduct and to 

limit type, timing, and distribution of visitor activity (ADF&G and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-52 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

NPS 2003; Walker 2002). This is not to imply, however, that people 

and bear-viewing can be successfully managed everywhere. 

Second, the Refuge is concerned about the safety of visitors and 

bears (USFWS 1993b). Some concentration areas of the Refuge 

support 50 to 80 bears per square mile of river bottom (USFWS 

n.d.). Anyone traveling in such areas would likely encounter 

numerous bears. Consequently, safe maneuvering would require 

careful advance planning and preparation; knowledge of terrain, 

cover, bear habits, and bear behavior; and acute awareness, good 

judgment, and honed skill to avoid surprise bear encounters and to 

deter curious or aggressive bears (ADF&G and NPS 2003, Brown 

1996, Shelton 1994). Some unguided visitors may have the 

appropriate experience and attitude to safely navigate a bear 

concentration area; most, however, may not. 

The mere presence of humans in this type of area is likely to displace 

some bears, and ill-advised, inexperienced, or uninformed actions by 

an individual or group can also displace bears (Wilker and Barnes 

1998). In the most extreme case, it may result in human injury or 

death of a bear (Smith et al. 1989, Wilker and Barnes 1998). Thus, 

the Refuge’s challenge is to determine which standard and sitespecific management measures would best promote consistently 

responsible, safe, and compatible conduct by guided and unguided 

users of accessible concentration areas—all of which differ in local 

geography and bear distribution. While human use may be possible 

in some areas at some times, it may not be compatible in other areas. 

Third, the Refuge is concerned about bear habituation. Habituation 

behavior tends to develop in coastal brown bears where they 

regularly and predictably encounter non-threatening human activity 

(ADF&G 2002b). Such neutrally habituated bears, accustomed as 

they are to interaction with other bears at feeding sites, tend to ignore 

close-range human activity so long as it conforms to their previous 

non-threatening experience and does not violate their personal space. 

Development and maintenance of this type of behavior consistently 

requires that bears are neither rewarded nor threatened by visitor 

encounters. In contrast, bears that inadvertently acquire human food 

or garbage learn to associate people, their facilities, or activities as 

sources of food. Repeated acquisition success re-enforces learning 

and promotes aggressive behavior, which can be hazardous to 

people. 

Occurrence of neutral habituation enables people to routinely view 

bears from a 10-yard range at Frazer fish pass, located on the Dog 

Salmon River. It also enables people and bears to share estuaries and 

rivers for fishing. Many more bears would be persistently displaced 

by human activities on the Refuge if they did not neutrally habituate 

to them. Whereas offspring of habituated females are prone to 

habituate (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1998), adult males apparently are 

not (Mattson et al. 1987, Olson et al. 1997). Consequently, some 

adult males could be displaced from places they frequent to travel, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-53 

feed, and rest if bear-viewing and other visitor activities become 

established in these places. This potential impact could possibly be 

mitigated by (1) identifying places and time periods used by adult 

male bears, and (2) instituting management practices geared to 

prevent, minimize, or eliminate human activity in these areas. 

Presently, harvest risk to habituated bears is considered low because 

relatively few bears are habituated at a few refuge locations, most 

bears shift habitat use between seasons, hunting harvest policy is 

highly conservative, mostly adult males are harvested, and females 

accompanied by young cannot be harvested (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 

2002). 

The Service expects future increase in recreational fishing and bearviewing use would increase levels of bear habituation on the Refuge. 

Presently, the level of bear habituation in most bear concentration 

areas is considered low due to access restrictions on commercial 

operators and limited demand for bear-viewing (Allen and Collins 

2002). However, the public has requested changing access 

restrictions (ADF&G 2002b), and public use may expand in other 

areas where it has not been restricted. Should access rules change or 

level of human activity increase in some of these areas, most bears 

would habituate after initial disturbance and displacement (Barnes Jr. 

and Wilker 2002), while a few others would not (Sellers and 

Aumiller 1994). Scope of disturbance, displacement, and habituation 

would correspond to the scope and consistency of human activity 

within the concentration area. Such tradeoffs are being carefully 

weighed to determine which strategies best comply with bear lifecycle requirements, refuge purposes, and public interest. 

Effects of Introduced Species on Kodiak Refuge Habitats

The Kodiak Archipelago is considered by some to be the largest 

intact island ecosystem in the United States. Native habitats 

dominate the landscape. Native salmon, bear, and other wildlife of 

cultural importance are relatively abundant, and ecosystem processes 

are assumed to be functioning within the historic range of variability. 

Nonetheless, the Archipelago has a long history of plant and animal 

introductions. Nine mammal species were successfully introduced to 

the Kodiak Archipelago in the 1900s to enhance subsistence and 

recreation opportunities. 

In the past 80 years, humans have introduced mammal species that 

have established viable populations in the Kodiak Archipelago, 

including Kodiak Refuge. Successfully established species include 

beaver, muskrat, red squirrel, pine marten, mountain goat, Roosevelt 

elk, reindeer, snowshoe hare, and Sitka black-tailed deer. Today, 

deer, elk, goat, and hare are extensively harvested by local 

subsistence hunters. These species also attract recreational hunters 

from around the region. Combined subsistence and recreational 

hunting activities constitute a primary seasonal use of the Refuge by 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-54 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the public. We acknowledge the importance of these uses and plan to 

provide for their continued occurrence. 

At the same time, we have serious concerns. As most of the species 

introduced to the Refuge subsist on native vegetation, concentrated 

and consistent foraging by them could have unintended effects. For 

instance, beaver could extensively affect aquatic and streamside 

habitat composition through damming of low gradient streams and 

removal of adjacent streamside shrubs for food. Concentrated 

grazing and wallowing by mountain goats could influence erosion 

potential and composition of native plant communities on lowland 

winter and highland summer ranges (Schreiner and Woodward 1994, 

Spencer 2005). Grazing or browsing by one or more species, such as 

deer, elk, and snowshoe hare could affect recruitment, abundance, 

and distribution of preferred forb, graminoid, shrub, and tree species 

in upland and riparian areas of lower elevations (USFWS 2000). Red 

elderberry, a native shrub widely distributed on Kodiak Island, 

apparently is a preferred food of deer (Selinger 1995, Stovall 2000a) 

Extensive deer use of elderberry could reduce habitat quality for 

Kodiak brown bears because they also prefer and rely on it (Troyer 

and Hensel 1969). To address our concerns, additional studies are 

proposed under the goals and objectives (Chapter 2, Section 2.1) to 

ascertain the potential impacts and recommend management 

strategies for selected non-native fauna of the Refuge. 

Expansion of Introduced Elk to Kodiak Island

Biologists and managers are concerned that Roosevelt elk from 

Afognak Island may eventually become established on Kodiak Island 

and on the Refuge. Such establishment would conflict with the 

Service’s biological integrity policy, possibly increase forage 

competition with bears, and potentially increase conflicts between 

elk hunters and bears. The biological integrity policy requires the 

Refuge to maintain natural processes, which does not include the 

influence of elk on Kodiak Island. 

Sustained extensive browsing by large deer and elk populations 

could reduce availability of berry-producing shrubs preferred by 

bears. Anecdotal information suggests that highbush cranberry has 

already been eliminated from much of the Refuge because of 

overbrowsing by deer. For example, this has been reported in the 

Zachar drainage as having occurred since 1973 (Braendel 2003). 

Hunter-bear conflicts could increase, primarily because some hunters 

may contest bears that lay claim on a harvested elk or elk meat 

cached near their camps. Such confrontations are a cause of defenseof-life-or-property bear kills in the Kodiak Archipelago (Smith et al.

1989). For example, of 25 defense-of-life-or-property kills recorded 

on Afognak Island since 1980, 17 (68 percent) were hunter-related 

and five of these involved elk hunters (Van Daele 2003a). 

Current policies of ADF&G reduce the possibility of elk 

establishment on Kodiak Island. Specifically, it is not encouraging 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-55 

establishment of and has no plan to introduce elk on Kodiak Island; 

further, by maintaining a highly liberal elk hunting regulation to 

minimize elk survival should they attempt colonization, ADF&G is 

not managing for sustained yield (Van Daele 2004a). 

Invasive Plants and Invertebrates

Although concerns regarding introduced mammals on the Kodiak 

Archipelago have taken center stage in the last few years, there is 

also growing concern that invasive plants and invertebrates may 

colonize the Archipelago. Orange hawkweed (Hieracium 

aurantiacum), which is native to Europe, commonly occurs in the 

vicinity of Port Lions and the City of Kodiak. Recently, orange 

hawkweed was found on Camp Island, a frequently visited place in 

the refuge interior. In response, the Refuge initiated inventory and 

eradication efforts at Camp Island. Hawkweed and other invasive 

plants pose the same type of threat at other frequently visited uplands 

used for recreation, subsistence, and refuge administration. Because 

accidental introduction of invasive plants is highly probable, the 

Refuge needs to institute surveillance efforts and take appropriate 

control action when they are found. 

Invasive invertebrates are not known to occur on Kodiak Refuge. 

However, they could wreak ecological and economic havoc if they 

colonized salmon-bearing streams, rivers, and lakes. Examples of 

problems encountered elsewhere include the zebra mussel in the 

Great Lakes and the New Zealand mud snail in Yellowstone 

National Park. Apparently mud snails were inadvertently introduced 

via imported mud dried on a visiting angler’s waders. This same 

invasive transport mechanism could occur at Kodiak Refuge. 

Consequently, the Refuge and its partners need to advise visitors of 

the threat and recommend practices to prevent accidental 

invertebrate introductions. 

Coastal Resource Management 

Coastal areas of the Kodiak Archipelago provide key habitat to a 

range of culturally valued, economically important, and 

environmentally sensitive fish and wildlife species. Sustaining 

healthy coastal habitat in the Kodiak Archipelago is a goal of many 

organizations including the Service. The Service’s concern, as 

framed here, regards the potential influence of future development 

on important functions, values, and services afforded by coastal fish 

and wildlife populations and their habitats. Potential for future 

impact is greatest for (1) animals such as salmon, sea otters, eagles, 

and bears whose survival depends on healthy nearshore marine, 

intertidal, and adjacent upland habitats; and (2) habitats such as 

estuaries and reefs that provide essential food and shelter for many 

fish and wildlife species. 

Since Euro-American settlement, potential for impact has increased 

because industrial, commercial, and residential uses continue to 

expand along the Kodiak coast. Species may be indirectly affected 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-56 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

by cumulative effects of increased human activity and small-scale 

development such as boat harbors or lodge development. Species 

also may be directly affected, as exemplified by results of the 1989 

Exxon Valdez oil spill. This spill had significant impacts on 

populations and habitat of culturally valued and environmentally 

sensitive species, including pink salmon, chum salmon, harlequin 

duck, common murre, marbled murrelet, pigeon guillemot, black 

oystercatcher, bald eagle, sea otter, and river otter. Because pre-spill 

values were documented, funds for mitigating oil spill damage were 

obtained from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. This 

important, positive outcome is attributed to ongoing documentation 

and monitoring of resources by the Refuge and other organizations. 

Consequently, continued documentation and monitoring will provide 

an effective basis for future conservation and management of coastal 

resources. 

Sea Otters

One of the purposes for establishment of the Kodiak Refuge is to 

conserve and protect fish and wildlife populations, including sea 

otters. Sea otter populations in the Kodiak Archipelago have 

declined substantially since 1989. The cause(s) of the downward 

trend are unknown. In the Aleutian Islands and elsewhere, there has 

been an increase in observations of killer whales (orcas) near sea 

otters. A current hypothesis is that predation by killer whales is a 

major contributing factor to the observed sea otter declines. 

Presumably, killer whales have switched from their more common 

prey to sea otters following large-scale decreases of harbor seal and 

Steller sea lion populations. Other contributing factors—such as sea 

otter habitat quality, contaminants, health, and additive sources of 

mortality—need to be assessed in the Kodiak Archipelago. 

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Service is required to 

prepare population assessment reports on population status and trend, 

to estimate annual human-caused mortality and to describe 

commercial fishery interactions with marine mammals. In the 2002 

assessments for the northern sea otter, the Service identified three 

population stocks in Alaska (southeast, southcentral, and southwest). 

The southwest population includes Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska 

Peninsula, and Aleutian Islands. Population surveys of sea otters 

conducted in 2000 and 2001 indicate drastic declines in sea otter 

abundance in the majority of the southwest Alaska population. In 

2000, the Service designated sea otters in the Aleutian Islands as a 

candidate species under the Endangered Species Act; the designation 

was revised in June 2002 to include all of the southwest Alaska 

population. The Service published a final rule in the Federal Register

(70:46,365–46,385, August 9, 2005; effective on September 8, 2005) 

listing the southwest Alaska sea otter population as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act. The Service continues to 

work with partners to evaluate the impacts of human activity and 

development on sea otters in order to mitigate stress on the southwest 

Alaska population. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-57 

Karluk Habitat Protection Agreement

In 2002, Koniag, Inc., the Service, and the State of Alaska signed a 

Master Agreement for the Protection of Certain Lands and Resources 

that will govern use of nearly 57,000 acres of land owned by Koniag, 

Inc., in the Karluk and Sturgeon river drainages. These lands support 

essential habitat for world-class populations of salmonids and 

Kodiak brown bear, and they provide for important recreational, 

economic, and cultural uses. The Master Agreement provides the 

Refuge with a 10-year easement to manage the land and a 10-year 

extension option. It also limits development by Koniag, Inc., 

increases opportunities for wildlife-dependent public uses, and 

strengthens collaboration among Koniag, Inc., the Service, and 

ADF&G. 

Under the Master Agreement—which is funded by the Exxon Valdez 

Oil Spill Trustee Council—Koniag, Inc., is paid to refrain from 

developing most of the easement lands and to permit regulated costfree public access. Additionally, Koniag, Inc., will continue to 

manage commercial uses (e.g., cabin rentals and guiding) on the 

easement lands within one-half mile of the Karluk River and 

lakeshore. Koniag, Inc., also retains its right to manage most public 

use, including bear-viewing, adjacent to Thumb River, and to expand 

an existing lodge on Camp Island. 

Primary concerns related to the Master Agreement include the 

importance of resource values and public uses, potential for 

significant increase in public use, and uncertainty associated with the 

types of management practices that sustain resource values while 

compatibly accommodating increased public use. To address these 

concerns, the Master Agreement directs the Refuge to initiate 

cooperative studies. Study proposals submitted in winter 2002 

involved evaluating economic, recreation, wildlife, and fishery 

values and uses of easement lands. Findings from these studies 

would be applied in public use guidelines and operating standards for 

a permit system. 

3.3 Human 

Environment 

This section describes social, cultural, and economic conditions on 

lands and waters affected by management of the Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. The purpose is twofold: to acquaint readers with 

human uses and values associated with the Refuge; and to provide 

baseline information from which the impacts of management 

alternatives can be assessed. 

3.3.1 History 

With its long history of human habitation, Kodiak Island was home 

to most likely the densest human population in Alaska prior to 

European contact (Diters 1999). Archaeologists divide Kodiak’s 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-58 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

history into five cultural traditions, each reflecting a distinct way of 

life.3

Ocean Bay Tradition (7,500 to 3,800 years ago). Kodiak’s oldest 

sites stem from the Ocean Bay tradition, a cultural period stretching 

more than 4,000 years. During the early Ocean Bay, Kodiak’s 

climate was warmer and drier; people probably lived in skin tents. 

Site locations, stone tools, and animal remains suggest they were 

skilled mariners who harvested the full range of marine resources. 

By about 6,000 years ago, tents were replaced by sod houses, 

constructed by building a wooden frame in a shallow pit and 

covering it with sod blocks. 

Kachemak Tradition (3,800 to 800 years ago). On Kodiak, cultural 

materials dating between 3,800 and 2,500 years ago are rare. It may 

be that the Archipelago was sparsely populated at this time or that 

sites have been lost to changes in sea level. Kodiak people began to 

live in large coastal sod-house villages and to hunt and fish in new 

ways by about 2,500 years ago. They developed nets to harvest large 

quantities of salmon, slate ulus to process larger catches, and a more 

efficient sea mammal harpoon. These trends suggest a growing 

population and the need to feed larger groups of people. Changes in 

subsistence were accompanied by extensive interregional trade. 

Antler, ivory, coal, and volcanic rocks from the Alaska mainland are 

found in large quantities, suggesting that travel and trade were 

common practices. Such exchanges probably created social ties and 

helped people gain access to resources in different ecological 

settings. Many of these rare materials were made into jewelry or 

small pieces of art. 

Koniag Tradition (800 years ago to AD 1763). About 800 years ago, 

Kodiak’s climate began to change dramatically in response to the 

Little Ice Age. Temperatures cooled, the weather worsened, and sea 

mammals became more difficult to catch. Alutiiq people responded 

by relocating their villages to the banks of productive salmon 

streams and reorganized subsistence practices. Related families 

pooled resources and labor, living together in larger, multipleroomed sod houses. Strong community leaders emerged, as did the 

practice of ceremonies to display their power and wealth. The rise of 

an elaborate ceremonial culture is preserved in spectacular 

assemblages of wooden artifacts that include masks, mask 

attachments, fragments of drums and dance rattles, decorated 

feasting bowls, gaming pieces, and shaman’s dolls. Other artifacts 

illustrate increases in long-distance trade and warfare. During the 

Koniag Tradition, the Alutiiq built fort sites on remote islands, where 

families fled to protect themselves from raids. At one of these forts, 

Awa’uq, the Kodiak Alutiiq lost sovereignty of their homeland in a 

battle with the Russian military in 1784. 

 

3

The following discussion is based primarily on information found on the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce web 

site: http://www.kodiak.org/cultural_traditions.html.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-59 

Russian (1763 to 1867). The first European sighting of the Island 

occurred in 1741, when ships in the Vitus Bering expedition passed 

by without landing (Diters 1999). By the late 1700s, Russian fur 

traders seeking sea otter pelts worked their way into the central Gulf 

of Alaska and colonized the Alutiiq Nation. A Russian settlement 

established at Three Saints Bay in 1784 was wiped out by a tidal 

wave. The center of Russian activity then moved to the present site 

of the City of Kodiak, which then became the Russian capital of 

Alaska. Russian clergy introduced the Orthodox faith, which remains 

a strong force in many Native communities. The Alutiiq were 

quickly compelled to adopt new economic, social, and religious 

practices; many people died from infectious diseases. Historians 

estimate that the Native population plummeted from about 

9,000 people at contact to just 3,000 by the middle of the 

19th century. During the Russian period, Alutiiq people were forced 

to work in artels —camps dedicated to sea otter hunting, salmon 

fishing, and whaling. Archaeologically, this period is marked by the 

presence of trade goods—European ceramics, glass beads, flint lock 

rifles—and the consolidation of more than 60 Alutiiq communities 

into a small number of regional settlements. 

According to the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names (Orth 1967), 

Russian explorer Stephen Glotov was the first non-Native to, in 1763, 

land on Kodiak Island. He reported the inhabitants of the Island called 

their home Kadyak or Kikhtak, which simply meant island. A 

Conversational Dictionary of Kodiak Alutiiq (Leer 1978) records the 

Alutiiq word for island as qikertaq—a very similar sounding word to 

Kikhtak. The name Kodiak was first used by Capt. James Cook on 

October 20, 1778. From 1890 until 1901, the official spelling was 

Kadiak, but that was changed to the present spelling in 1901 because 

of popular usage (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2004). 

American (1867 to present). With the sale of Alaska to the United 

States in 1867, life on Kodiak changed again. The American period 

is characterized by development of the modern fishing industry. 

Many Alutiiq people worked for wages in the canneries, moving 

gradually from a subsistence lifestyle into the Western market 

economy. At the turn of the 20th century, wood-framed houses 

began to replace sod structures, and government schools forbade 

Native children to speak the Alutiiq language. Today, elders are 

encouraged to return to the schools, this time to teach the Alutiiq 

language to children. 

In 1971, the Alutiiq participated in the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, regaining ownership of traditional lands and forming 

for-profit corporations. Although Western influences have 

dramatically altered Alutiiq culture, Kodiak’s Native people have 

combined Western traditions with their own world views to produce 

a lifestyle that is still uniquely Native. At present, about 

2,500 Alutiiq people live in the Kodiak Archipelago. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-60 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The City of Kodiak became a major staging area for North Pacific 

operations during World War II, when the population soared to more 

than 25,000. A submarine base and air station were constructed at 

Womens Bay and an army outpost was established near the Buskin 

River. Bunkers and gun emplacements were built at Chiniak, Long 

Island, and Fort Abercrombie. Japanese forces occupied Kiska and 

Attu in the Aleutians, but were turned back by American and 

Canadian forces. After the war, the U.S. Navy maintained a 

significant presence near the City of Kodiak until 1972, when 

operations were turned over to the U.S. Coast Guard. At present, the 

Kodiak Coast Guard Station is the largest in the nation. 

After the war, the fishing industry continued to flourish. On March 

27, 1964, the massive earthquake that rocked Southcentral Alaska 

triggered a series of tsunamis. The largest wave crested at 35 feet 

above mean low tide. Residents evacuated, but Kodiak’s waterfront 

and business district were nearly destroyed, and villages suffered 

extensive damage. Today, there is an extensive tsunami warning 

system and evacuation plan in place for the Island. 

3.3.2 Transportation and Access 

Kodiak Island is on the western side of the Gulf of Alaska about 

250 miles south of Anchorage. Kodiak is accessible only by air and 

sea. Airports and seaplane facilities serve air traffic Islandwide; daily 

service is available from Anchorage, taking about 50 minutes by jet. 

Air travel to and from the Island or between communities can be 

delayed any time of year by fog, low clouds, wind, rain, or snow. 

The Alaska Marine Highway (ferry system) provides passenger, 

vehicle, and cargo service, connecting Kodiak to the mainland road 

system via Homer, Seward, and Valdez. The ferry makes monthly 

trips to Dutch Harbor (from April through December), stopping at 

Chignik, Sand Point, King Cove, Cold Bay, False Pass, Akutan, and 

Unalaska. Two boat harbors serve commercial and other vessels. 

There are about 83 miles of state roads on the northeastern side of 

the Island but no road access to the Refuge. The major roadway in 

the Kodiak Island area follows the coastline from Cape Chiniak 

north through the City of Kodiak to Monashka Bay. 

The Port of Kodiak is home to Alaska’s largest and most diverse 

fishing fleet. It has more than 600 boat slips and three commercial 

piers that can handle vessels as long as 650 feet. Kodiak is also a 

vital link in the regional transportation network. As the hub of the 

Gulf of Alaska container logistics system, Kodiak serves 

Southwestern Alaska communities with consumer goods and 

provides outbound access to world fish markets. Regularly scheduled 

container ships operate between Kodiak and the Pacific Northwest 

and between Kodiak and the Far East. Kodiak is a key link for 

Alaska’s coastal communities. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-61 

When Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1941, 

little public use was occurring on refuge lands. The population of 

Kodiak Island at the time of the 1939 census was just more than 

2,000 people, with less than half of the population in the town of 

Kodiak. During World War II, the number of civilian and military 

personnel on Kodiak increased rapidly; wartime activities had little 

impact, however, on the remote portions of the Island, including the 

Refuge. Most human activities during the 1940s that affected refuge 

lands were related to commercial fishing or use by residents of the 

remote villages of Karluk, Larsen Bay, Akhiok-Kaguyak (two 

separate villages until 1964), and Old Harbor. The vast majority of 

this use was concentrated along the coastline of the Island. 

3.3.3 Local Government and Institutions 

Several government and quasi-government structures exist in rural 

Alaska: cities and boroughs, which are the local government 

structures authorized under the state constitution; tribal councils, 

which are administrative bodies of Native communities (tribes) 

recognized under federal law; Regional Education Attendance Areas; 

regional school districts funded by the state but operated by local 

school boards; and Native (for-profit) corporations formed under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Native corporations 

do not have government powers, but they carry substantial influence 

in rural areas. 

Alaska’s boroughs are the equivalent of counties in most other states. 

Large areas of rural Alaska with very small tax bases have never 

established borough governments; these areas are known as the 

“unorganized borough.” The Kodiak Island Borough encompasses 

the entire geological formation known as the Kodiak Archipelago, 

from the Barren Islands in the north to Chirikof Island in the south. It 

also includes currently uninhabited parts of the Alaska Peninsula that 

drain into the Pacific Ocean. The estimated size of the Kodiak Island 

Borough is 15,265 square miles of water and 7,130 square miles of 

land. Lands within the borough include four national wildlife refuges 

(Kodiak, Alaska Maritime, Becharof, and Alaska Peninsula), Katmai 

National Park, and Shuyak Island and Northern Afognak state parks. 

Koniag, Inc., is the regional Native corporation for Kodiak Island, 

many smaller islands in the Kodiak Archipelago, and a portion of the 

Alaska Peninsula. Koniag, Inc. is a for-profit corporation, stating that 

its basic function is to provide dividends to all shareholders. Koniag, 

Inc. has nine directors, each serving a three-year term. In 1998, 

Koniag, Inc. formed the Karluk–Sturgeon River Land Use Planning 

Committee to bring together Kodiak Island user groups to provide 

suggestions to Koniag, Inc. in its efforts to develop a long-range 

management plan for the Karluk River and Sturgeon River 

watersheds and surrounding areas. 

Under ANCSA, a community was determined to be a Native village 

if its population was at least 50 percent Native, or it had a population 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-62 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

of at least 25 Native residents, and it wasn’t modern or urban in 

character. Originally, 16 village corporations were established in the 

Koniag region. The City of Kodiak is one of four urban centers in 

Alaska subject to a special ANCSA provision. Shareholders who live 

in Kodiak, a historic Native community but no longer a village, are 

considered at-large shareholders in the region. 

Native organizations established nonprofit associations in the 1960s 

and early 1970s to advocate the interests of their members at the 

state and federal levels. These organizations were instrumental in 

obtaining a claim settlement, and they established social programs to 

serve members with funding from government agencies or 

foundations. Generally, their present activities encompass health, 

education, housing, and employment assistance. Natives living in the 

Kodiak area established the Kodiak Area Native Association, 

generally known as KANA. 

Ten communities are located within the borough: Akhiok, Larsen 

Bay, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, and Old Harbor are second-class cities; 

Karluk, Chiniak, Kodiak Station (U.S. Coast Guard Station), and 

Womens Bay are unincorporated. Kodiak is a home-rule city. Uganik 

is currently an unpopulated community.4

 These communities are 

discussed in more detail in the following section. 

3.3.4 Local Population and Economy 

Population

The population of Kodiak Island Borough in 2002 was 13,852, which 

compares to 13,913 two years earlier and 13,309 in 1990. Residents 

live primarily in 10 communities across the Island, with about half the 

population living in the City of Kodiak and several thousand more on 

the road system. These numbers increase greatly with the influx of 

people during the summer and fishing season; more than 40 percent of 

Kodiak’s workforce are nonresidents working primarily in the seafood 

industry (Fried and Windisch-Cole 1999). 

The communities on the Island have experienced varying rates of 

growth and decline over the years, with some (such as Kodiak, 

Ouzinkie, and Port Lions) showing trends of increasing in population 

and some (such as Karluk) showing declines; others exhibit 

fluctuations (Table 3-11). 

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

estimates future population growth only at the borough level, not the 

community level. The most recent estimates for Kodiak Island 

Borough predict an increase in population of 0.17 to 0.19 percent 

annually during the next 15 years (until 2018). This compares to a 

statewide projected increase of just more than 1 percent annually and 

 

4

Uganik is located on Uganik Bay on the northern coast of Kodiak Island. It was originally a Native village 

reported as “Oohanick” in 1805 and as “Oogashik” in 1880. A summer subsistence fish camp, the site is 

presently not occupied year-round.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-63 

an annual increase of about 1.4 percent for the Kenai Peninsula 

Borough. The result for the Kodiak Island Borough is a projected 

slight population increase, from 13,852 in 2002 (the most recent 

estimate) to about 14,500 in 2018. The original Kodiak Conservation 

Plan contained an “unofficial” projection that the population of the 

Island, listed as 9,945 in 1980, would swell to 19,556 by 2000; 

obviously that level of anticipated growth has not taken place. 

Population changes depend on two separate processes: natural 

increase in population (births minus deaths) and net migration 

(number of people moving in minus number of people moving out). 

For all the projections for Kodiak Island Borough, the population 

increase is due to natural increases; net migration is projected to be 

negative in each time period, with more people leaving the borough 

than moving into it. For example, the increase of 182 people that was 

predicted to occur by 2003 resulted from a natural increase of 882 

coupled with a net migration of minus 700. For the state as a whole, 

in comparison, nearly all of the projected changes are due to natural 

increases; net migration is extremely small (about the same number 

of people expected to move in as move out). According to data from 

the 2000 U.S. census, the Kodiak population resembles that of the 

state as a whole on several characteristics. The median age of Kodiak 

residents is just under 32, slightly less than the statewide average, 

and contains about 112 men per 100 women, which is similar to the 

statewide proportion. A slightly higher proportion of Kodiak 

residents are children under five (8.9 percent compared to 

7.6 percent statewide). The proportion of unemployed workers in the 

Borough (about 5 percent) is also similar to the statewide proportion 

(5.8 percent). 

Communities located on the road system (Kodiak, Kodiak Station, 

Womens Bay, and Chiniak) have the lowest proportion of Natives in 

the population, while the remote communities have much higher 

proportions of Native residents (Table 3-11). Kodiak’s population is 

one of the most diverse in Alaska. In the 2000 U.S. census, almost 18 

percent of Kodiak respondents identified themselves as all or part 

Alaska Native, 17 percent indicated that they were Asian–Pacific 

Islander (the largest concentration of this group in the state), six 

percent claimed Hispanic origin, and one percent identified 

themselves as black. 

A review of the Island’s communities illustrates the rural, isolated 

nature of Island life and residents’ dependence on natural resources, 

especially the marine life.5

Akhiok is located at the southern end of Kodiak Island at Alitak 

Bay. The original village of Kashukugniut was occupied by Russians 

in the early 19th century. The community was a sea otter–hunting 

settlement located at Humpy Cove. The name Akhiok was reported 

 

5

Descriptions of communities are from the Department of Community and Economic Development, 

Community Profiles, available on the World Wide Web at http://www.dced.state.ak.us.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-64 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

in the 1880 census. In 1881, residents relocated to the present site at 

Alitak Bay. Residents of Kaguyak relocated to Akhiok after the 

village was destroyed by the tsunami following the 1964 earthquake. 

Public sector employment and seasonal work provide cash flow in 

the community, and five residents hold commercial fishing permits. 

Almost all of Akhiok’s residents depend heavily on subsistence 

fishing and hunting for food supplies, including salmon, crab, 

shrimp, clams, ducks, seal, deer, rabbit, and bear. The community is 

interested in developing a fish smokery and cold-storage facility. The 

city is accessible only by air and water. A state-owned 3,320-foot 

gravel runway and a seaplane base, owned by Columbia Ward 

Fisheries, are located at Moser Bay. Barge services are sporadic. A 

breakwater and boat launch are available, but the existing dock is a 

temporary structure. 

Chiniak is located 45 miles southeast of the City of Kodiak on the 

easternmost point of Kodiak Island and accessible by road. Chiniak 

is an Alutiiq (Russian-Aleut) name first reported in 1888 by Lt. 

Commander Tanner, U.S. Navy, of the steamer Albatross. Chiniak 

was originally named “Cape Greville” in 1778 by Capt. Cook. 

During the mid-1950s, a U.S. Air Force White Alice 

Communications System radar-tracking station was constructed in 

Chiniak. The school, post office, and local roadhouses are the 

primary year-round employers. Chiniak has no stores or gas stations. 

Several residents commute to Kodiak for employment. Many work 

in construction, fishing, or other seasonal industries outside of the 

community; one resident holds a commercial fishing permit. Local 

boat owners anchor in Thumb’s Up Bay. An old airstrip may be used 

for emergency landings. 

Karluk is located on the western coast of Kodiak Island on the 

Karluk River 88 air miles southwest of Kodiak. The mouth of the 

Karluk River is thought to have been populated by Natives for more 

than 7,000 years; 36 archaeological sites are known to exist in the 

area. Russian hunters established a trading post here in 1786 when 

the village was located on both sides of the Karluk River near Karluk 

Lagoon. Between 1790 and 1850, many tanneries, salteries, and 

canneries were established in the area; by 1800, Karluk was known 

for having the largest cannery and the greatest salmon stream in the 

world. Overfishing of the area forced the canneries to close in the 

late 1930s. Following a severe storm in January 1978, the village 

council decided to relocate the community to the present site, 

upstream on the southern side of the lagoon. The Department of 

Housing and Urban Development constructed 23 houses at the new 

community location. The school was closed for the 1999-2000 year 

because of insufficient students. A few high school students attend 

Mount Edgecumbe School in Sitka. 
Chapter 3: 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-11 Population characteristics, Kodiak Island Borough 

Community Pop. 

2002 

Pop. 

2000 

Pop. 

1990 

Pop. 

1980 

Pop. 

1970 

Pop. 

1960 

Percentage 

Alaska 

Native 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Percentage 

Unemployment 

Perce

Older T

yrs. N

Labor 

Akhiok 48 80 77 105 115 84 94 33,438 14 47 Karluk 23 27 71 96 98 129 96 19,167 0 48 Larsen Bay 107 115 147 168 109 72 79 40,833 10 42 Old Harbor 229 237 284 340 290 193 86 32,500 23 58 Ouzinkie 189 225 209 173 160 214 88 52,500 12 48 Port Lions 251 256 222 215 227 0 64 39,107 4 52 Chiniak 56 50 69 0 0 0 4 14,167 0 16 Kodiak Station 

1,473 1,840 2,025 1,370 3,052 0 3 46,189 6 23 

Womens Bay 

750 690 620 0 0 0 12 72,083 5 2

Kodiak City 

6,544 6,334 6,365 4,756 3,798 2,628 13 55,142 5 30 

Kodiak Island Borough 

13,852 13,913 13,309 9,939 6,357 7,174 18 54,636 5 29 

1 Unemployed or not seeking work Source: Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) Community Database 2002, accessible on the Internet at:

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CUSTM.htm
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-66 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Fish processing is the primary livelihood. The village corporation shares 

ownership of a cannery with the corporations of Larsen Bay and Old 

Harbor, but operations have remained idle in recent years. Residents 

actively participate in subsistence hunting and fishing activities. Salmon, 

trout, ducks, seals, and deer are harvested. Karluk is accessible by air and 

water, including via a state-owned 2,000 foot gravel airstrip and a 

seaplane base at Karluk Lake. Barge service is available twice a month 

from Kodiak and goods are ferried to shore by skiff. Funds have been 

requested to construct a dock. 

Kodiak is located near the eastern tip of Kodiak Island on the Gulf of 

Alaska. The City of Kodiak was incorporated in 1940. During the 

Aleutian Campaign of World War II, the Navy and the Army built bases 

on the Island. Fort Abercrombie was constructed in 1939; it later became 

the first secret radar installation in Alaska. The 1960s brought growth in 

commercial fisheries and fish processing. The 1964 earthquake and 

subsequent tsunami virtually leveled downtown Kodiak. The fishing 

fleet, processing plant, canneries, and 158 homes were destroyed, 

resulting in $30 million in damage. The infrastructure was rebuilt and by 

1968 Kodiak had become the largest fishing port in the United States in 

terms of dollar value. The Magnusson Act in 1976 extended the U.S. 

jurisdiction over marine resources to 200 miles offshore, which reduced 

competition from the foreign fleet and, over time, allowed Kodiak to 

develop a groundfish-processing industry. 

The local culture surrounds commercial and subsistence fishing 

activities. The Coast Guard makes up a significant portion of the 

community, and there is a large seasonal population. Kodiak is primarily 

non-Native, and the majority of the Native population are Alutiiq. 

Filipinos are a large subculture in Kodiak because of their work in the 

canneries. A Russian Orthodox seminary is based in Kodiak, one of two 

Orthodox seminaries in the United States. The Kodiak economy is based 

on fishing, seafood processing, retail services, and government. 

Adaptability and diversification in a variety of fisheries has enabled the 

Kodiak economy to develop and stabilize. 

Kodiak has consistently been among the top three fishing ports in the 

United States, both in terms of dollar value and quantity of fish caught. 

In 2000, 924 commercial permits were fished by an estimated 3,200 area 

residents. An additional 1,678 people were employed by the shore-based 

seafood processing industry (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2001). The 

largest processors include International Seafoods, Trident, Ocean Beauty, 

and North Pacific. The hospital and city also rank among top employers. 

Kodiak is accessible by air and sea. The state-owned Kodiak Airport 

provides a 7,500-foot paved runway. Kodiak Municipal Airport offers a 

2,475-foot asphalt airstrip. Scheduled airlines serve Kodiak with several 

daily flights, and a number of air-taxi services provide flights to other 

communities on the Island. City-owned seaplane bases at Trident Basin 

and Lily Lake serve floatplane traffic. The Alaska Marine Highway 

connects Kodiak to the statewide road system via Valdez, Seward, and 

Homer. Travel time to Homer by ferry is 12 hours. Two boat harbors 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-67 

with boat ramps provide moorage for 600 commercial and transient 

vessels. A new $20 million breakwater on Near Island provides another 

60 acres of mooring space at St. Herman Harbor; float expansion began 

in 2002. Approximately 83 miles of state roads connect Island 

communities on the eastern side of the Island. 

Kodiak Station is located on the eastern shore of Kodiak Island, south 

and adjacent to the City of Kodiak. This large tract of military property 

on Kodiak Island has been occupied since the World War II Aleutian 

Campaign. Originally an Army Base, it was then a Naval Base; in 1972, 

it became a Coast Guard Station. The Air Force has also been active on 

Kodiak, building a tracking station at Chiniak after World War II. 

Kodiak Station is the nation’s largest U.S. Coast Guard Station. The 

station is self-contained, providing its own water and sewer systems. 

However, many Coast Guard families live off-station in the surrounding 

area. Kodiak Station residents are Coast Guard or civilian support 

personnel and their families. The Coast Guard uses the state-operated 

Kodiak Airport for transportation of personnel and materials. The station 

has docking facilities for large cutters and fishing vessels 

Larsen Bay is located on a bay by the same name on the western coast 

of Kodiak Island 60 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak. The area is 

thought to have been inhabited for at least 2,000 years, and hundreds of 

artifacts have been uncovered in the area. Russian fur traders frequented 

the Island in the mid-1700s. The bay was named for Peter Larsen, an 

Unga Island furrier, hunter, and guide. In the early 1800s, there was a 

tannery in Uyak Bay. Larsen Bay is a traditional Alutiiq settlement 

practicing a commercial fishing and subsistence lifestyle. The economy 

of Larsen Bay is primarily based on fishing and work at Kodiak Salmon 

Packers; 17 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Very few yearround jobs exist. Most of the population depends on subsistence 

activities, taking salmon, halibut, seal, sea lion, clams, crab, and deer are 

used. Larsen Bay is accessible by air and by water. Scheduled and 

charter flights are available from the City of Kodiak via a state-owned, 

lighted, 2,700-foot gravel airstrip and a seaplane base. Docking facilities 

are available. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently completed 

construction of a breakwater and boat harbor. A cargo barge arrives 

every six weeks from Seattle. 

Old Harbor is located on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, 

70 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak. The area around Old Harbor is 

thought to have been inhabited for as long as 7,500 years. The area was 

visited by the Russian Grigori Shelikov and his Three Saints flagship in 

1784. Three Saints Bay became the first Russian colony in Alaska. In 

1788, a tsunami destroyed the settlement, and in 1793 it was relocated on 

the northeastern coast to Saint Paul’s, now known as Kodiak. A 

settlement was re-established at Three Saints Harbor in 1884. The town 

was recorded as “Staruigavan,” meaning “old harbor” in Russian. The 

present-day Natives are Alutiiq. In 1964, the Good Friday earthquake 

and resulting tsunami destroyed the community; only two homes and the 

church remained standing. The community has since been rebuilt in the 

same location. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-68 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Old Harbor practices its traditional Alutiiq culture and subsistence 

lifestyle. Fishing provides income to the community. A summer fish 

camp at Kaguyak is used by residents of Old Harbor. Many residents are 

commercial fishermen; 39 residents hold commercial fishing permits. 

Tourism is an increasing part of the economy. Most residents depend to 

some extent on subsistence activities for food sources such as salmon, 

halibut, crab, deer, seal, rabbit, and bear. Old Harbor is accessible only 

by air and water. A new state-owned 2,750-foot gravel runway and a 

seaplane base serve air traffic with both scheduled and charter flights 

available from the City of Kodiak. There is a harbor and docking 

facilities for 55 boats. 

Ouzinkie is located on the western coast of Spruce Island adjacent to 

Kodiak Island. Ouzinkie became a retirement community for the Russian 

American Company. The Russians referred to the settlement in 1849 as 

“Uzenkiy,” meaning “village of Russians and Creoles.” In 1889, the 

Royal Packing Company constructed a cannery at Ouzinkie. Shortly 

afterward, the American Packing Company built another. In 1890, a 

Russian Orthodox church was built, and a post office was established in 

1927. Cattle ranching was popular in the early 1900s. In 1964, the Good 

Friday earthquake and resulting tsunami destroyed the Ouzinkie Packing 

Company cannery. Following the disaster, Columbia Ward bought the 

remains and rebuilt the store and dock, but not the cannery. In the late 

1960s, the Ouzinkie Seafoods cannery was constructed. The operation 

was sold to Glacier Bay and burned down in 1976 shortly after the sale. 

No canneries have operated since. 

Ouzinkie is an Alutiiq village supported by commercial fishing and 

subsistence activities. Ouzinkie’s economic base is primarily commercial 

salmon fishing; 25 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Almost all 

of the population depends to some extent on subsistence activities for 

various food sources, including salmon, crab, halibut, shrimp, clams, 

ducks, deer, and rabbit are used. The village is accessible by air and 

water. A state-owned, 2,085-foot gravel airstrip and a float plane landing 

area are located at Ouzinkie Harbor; facilities include a breakwater, 

small boat harbor, and dock. A new breakwater and small boat harbor are 

currently under design by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Port Lions is located in Settler Cove on the northern coast of Kodiak 

Island. The town was founded in 1964 by the displaced inhabitants of 

Afognak, which was destroyed by the tsunami after the Good Friday 

Earthquake. The community was named in honor of the Lions Club for 

its support in rebuilding and relocating the village. For many years, Port 

Lions was the site of the large Wakefield Cannery on Peregrebni Point. 

The cannery burned down in March 1975. Soon thereafter, the village 

corporation purchased a 149-foot floating processor, the Smokwa. 

Although sold in 1978, the Smokwa processed crab in the area 

intermittently between 1975 and 1980. A small sawmill, located south of 

town, operated until 1976. 

The majority of the population are Alutiit. Most residents lead a fishing 

and subsistence lifestyle. The economy of Port Lions is based primarily 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-69 

on commercial fishing, fish processing, and tourism; 18 residents hold 

commercial fishing permits. All residents depend to some extent on 

subsistence activities for food sources such as salmon, crab, halibut, 

shrimp, clams, duck, seal, deer, and rabbit. Port Lions is accessible by air 

and water via a state-owned, 2,200-foot gravel airstrip, or a city dock that 

may be used by seaplanes. The boat harbor with breakwater and dock 

provide 82 boat slips. The state ferry operates bi-monthly from Kodiak 

between May and October. 

Womens Bay is on the eastern coast of Kodiak Island, eight miles south 

of Kodiak. Originally inhabited by homesteaders, the property in this 

area was transferred to the state and then to the borough. The community 

was named for the bay it overlooks. Because of the community’s close 

proximity to Kodiak Station, many residents are Coast Guard families. A 

community association advocates for local concerns. Residents are 

employed in a variety of positions in Kodiak or at the Coast Guard 

Station. 

Economy

Commercial fishing and seafood processing, logging, recreational 

hunting and fishing, tourism, and U.S. Coast Guard expenditures make 

up the bulk of the economy of Kodiak. Fried and Windisch-Cole (1999), 

writing for the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development, summarized Kodiak’s economy as follows: 

Although one or more fisheries are often experiencing some 

sort of stress, the incredible diversity of Kodiak’s fishery—the 

harvesting, subsistence, and processing—continues to sustain 

the area’s economy at healthy levels. This should continue into 

the foreseeable future. The Coast Guard’s massive presence 

helps to even out the seasonality in the area’s economy and 

provides Kodiak with additional stability. The visitor industry 

not only supplements the economy but also is a source of 

growth. And the new rocket launch facility could steer 

Kodiak’s economy in a whole new direction (Fried and 

Windisch-Cole 1999, p. 13). 

Fish Harvesting and Processing.6

 The marine waters around Kodiak are 

known to be among the richest in the world. Offshore upwelling 

combines with abundant freshwater runoff to make nearshore waters rich 

in nutrients. As a result, Kodiak is the center of fishing activities for the 

Gulf of Alaska, and it has consistently been one of the top fishing ports 

in the United States both in terms of dollar value generated and quantity 

caught (Table 3-12). Commercial fishing and processing account for 

about 55 percent of the Kodiak private sector workforce. In 2000, 924 

commercial permits were fished by an estimated 3,200 area residents, 

and an additional 1,678 people were employed by the shore-based 

seafood processing industry (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2001). 

 

6

Except where otherwise noted, this section is from Fried and Windisch-Cole (1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-70 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Groundfish Harvests: The Kodiak groundfishery started to become 

important during the mid-1980s as Kodiak processing plants declined 

economically because of increased competition. Major efforts were made 

to develop the groundfishery during that period, and it has now surpassed 

salmon as the main source of fishing income. The wholesale value of 

groundfish landings increased from less than $4 million to more than $45 

million throughout the 1980s. 

Among groundfish species, pollock and Pacific cod are the most 

economically important. In 1997, the groundfish fleet unloaded more 

than 156 million pounds of these two species at the Port of Kodiak, and 

local residents earned roughly $36 million. From 1997 through 2000, the 

Pacific cod harvest—the largest component of the fishery—totaled 

nearly $11 million dollars (Jackson and Ruccio 2001). The Pacific cod 

harvest rose throughout the latter portion of the 1990s in terms of number 

of vessels registered and number of landings, although it has shown signs 

of declining in recent years. (See Table 3-13.) 

Halibut: The halibut fishery has become an important component of 

fishing income for Kodiak, ranking second in income generated in 1997. 

Table 3-12 Commercial fishery landings and dollar value at Kodiak 

Year Dollars (millions) Pounds 

(millions) 

National Rank 

(value/pounds) 

2001 74.4 285.5 3/6 

2000 94.7 289.6 3/6 

1999 100.8 331.6 3/6 

1998 78.7 357.6 3/3 

1997 88.6 277.5 3/6 

1996 82.3 202.7 3/5 

1995 105.4 362.4 2/2 

1994 107.6 307.7 2/5 

1993 81.5 374.2 3/2 

1992 90.0 274.0 3/2 

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service (2003) 

Salmon Harvests: Salmon migration or spawning has been documented 

in approximately 800 anadromous streams within the Kodiak 

Management Area (KMA)7

. Of these, 440 streams have significant 

salmon production. Commercial salmon fisheries on Kodiak Island are 

among the oldest in the state, with harvest records dating back to 1882. 

In 1974, a limited-entry program was adopted by the State of Alaska; this 

program restricted the number of individuals allowed to participate in 

commercial salmon fisheries. In 2002, 604 commercial salmon permits 

were available for the KMA in the purse seine, beach seine, and setgillnet fisheries. Seventy-seven percent of the permits were owned by

 

7

The Kodiak Management Area includes both mainland and island sections.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-71 

Table 3-13 Kodiak state water Pacific cod fishery results 

Year Number 

of 

Vessels 

Number of 

Landings 

Guideline 

Harvest 

Levels 

(millions of 

pounds) 

Pounds 

Harvested 

(millions of 

pounds) 

1997 113 712 8.5 7.6 

1998 143 980 8.1 8.5 

1999 200 1,259 11.7 10.7 

2000 215 1,709 12.0 8.6 

2001 106 672 10.6 4.9 

2002 84 552 8.7 8.8 

2003 144 838 8.0 8.2 

2004 171 1,122 9.9 10.0 

Source: Sagalkin and Spalinger 2005 

Alaska state residents, and 60 percent were owned by Kodiak Island 

residents (ADF&G 2002a). As many as 15 salmon buyers participate 

annually in KMA salmon fisheries, with processing plants located in the 

City of Kodiak, Port Bailey, Uganik Bay, Larsen Bay, and Alitak Bay.

Records indicate that between 1887 and 1928 sockeye harvest ranged 

from 1,004,500 (in 1887) to 4,826,200 fish (in 1901) (Kodiak Chamber 

of Commerce 2001). Intense competition eventually led to the expansion 

of commercial fishing into other species of salmon. During the past 

decade, the increase in foreign-farmed salmon and a prolonged economic 

crisis in Asia have made an impact on Alaska’s salmon industry. 

Oversupply and poor prices have negatively affected Kodiak’s salmon 

fishers. The average ex-vessel value of salmon harvested from 1993 

through 2004 was about $28.2 million, with a high of nearly $54 million 

in 1995 and a low of $13.6 million in 2002. (See Table 3-14.) In 2004, 

the number of boats fishing was unchanged from 2003, with 304 permits 

fished out of 595 permits issued (from a low of 242 permits fished out of 

604 permits issued in 2002) (ADF&G 2005). 

Crab Harvests: Before 1950, most Kodiak processing facilities were 

devoted to salmon. In 1950, some 60,000 pounds of king crab was 

landed, and processing capacity was added by building new plants and 

expanding older ones. The king crab fishery became a major force in 

Kodiak’s economy from 1950 through 1959 as the catch increased from 

60,000 pounds to 21 million pounds. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-72 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-14 Salmon harvest permits issued, permits fished, and exvessel value in millions of dollars 

Year Number of 

Permits Issued 

Number of 

Permits Fished 

Dollars 

(millions) 

2004 595 304 23.5 

2003 598 304 18.7 

2002 604 242 13.6 

2001 606 354 22.1 

2000 605 397 23.1 

1999 605 397 34.0 

1998 606 390 34.8 

1997 606 440 21.0 

1996 607 439 27.6 

1995 609 493 53.9 

1994 611 459 27.1 

1993 611 509 38.6 

Source: ADF&G 2005, fishing statistics and activities accessible on the Internet at: 

http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/bit/mnusalm.htm

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when harvest levels began to fall, 

several processors relocated to Unalaska and Dutch Harbor, closer to the 

crab supply. This diverted part of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island 

harvest away from Kodiak. The 1982-1983 king crab harvest of 8.7 

million pounds, the lowest in 24 years, was followed by closure of the 

fishery by ADF&G due to poor stock condition. Although crab do not 

play the role they used to in the Kodiak fishery, it’s still home to the 

largest crab fleet in Alaska. In 1997, 197 boats from Kodiak participated 

in the harvest which generated more than $18 million. In 2000, more 

than 900,000 pounds of King Crab was landed at the Port of Kodiak 

(Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2001). 

Shrimp Harvests: The 1950s also marked the beginning of the Kodiak 

shrimp fishery, with a harvest of 31,886 pounds in 1958. The fishery 

grew rapidly to an annual catch of 10 to 12 million pounds in the early 

1960s. The fishery slowed when shore plants and the fishing fleet were 

badly damaged by the 1964 earthquake and tsunami, but then grew to a 

peak of 82.2 million pounds in 1971. As Kodiak shrimp catches declined 

in the late 1970s, much of the vessel effort shifted to the Chignik and 

South Peninsula areas until those areas demonstrated similar declines in 

the late 1970s. In 1999, only 6,035 pounds of shrimp was landed at the 

Port of Kodiak (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2001). 

Tourism.

8

 Tourism, like many other Kodiak industries, is based on natural 

resources. Tourists come to Kodiak to hunt, fish, view and photograph 

 

8

 Except where otherwise noted, information in this section is from the Alaska Economic Information System 

(AEIS) Web page, accessed in May 2003 and available at http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-73 

wildlife, view the scenic beauty, hike, camp, and visit historical and 

cultural sites. As is true elsewhere in Alaska, Kodiak’s visitor industry is 

seasonal, with about 75 percent of all visitors arriving during summer 

months. Although tourism is an important industry in all regions of 

Alaska, its economic significance in the southwestern region is small in 

comparison to that of commercial fish harvesting and processing. Total 

spending by visitors to Kodiak in 2001 was estimated at $19.6 million. 

At present, Kodiak’s share of the Southwestern Alaska visitor market is 

approximately 31 percent. According to data gathered in 1993 for the 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, visitors to Southwestern Alaska 

destinations, including Kodiak, tend to stay longer than the average visitor 

to the state and are significantly more likely to be repeat visitors. In 

addition, visitors to Southwestern Alaska typically spend more than twice 

as much as the average visitor to other regions of the state. The average 

per-person or per-trip expenditure by visitors to Southwestern Alaska 

during summer 1993 was $1,367. Approximately 84 percent of this was 

spent on tours and recreation. In 2001, visitor expenditure data were again 

gathered as part of the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program. Because of 

differences in the studies, direct comparisons of 1993 and 2001 Kodiak 

visitors’ expenditures are not recommended. However, it is worth noting 

that, even after adjustments for inflation, average visitor expenditures for 

all regions of Alaska were much higher in 2001 than in 1993. 

The tourism industry has experienced steady growth across much of 

Alaska, but there are several factors that may limit future growth in the 

southwestern region and on Kodiak Island in particular. The cost for 

visitors to access Kodiak is substantial, especially when combined with 

the additional cost of travel on the Island (most of which is only 

accessible by boat or aircraft). In addition, outside of the City of Kodiak, 

there is a lack of basic infrastructure to support tourism development 

(e.g., water, sewer, and power generation) and the cost of establishing 

and maintaining a local tourism business is high. There is some evidence 

indicating that high costs may influence visitors’ overall trip evaluations. 

Data gathered for the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program in both 1993 and 

2001 show that visitors’ ratings of “value for money” were lower in 

Southwestern Alaska than in any other region of Alaska. 

While there are real constraints on Kodiak tourism growth, there is also 

reason to believe that tourism will play an increasing role in the area 

economy. Unique wildlife-viewing opportunities may be expected to 

draw a growing share of tourist dollars. In particular, high-density brown 

bear populations represent a significant tourist resource. According to 

Miller and McCollum (1999), nationwide demand for wildlife-viewing is 

expected to increase, and people are willing to pay more to view brown 

bears than other Alaska animals. Improvements in basic Island 

infrastructure and marketing efforts that highlight Kodiak’s wildlifeviewing potential may ultimately expand the economic contribution of 

the tourism industry. 

Coast Guard. The largest U.S. Coast Guard station in the United States 

is located in Kodiak. The Coast Guard is an integral part of the fishing 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-74 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

industry, providing search and rescue, maintenance of navigational aids, 

enforcement of international fishing laws, and other services. The Coast 

Guard contributes substantially to the local economy, with a payroll of 

$41 million for 2,294 personnel (including dependents) in 1998. This 

was second only to the fishing industry in the borough, although the 

multiplier effect of the payroll is smaller because the base is a largely 

self-contained community. In 1999, the Coast Guard also spent some $15 

million on construction that benefited the local economy. 

Kodiak Launch Complex. The Alaska Aerospace Development 

Corporation, a public corporation created in 1991 to develop Alaskabased economic and technical opportunities in the aerospace industry, 

initiated construction of the launch complex in January 1998. The 27-

acre, low-earth-orbit complex is located 25 miles southwest of the City 

of Kodiak at Narrow Cape. 

On November 5, 1998, the U.S. Air Force conducted the launch of the 

ait-I, a suborbital atmospheric interceptor rocket. It was the first launch 

from a Federal Aviation Administration–licensed launch site not located 

within the boundaries of a federal facility. The inaugural launch from the 

complex generated $1.3 million and represented a significant economic 

impact to the State of Alaska (Alaska Aerospace Development 

Corporation 2000). Additional service contracts have been negotiated 

with Lockheed Martin Corporation, the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile 

Center, and the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. 

Employment and Income9

Commercial fishing, seafood processing, and the Coast Guard are the main 

sectors supporting the Kodiak Island Borough economy. During the 1990s, 

these sectors accounted for 45 percent to 50 percent of earned income in 

the borough (Fried and Windisch-Cole 1999). Approximately one in three 

jobs in the borough is in commercial fish harvesting and seafood 

processing. The importance of the seafood industry is magnified because 

many businesses in the nonfishing sector of the borough, such as trade and 

services, provide support to the fishing industry. Many of the workers in 

the fish-harvesting and -processing industries are not borough residents, 

and this reduces the amount of their income that is spent in the borough 

economy. However, compared to other seafood-processing centers in 

Alaska, Kodiak has a large resident workforce. In 1998, 60 percent of 

seafood processors were residents. In contrast, residents of Bristol Bay 

made up just 22 percent of the seafood-processing workforce in that area. 

The Coast Guard also makes significant contributions to the Kodiak 

economy. The base accounts for about one in 10 jobs and about one in 

six dollars of earned income. As is the case with the fishing industry, 

many Coast Guard personnel are not borough residents. In addition, the 

base provides many services that would normally be purchased in the 

local economy. Therefore, the Coast Guard’s impact is somewhat less 

than might be expected from its share of jobs and payroll. 

 

9

Except where otherwise noted, this section is from Goldsmith et al. (2003), a report that was commissioned 

specifically in support development of this planning document. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-75 

Local, state, and federal government civilian jobs total 12 percent of 

borough employment, but account for one in six earned dollars. 

Government also supports the borough economy through transfers to 

individuals—the Permanent Fund dividend, welfare and medical 

payments, and retirement payments being the largest categories. In total, 

transfers added about the same amount as fish processing to borough 

residents’ income in 2000. 

Trends in Kodiak’s wage and salary employment show that seafood 

processing, government, and services have all been steady, long-time 

contributors. (See Table 3-15.)10 Timber jobs, provided by logging on Native 

corporation lands on Afognak Island and near Chiniak, dropped in the late 

1990s because of the recession in Asia (Fried and Windisch-Cole 1999). 

Economic Significance of the Refuge11

The economic significance of the Refuge is a measure of the total number 

of jobs and the total household income generated by expenditures 

associated with management of the Refuge, by expenditures of refuge 

visitors, and by expenditures for harvest and other uses of refuge 

resources. In Alaska, these expenditures directly create jobs for Service 

employees, for people employed in businesses serving the recreation 

industry, and for commercial fisherman and fish-processing workers. 

Additional jobs are created by expenditures of the Service and by 

businesses for procuring supplies and services. Because these government 

and private sector workers spend their incomes, job in other sectors of the 

economy are created through a process known as the multiplier effect. The 

total number of jobs created by management and use of the Refuge is 

consequently greater than just the number directly created. 

The estimates of jobs and income creation included in this section may 

be of particular interest to local Kodiak businesses and governments. 

Jobs and household income generated by the Refuge are usually viewed 

as beneficial to the regional economy. According to an analysis by the 

Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of 

Alaska, the Refuge sustains more than 1,300 jobs and $61 million in 

annual payroll within the Kodiak Island Borough. These figures are even 

larger when the bounds of the analysis are expanded to include the entire 

state of Alaska. (See Table 3-16.) The figures should be interpreted with 

caution, however, because they are almost entirely attributable to 

commercial fish harvesting and processing. Commercial salmon fishing 

is considered to be a refuge-dependent activity (salmon depend on lakes 

and rivers on the Refuge for breeding habitat) rather than an on-site

 

10 Because of the State of Alaska’s method of collecting employment data, it is difficult to determine the exact size 

of the Kodiak Island Borough workforce. The Alaska Department of Labor’s main source of employment data is the 

state’s unemployment insurance program, collected through Employment Security Contributions. Self-employed 

workers (fishermen) and military employees (Coast Guard) do not participate in this program, so no data are 

collected for these two sectors.

11This section is derived from Goldsmith et al. 2003.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-76 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table 3-15 Kodiak Island Borough annual average monthly employment by industry, 1990–

 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 19

Total Employment 6,091 5,701 5,801 5,733 6,193 6,308 6,090 5,811 5,3Construction 167 137 127 154 139 158 186 154 1Manufacturing 2,102 1,774 1,871 1,964 2,509 2,584 2,350 2,260 1,8Transportation/Communications/ Utilities 288 266 279 297 299 303 343 301 3Trade 

Wholesale Trade Retail Trade 

934  54 880 

928  51 877 

998  50 948 

840  69 771 

842  69 773 

883  68 815 

960  91 870 

841  72 769 

8 7

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 169 179 162 162 155 145 141 148 1,3Services 1,142 1,185 1,161 1,126 1,028 999 934 894 8Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 60 86 80 69 70 95 85 99 Government 

Federal State Local 

 1,229

208 240 781 

 1,145

208 225 713 

 1,120

182 226 712 

 1,121

170 242 709 

 1,150 

172 252 726 

 1,140

158 251 731 

 1,092

162 248 682 

 1,117

166 252 695 

 1,1

126

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. Available on the World Wide Web at htt state.ak.us/research/ee/eekod.pdfNote: Data for 1990 through 2000 are based on the Standard Industrial Coding System (SIC). Beginning with January 2001, employment data a

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS includes some new and reorganized employment categories so that comparable. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-77 

refuge activity (such as hunting or wildlife-viewing, which actually 

occurs within refuge boundaries). The ISER analysis includes the 

full value of commercially caught fish even though part of that value 

depends on off-refuge ocean resources. 

Neither the replacement value of subsistence resources nor 

expenditures generated by subsistence activities are included in this 

analysis of economic significance. Subsistence activities can 

generate significant expenditures (e.g., money spent for gasoline, 

firearms, and ammunition); but few good data available to quantify 

refuge-dependent subsistence expenditures. Also not included in this 

analysis are the contributions of the Refuge with respect to broad 

ecological services such as the maintenance of biodiversity. It is 

important to note that economic significance is not the same as 

economic value. Total economic value may be estimated by 

considering the annual amount of money that people would be 

willing to pay to maintain the existence of the Refuge or any of its 

component parts or characteristics for all purposes, including 

subsistence, recreation, habitat, and non-use values. Non-use values 

are notoriously difficult to estimate because they include the value of 

the Refuge’s existence to people far from the Refuge who may never 

see or visit it. 

3.3.5 Cultural Resources 

The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Kodiak 

Archipelago comes from the Tanginak Spring site on Sitkalidak 

Island. Here archaeologists uncovered stone tools as many as 

7,500 years old. These tools are similar to those found at Anangula, 

the oldest known site in the Aleutian Chain. This may indicate that 

Kodiak was colonized from the west, perhaps by people living on the 

Alaska Peninsula. Wherever they came from, Kodiak’s first settlers 

must have arrived by boat, because geological evidence shows that 

the region was surrounded by ocean thousands of years before 

human settlement. Moreover, a substantial proportion of the foods 

and raw materials available in the Kodiak environment come from 

the sea. To establish an enduring population, people must have been 

able to efficiently harvest sea mammals, fish, and birds from boats. 

Alaska is one of the most culturally diverse regions of North 

America. There are three racially distinct Native populations in the 

state—Aleut, Eskimo, and Indian—each with a unique history. This 

diversity reflects Alaska’s position at the crossroads between Asia 

and the Americas. Archaeologists believe that modern Native 

Americans are descended from Asiatic peoples that walked or 

paddled into Alaska at the end of the last great ice age. This gradual 

migration began about 12,000 years ago. Some settlers made Alaska 

their home; others spread south and east, rapidly populating all of 

North and South America, from the northernmost reaches of the 

Canadian archipelago to the southern tip of Chile. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-78 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-16 Employment and payroll attributable to on site and 

refuge-dependent activities 

Activity Alaska 

Statewide 

Employment1

Kodiak 

Island 

Borough 

Employment1

Alaska 

Income2

 

Kodiak 

Borough 

Income2

 

Refuge 

Spending 34.7 24.4 $1,430,243 $1,090,472 

Recreational 

Hunting 25.4 19.3 $677,657 $505,961 

Recreational 

Fishing 14.4 10.4 $339,001 $231,532 

Nonconsumptive Uses3

 6.3 4.5 $150,098 $100,965 

Commercial 

Fish Harvesting 562.4 452.0 $41,986,307 $38,720,592 

Commercial 

Fish 

Processing 

866.0 798.5 $22,806,308 $20,559,321 

TOTAL 1,509.2 1,309.1 $67,389,614 $61,208,843 

1 average annual jobs supported 

2 in 2000 dollars 

3 including wildlife-viewing 

Source: Goldsmith et al. (2003) 

Over thousands of years, Alaska’s Native people adapted to the 

range of unique environments in the large and ecologically diverse 

state. Today there are six major Native Alaska groups: the Aleut, 

Alutiiq, Yup'ik, Inupiat, Athabascan, and Northwest Coast Indians. 

The Kodiak Archipelago and the surrounding regions of Prince 

William Sound, the outer Kenai Peninsula, and the Alaska Peninsula 

are home to the Alutiiq. 

Anthropologists classify the Alutiiq as an Eskimo people because 

their culture and language are most closely related to those of the 

Yup'ik and Inupiat. In prehistoric times, the Alutiiq shared many 

items of technology with other northern coastal peoples. They built 

sod houses that were lit by stone oil lamps; they hunted sea 

mammals from skin-covered kayaks equipped with sophisticated 

harpoons; they wore waterproof clothing stitched from seal 

intestines, beach grass, and sinew. Additionally, the Alutiiq speak 

Alutiiq, one of six Eskimo languages. 

Archaeologists have located more than 850 sites in the Archipelago, 

or about 4 percent of all known archaeological sites in Alaska; more 

than 200 of these are located on Kodiak Refuge. Kodiak’s prehistoric 

sites include the ancient shell-filled villages that dot the coast, burial 

caves in secluded mountain settings, stone weirs built to trap salmon, 

petroglyphs pecked into cliff faces, ridge-top cairns, stone quarries, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-79 

and even ancient trails. The City of Kodiak also holds historic sites. 

The Holy Resurrection Russian Orthodox Church, the Erskine 

House—home of the Kodiak Historical Society’s Baranov Museum—

and the concrete bunkers at Fort Abercrombie are all listed on the 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (the state’s list of cultural sites) 

because they reflect significant events in Alaska history. 

In the Kodiak Archipelago, dense prehistoric populations left large 

accumulations of cultural debris that have resisted decay in the 

region’s persistently cool, wet environment. Besides having the stone 

tools commonly found in Alaska archaeological sites, many of 

Kodiak’s ancient middens contain shell, bone, antler, and ivory 

objects. A few hold spectacular assemblages of wood and fiber 

artifacts. Kodiak’s sites are also rich with features. Houses, hearths, 

clay-lined storage pits, slate boxes, and burials add to the wealth of 

buried information on past ways of life. 

Archaeologists have long been attracted to Kodiak’s well-preserved 

sites, making the Archipelago one of the more extensively studied 

regions of Alaska. Archaeological research began in the 1930s with 

the work of Smithsonian anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka. Over 

succeeding years, archaeologists developed a cultural chronology for 

the Island, describing the sequence of indigenous societies. This led to 

more detailed studies of past lifeways in each prehistoric era and 

ultimately to a better understanding of the origins and evolution of 

Kodiak’s Native people. Despite extensive research, there is still much 

to learn, and Kodiak archaeology continues at a rapid pace. Through 

efforts such as the Afognak Native Corporation’s Dig Afognak! and 

the Alutiiq Museum’s Community Archaeology program, Native 

people and scientists are working together to explore questions of 

mutual interest (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2000). 

The Refuge’s Guide for Managing Cultural Resources (Diters 1999) 

assists refuge staff in meeting legal requirements to protect and 

manage cultural resources of the Refuge. It contains a list of relevant 

laws and guidelines and lists projects that are considered priorities for 

inventory, evaluation, protection, and dissemination of information.

3.3.6 Subsistence 

One of the purposes of the Refuge is to provide the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses by local residents in a manner consistent 

with the purposes of conserving fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats and fulfilling international treaty obligations with respect to 

fish and wildlife. 

This section summarizes local subsistence uses, especially as related 

to the Refuge. Subsistence use by residents of Kodiak Archipelago is 

described in a number of reports by ADF&G. Readers are 

encouraged to go directly to the reports cited for additional 

information. Data on subsistence use by Kodiak Archipelago 

residents is available from the State of Alaska’s Community Profile 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-80 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Data Base available from ADF&G and on its subsistence publication 

web page at http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/ 

geninfo/publctns/techpap.cfm. 

Subsistence activities are not just a way of obtaining food; they are 

an important mechanism for maintaining cultural values such as 

kinship, community, respect for elders, hospitality, sharing 

resources, and the passing of values to younger generations. These 

aspects of subsistence have been explored in several Kodiak 

communities (Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Ouzinkie) as part of 

research on the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on coastal 

communities (Fall 1991, Fall and Utermohle 1991, Fall 1999). The 

1999 report concluded that while subsistence activities had dropped 

dramatically in the years immediately following the oil spill, 

subsistence uses 10 years later had rebounded to pre-spill levels. 

Subsistence uses are defined in Section 803 of ANILCA as “the 

customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, 

renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as 

food, shelter, fuel, clothing; byproducts of fish and wildlife resources 

taken for personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for 

personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.” 

ANILCA recognizes that continued opportunity for subsistence uses 

of public lands is critical to physical, economic, traditional, social, 

and cultural existence of rural Native and non-Native residents of 

Alaska. Recognizing multiple threats to subsistence lifestyles, 

ANILCA established a preference for subsistence users, stating that 

the taking of fish and wildlife on public lands for nonwasteful 

subsistence use is given priority over other consumptive uses. In 

times of scarcity, recreation use is limited first. 

ANILCA authorized regional advisory councils to provide 

opportunities for discussion of subsistence regulations and for 

development and review of proposals. The councils make 

recommendations to the Federal Subsistence Board, which 

establishes regulations on federal lands. The Kodiak-Aleutian Islands 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council makes 

recommendations to the Federal Subsistence Board for Kodiak 

Archipelago. ANILCA contains many other provisions supporting 

continued opportunity for subsistence. Section 811, for example, 

ensures that subsistence users can access—subject to reasonable 

regulation—public lands by snowmachine, motorboat, and other 

traditionally used means of transportation. 

Residents of Kodiak Island rely on and harvest an abundance and 

diversity of fish, game, invertebrates, and plants for subsistence 

purposes. (See Table 3-17 and Table 3-18.) Most subsistence 

activities occur near communities, along the coast, and on the lower 

reaches of major rivers where lands are often primarily in private 

ownership. Access to interior areas of the Refuge is often difficult 

and expensive when compared to access to coastal areas. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-81 

Table 3-17 Estimated annual amount of wild food harvest 

by community 

Community Survey 

Year 

Wild Food 

Harvest1

 

Per Wild 

Food 

Harvest2

 

Wild 

Food 

Harvest3

All 

Communities

 1,900,708 932 272 

Akhiok 1992 25,735 1,072 322 

Karluk 1991 18,603 1,240 269 

Kodiak City 1993 915,070 459 151 

Kodiak Road 1991 672,909 580 168 

Larsen Bay 1997 46,154 1,126 371 

Old Harbor 1997 88,851 1,111 300 

Ouzinkie 1997 55,015 887 264 

Port Lions 1993 78,371 980 332 

1 estimated pounds per community 

2 estimated pounds per household 

3 estimated pounds per person 

Source: Scott et al. (2001) 

Table 3-18 Wild food harvests per individual for all Kodiak Island communities by resource1

Community 

and Year of 

Data 

Salmon Other 

Fish 

Land 

Mammals

Marine 

Mammals

Birds 

and 

Eggs 

Shellfish Plants All 

Resources

Akhiok 

1992 200 24 28 19 3 42 5 322 

Karluk 

1991 192 30 30 1 1 4 10 269 

City of 

Kodiak 

1993 

48 60 23 0 1 10 10 151 

Larsen Bay 

1997 213 79 55 2 1 13 6 370 

Old Harbor 

1997 110 52 59 43 11 19 6 300 

Ouzinkie 

1997 127 65 29 14 12 7 10 264 

Port Lions 

1993 158 64 56 4 4 30 15 331 

Average 150 53 40 12 5 18 9 287 

Percentage 

of Total 

Wild Food 

Harvest 

52% 19% 14% 4% 2% 6% 3% 100% 

1 pounds per person per year Source: (Scott et al. 2001) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-82 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Of the total pounds of wild foods harvested, more than half is salmon 

(52 percent). Almost three quarters (71 percent) of the total pounds 

of resources harvested are fish. In villages outside the Kodiak road 

system, salmon are by far the most used wild food resource, with 

average per person annual harvests ranging from 110 pounds in Old 

Harbor to 213 pounds in Larsen Bay. Only along the Kodiak road 

system do residents harvest more fish of other species (i.e., halibut, 

Pacific cod, Dolly Varden, and sablefish) than they do salmon during 

the year (DCED 2004, Scott et al. 2001). 

Table 3-19 demonstrates the importance of subsistence food harvest 

in terms of meeting nutritional needs of local residents. Subsistence 

harvest meets almost all the recommended dietary protein allowance 

and from 14 percent to 36 percent of the recommended calorie 

allowance. 

Since 1962, permits have been required to harvest salmon for 

subsistence uses in the KMA. ADF&G’s Division of Commercial 

Fisheries runs the subsistence salmon harvest assessment program 

out of the Kodiak office. In 2001, 2,006 subsistence permits were 

returned to ADF&G, 77 percent of which were held by Kodiak 

Island Borough residents (not including the Coast Guard station). 

Estimated harvest was 41,611 fish, nearly 80 percent of which were 

sockeye salmon, which is very close to the recent five-year average 

for the Kodiak area. ADF&G believes that actual subsistence 

harvests are not well-documented by the permit system and that 

harvest is substantially higher (Shaker 2003). 

Land mammals such as deer and elk are also important wild food 

resources, contributing an average of 40 pounds per person each 

year. Subsistence deer hunters are thought to make extensive use of 

the Refuge from November though January, although no refugespecific data on subsistence harvest exist. The assumption of 

extensive use is based on surveys of subsistence use for villages 

where most deer hunting occurs on lands adjacent to the Refuge and 

on field observations from refuge staff patrols during hunting season. 

There is also a subsistence harvest season for elk on refuge lands on 

Afognak Island; to date, no elk have been harvested under these 

regulations. A federal subsistence hunt initiated in 1997 allows 

11 bears to be harvested per year by residents of six Kodiak Island 

villages. Since this hunt was initiated, harvest has averaged two 

bears per year (Wilker 2003).Other important resources include 

shellfish such as crabs and clams (18 pounds per person per year) 

and marine mammals such as harbor seals and sea lions (12 pounds 

per person per year). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-83 

Table 3-19 Nutritional contribution of annual subsistence food 

harvests by community 

Community Survey 

Year 

Subsistence 

Food 

Harvest 

(pounds per 

person) 

Protein 

Percentage of 

Recommended 

Dietary 

Allowance 

Calorie 

Percentage of 

Recommended 

Dietary 

Allowance 

Akhiok 1992 322 208 29 

Karluk 1991 268 174 24 

Kodiak City 1993 141 98 14 

Kodiak Road 1991 168 109 15 

Larsen Bay 1993 451 291 41 

Old Harbor 1991 391 253 36 

Ouzinkie 1993 218 141 20 

Port Lions 1993 332 214 30 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic 

Development, Division of Community Advocacy, available on the 

World Wide Web at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ 

 dca/AEIS/AEISMainFrame.cfm?CensusArea=Kodiak&Ind

ustry=Subsistence&IndexItem=SubsistenceOverview 

The preceding data identify the importance of subsistence resources 

to local residents. Specific data on subsistence use of the Refuge are 

generally lacking. However, use and trends of use compiled through 

State and Refuge efforts provide adequate information to identify the 

importance of subsistence resources on refuge and other lands to 

local area residents. Additionally, much of the data presented makes 

no distinction between harvests taking place under differing 

regulatory systems. For example, many local residents might 

characterize harvest for personal consumption as subsistence 

regardless of the regulations under which an animal was harvested. 

Most subsistence fishing probably occurs off the Refuge and under 

state regulations. Deer, elk, goat, and bear hunting occurs both on 

and off refuge lands. As noted previously, there are federal 

subsistence hunting regulations for deer, elk, and brown bear. All 

goat hunting occurs under state regulations, which were recently 

modified by the Alaska Board of Game in response to 

recommendations crafted by the local state and federal advisory 

groups (USFWS 2003). 

3.3.7 Recreation Opportunities on Kodiak Refuge 

The main recreation activities pursued by visitors on the Refuge are 

hunting for bear, deer, goat and elk; fishing; and wildlife-viewing. 

Other activities include duck hunting, ptarmigan hunting, hiking, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-84 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

trapping12, berry picking, beachcombing, sightseeing, photography, 

and snowmachining. Most of these latter activities are secondary to 

big-game hunting or fishing trips; there is, however, anecdotal 

evidence that an increasing proportion of visitors is participating 

exclusively in nonconsumptive activities. A little more than one-half 

of refuge visitors pursue their activities with the help of guides who 

hold permits issued by the Refuge. 

The Refuge tabulates visitor use annually, reporting use-days by 

activity. A use-day is defined as one person using the Refuge for any 

portion of a day. Reports from permitted hunting and fishing guides, 

field observations by refuge staff, and information from visitor 

surveys are used as supplementary means to monitor use-days on the 

Refuge. Air-taxi reports, however, are the primary means of 

measuring public use. Since 1997, when all reporting was 

standardized, air-taxi reports have provided reliable and consistent 

estimates of overall refuge use. Use estimates from before 1997, 

such as those that appear in the refuge public use management plan, 

may be helpful for assessing long-term trends, but data-collection 

methods and accuracy of those estimates are variable, so they should 

not be directly compared to more recent (i.e., post-1997) numbers. 

Also, because current use estimates are based solely on air-taxi 

reports, actual use numbers are likely to be somewhat higher. 

Visitors who access the Refuge by other means are not counted by 

this method. Based on air-taxi reports, total annual recreation use of 

the Refuge since 1997 has been stable or declining. (See Table 3-20.) 

The sharp drop in use after 1999 is directly related to a crash in the 

Kodiak deer population as a result of an extremely cold and snowy 

winter in 1998-1999. Since that time, use has been steadily 

rebounding. 

Table 3-20 Recreation use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 

1997–2003 

Refugewide 

Use-Days 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average

Guided 

Activities 

3,608 3,535 4,042 3,516 3,185 2,722 3,633 3,463 

Unguided 

Activities 

5,536 5,589 5,177 3,568 3,728 5,278 4,714 4,799 

Total 

Recreation 

Use 

9,144 9,124 9,219 7,084 6,913 8,000 8,347 8,262 

 

12 Trapping requires a special use permit from the Refuge; from 1994 through 1999, an average of nine permits 

a year were issued.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-85 

This section includes an expanded discussion of the most popular 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities on the Refuge. 

Public Use Cabins

There are no developed camping areas on the Refuge, and extreme 

weather conditions can sometimes make tent-camping difficult. 

Many recreation visitors base their activities out of lodges, 

temporary guide camps, and public use cabins. The Refuge maintains 

seven public use cabins that provide good all-weather camping. (See 

Figure 3-6.) These cabins have a single room; in some cases, the 

living space is divided to form a sleeping area. The cabins are 

available for a small daily fee, and they can be reserved in advance. 

There is high demand for some cabins during the deer- and fall bearhunting seasons (Uganik Lake, Uganik Island, and Viekoda Bay 

cabins), recreational fishing season (Uganik Lake cabin), and the peak 

period for bear photography (North and South Frazer cabins). Overall 

use of the cabin system is usually highest from mid-August through 

November and lowest in mid-winter from January through March. 

Use records maintained by the Refuge show substantial variability in 

demand among cabins. (See Table 3-21.) The most popular cabins 

(typically South Frazer and Uganik Lake) receive two to four times 

as many annual use-days as the least popular cabins (Blue Fox and 

Viekoda Bay). Although Blue Fox and Viekoda Bay receive less 

overall use, they do – in combination with Uganik Island – serve an 

important function. These three cabins, located adjacent to salt 

water, provide for winter use. Cabins on freshwater are unavailable 

in winter because of freeze-up. (See Figure 3-5.) 

Table 3-21 Total use-days by year at Kodiak Refuge public use 

cabins 

Cabin 

Name 

1993 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Blue Fox — 288 55 165 130 149 139 

Little River 272 269 136 129 80 152 168 

North 

Frazer 

221 286 220 74 132 157 93 

South 

Frazer 

460 572 380 400 240 293 248 

Uganik 

Island 

314 282 332 183 237 139 256 

Uganik 

Lake 

505 496 269 357 326 421 290 

Viekoda 

Bay 

278 243 157 94 92 116 109 

TOTAL 2,436 1,549 1,402 1,237 1,427 1,303 

Note: Information from odd years prior to 1999 is provided for comparison 

purposes, but missing data precludes a summary for every year since 1993. 

The Blue Fox cabin was added to the system in 1995. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-86 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

January

Februrary

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Occupancy

Freshwater Cabins Saltwater Cabins

1 Occupancy is calculated as the percentage of nights in a given month 

that a cabin is in use. 

Figure 3-5 Average monthly occupancy of freshwater and 

saltwater cabins, 1999-20031

During peak periods, some cabins may be occupied as much as 90 

percent of the time. However, on average, maximum occupancy does 

not exceed 70 percent. Data from recent years show that even during 

peak periods, the cabin system as a whole operates at less than 40 

percent occupancy. (See Figure 3-7.) 

Annual fluctuations in cabin use are primarily related to weather, 

deer populations, and economic conditions. The drop in cabin use 

after 1995 may be largely attributable to declines in the deer 

population, especially following the harsh winter in 1998-1999. The 

increased cost and hassle of air travel following the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks may also have affected recent use numbers. 

Since 1999, cabin use numbers have been relatively stable. 

Karluk Habitat Protection Agreement

On July 31, 2002, a Master Agreement for the Protection of Certain 

Lands and Resources was signed by the Service, Koniag, Inc., and 

the State of Alaska. (See Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2 for additional 

information on management of these lands.) The agreement ensures, 

among other things, the protection of and guaranteed public access to 

Koniag lands around Sturgeon River, Karluk Lake, and Karluk 

River. A free permit system was implemented to limit use between 

June 10 and July 15. The initial limit is set at a maximum of 70 

people per day, with at least 40 percent of use guaranteed each to 

both guided and nonguided river users. Studies to evaluate habitat 

sustainability, resource capabilities, and quality of visitors’ 

experiences will guide decisions about future permit limits. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-87 

Figure 3-6 Public use cabins and administrative facilities on Kodiak Refuge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-88 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

January

Februrary

March

April

MayJune

July

August

September

October

November

December

Occupancy

High Use Cabins All Cabins

1 Occupancy is calculated as the percentage of nights in a given month that a 

cabin is in use. 

Figure 3-7 Average monthly occupancy of high-use cabins 

(South Frazer and Uganik Lake) compared to average 

occupancy for all cabins, 1999–20031

The agreement also stipulates that Koniag, Inc., will continue to 

manage five existing cabins it owns and will issue permits for all 

revenue-producing visitor services related to fish and wildlife 

recreation along the Karluk River. According to the agreement, 

Koniag will build no additional cabins on these lands unless 

corresponding numbers of existing Koniag cabins are removed. 

The Camp Island Limited Development Easement allows Koniag, 

Inc. to develop a lodge and visitor facilities on a six-acre site on 

Camp Island in Karluk Lake. The lodge and other facilities will be 

limited to not more than 30,000 square feet in aggregate and will be 

limited to not more than 28 clients, plus necessary staff, per day. 

Client uses of the property will be limited to fish, wildlife, 

archaeological, or other wildlands-oriented activities. 

Hunting 

In most years, hunting of bear, deer, goat, elk, and other species 

accounts for more than half of all recreation use on the Refuge. 

Large and abundant brown bears have attracted hunters to Kodiak 

since well before the Refuge was established in 1941. Sitka blacktailed deer, first introduced into the Kodiak Archipelago in 1924, 

have spread throughout the Refuge and now occupy virtually all 

habitats from sea level to alpine areas. Roosevelt elk were 

transplanted to Afognak Island in 1929; about 300 animals now use 

the Afognak portion of the Refuge—the only place in any national 

wildlife refuge in Alaska where this species occurs. Mountain goats 

also were introduced on Kodiak Island. The current goat population 

is estimated at about 1,500 animals. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-89 

Prior to 1999, overall hunting use had remained constant for several 

years. The winter of 1998-1999 was extremely cold and very hard on 

the deer population, leading to higher than normal deer mortality. As 

a result, there were less than one-quarter as many deer hunting usedays in 2000 as there were in 1998. The following sections describe 

hunting use and harvest patterns for deer, bear, and goat. The Refuge 

does not measure use for guided or unguided elk hunting. 

Deer. In 1953, a deer-hunting season opened for the first time on 

Kodiak Island. The first report of deer occurring as far south as the 

present day refuge boundary was in 1952, when deer were reported 

in the Terror and Kiliuda bay areas. About 200 deer were harvested 

on Kodiak in 1959, but only one was reported as having been 

harvested on the Refuge (Uganik Island). During the 1960s and early 

1970s, deer rapidly populated the southern end of Kodiak Island. 

Some increases in deer-hunting pressure were also noted, particularly 

on Uganik Island, where it is estimated that about 100 deer were 

harvested by hunters in 1967. In 1971, an estimated 18 percent of 

Islandwide deer harvest occurred on the Refuge; that proportion had 

risen to 40 percent by 1974. 

During the 1970s and 1980s, the popularity of deer hunting increased 

rapidly; reported harvest in the 1984-1985 season was about 9,000 

deer. A survey completed during the 1987-1988 deer-hunting season 

estimated that more than 5,000 hunters harvested about 13,000 deer 

on the Kodiak Archipelago. Reports of air-taxi operators, marine 

transporters, and hunting outfitters in 1987 indicated that about 65 

percent of deer hunting on the Refuge occurred on the western side 

of the Island from Uganik Bay to Uyak Bay. According to estimates, 

the proportion of Islandwide deer harvest that occurs on the Refuge 

has remained at about 40 percent into the present. 

The public use management plan reported an average of 1,435 deerhunting visits per year between 1984 and 1990, with a high of 1,661 in 

1988 and a low of 1,246 in 1990. A visit is one person visiting the 

Refuge for any length of time. More recent use estimates have been 

calculated in terms of use-days (one person visiting the Refuge for a 

day or a portion of a day); therefore, those estimates may appear 

substantially higher than previous ones. Deer-hunting use was 

relatively stable through the 1990s until the winter of 1998-1999 

substantially reduced the Island’s deer population. Since 1999, the 

deer population has been recovering, and hunting use appears to be 

recovering as well. (See Table 3-22.) 

Bear. Nearly 50 years of brown-bear recreation harvest data show that 

approximately three-quarters of the bears harvested on the Kodiak 

Archipelago have been taken on refuge lands. In the 1970s and 1980s, 

annual harvest was relatively stable at about 140 bears. In the 1990s, 

annual Kodiak Archipelago harvest grew slightly, and it has averaged 

about 180 bears per year since 1996. The increased harvest was likely 

due in part to an increasing bear population and in part to 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-90 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-22 Deer hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003

Refugewide UseDays 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average 

Guided Deer 

Hunting 

182 368 152 37 58 48 141 141 

Unguided Deer 

Hunting 

3,105 2,591 1,812 675 744 1,180 1,114 1,603 

Total Deer 

Hunting 

3,287 2,959 1,964 712 802 1,228 1,255 1,744 

implementation of an Archipelago-wide permit system, which 

increased the efficiency of the harvest. 

The public use management plan reported an average of 330 brown 

bear hunting visits per year (one person visiting the Refuge for any 

length of time) between 1984 and 1990, with a high of 380 in 1990 

and a low of 220 in 1984. More recent use estimates have been 

calculated in terms of use-days (one person visiting the Refuge for a 

day or a portion of a day); therefore, the more-recent estimates may 

appear substantially higher than previous ones. Apparent differences 

are primarily a function of these different reporting methods rather 

than actual substantial changes in use. (See Table 3-23.) 

Most bear hunters who are not Alaska residents are required by law 

to hunt with a registered big-game guide. There are 25 exclusive 

guide areas defined on the Refuge; the Refuge issues special use 

permits to the guides. Some guides have more than one area. Guided 

bear hunting use, which is limited in part by the number of available 

guides, has been highly stable in the latter half of the 1990s. Annual 

differences in overall use are primarily related to fluctuations in the 

amount of unguided use. 

Table 3-23 Bear hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 

Refugewide 

Use-Days 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average

Guided 

Bear 

Hunting 

746 900 787 742 739 468 733 731 

Unguided 

Bear 

Hunting 

583 1,112 1,299 671 1,087 1,482 1,290 1,075 

Total Bear 

Hunting 

1,329 2,012 2,086 1,413 1,826 1,950 2,023 1,806 

Goat. Goat hunting on the Refuge occurs primarily in alpine habitat 

areas between Terror Lake and Olga Bay. Historically, goat hunting 

has only attracted a small proportion of refuge visitors. Past and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-91 

present use is generally low, and the activity is typically pursued by 

hunters without guides. Since 1996, the annual harvest on Kodiak 

Island has averaged just over 60 goats. During roughly the same time 

period (1997 through 2003), an annual average of 266 goat hunting 

use-days has occurred on the Refuge. (See Table 3-24.)

Table 3-24 Goat hunting use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 

Refugewide 

Use-Days 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average 

Guided Goat 

Hunting 

12 43 3 1 23 30 0 16 

Unguided 

Goat Hunting 

241 239 238 206 280 251 293 250 

Total Goat 

Hunting 

253 282 241 207 303 281 293 266 

Fishing 

The Kodiak area offers diverse opportunities for recreational fishing. 

Recreational anglers can target five species of Pacific salmon, 

steelhead and resident rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char. 

With the exception of the road-accessible rivers near the City of 

Kodiak on the northeastern portion of Kodiak Island, all river 

systems within the Archipelago are remote. 

Access to remote rivers and lakes for recreational fishing is by 

aircraft or by boat along the coastal areas. The recreational fishery in 

the Kodiak area is managed by the ADF&G Division of Sport Fish 

under regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Of the 

117 drainages on the Refuge, 11 could be classified as having 

excellent recreational fishing opportunities, based on reasonable 

accessibility by float plane or boat and populations of anadromous 

and/or resident fish. (See Table 3-25.) Although all these drainages 

provide opportunities for day use and overnight primitive camping, 

cost of traveling to these areas for day use fishing is prohibitive for 

most visitors unless they are staying at a remote lodge providing this 

service. All 11 drainages provide opportunities for coho salmon 

fishing; however, the Ayakulik and Karluk are the only ones that 

support Chinook and substantial numbers of steelhead. Although 

smaller populations of steelhead exist on some of the other rivers, 

very little fishing effort has occurred on these rivers. 

Chinook salmon fishing usually starts in late May, and the run is 

typically over by July 10. Although fish are present in the systems 

through mid-August or later, there is a general closure, by regulation, 

to recreational fishing for Chinook on July 25 to protect spawners. 

Steelhead usually start entering river systems in late August, and 

their numbers peak in late October, although it is suspected that 

some fish continue to enter the rivers into early spring of the next 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-92 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

year. Fishing for steelhead and resident rainbow in flowing 

freshwater has historically been closed by regulation from April 1 

through June 14 to protect spawners. The Board of Fisheries recently 

opened a catch-and-release steelhead season on portions of the 

Karluk and Ayakulik rivers during this time period. Coho enter the 

drainages from mid-to-late August and usually peak near the end of 

September. Fishing for coho is usually good through early October in 

most systems. Fishing for Dolly Varden and Arctic char can be 

found year-round, depending on which river system is targeted. 

Both guided and unguided anglers visit refuge river systems. 

Unguided anglers tend to visit a specific river and either camp in one 

location or float the river and get picked up at saltwater. Recreational 

fishing guides, under permit from the Refuge, may operate from a 

temporary camp on a river or from one of the remote lodges located 

on private lands adjacent to the Refuge. 

Traditionally, 24 fishing guides—the maximum number allowed 

since the 1980s—operated under special use permit on the Refuge, 

offering both day and overnight trips for clients. The number of 

people applying for recreational fishing guiding permits first 

exceeded the limit of 24 in 1987 and has continued to increase 

through the present. In 2001, the number of recreational fishing 

guiding permits peaked at 36. 

Table 3-25 Drainages within the boundary of Kodiak Refuge 

having good-to-fair access that attract recreational anglers

Drainage Size (miles2) Associated Fish Species 

Uganik River 129 sockeye, pink, chum, coho, 

rainbow, char 

Little River 41 sockeye, pink, coho, steelhead, 

rainbow, char 

Spiridon River 123 chum, pink, coho, char 

Zachar River 70 chum, pink, coho, char 

Browns 

Lagoon 51 pink, coho 

Ayakulik 166 sockeye, pink, Chinook, coho, 

steelhead, char 

Dog Salmon 100 sockeye, pink, Chinook, coho, 

chum, steelhead, char 

Horse Marine 6 sockeye, pink, coho 

Deadman 39 chum, pink, coho, char 

Karluk 236 sockeye, pink, Chinook, coho, 

steelhead, rainbow, char 

Akalura 10 sockeye, pink, coho, rainbow, char 

In 2001, the Refuge implemented a prospectus system for awarding 

permits to guiding businesses in four drainages: the Dog Salmon, 

Ayakulik, Uganik, and Little rivers. Outside of these four drainages, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-93 

there is no limit on the number of fishing guides. Each fishing guide 

can have overnight camps on only two river systems. Guides are 

authorized to use any refuge drainage not under prospectus, but are 

restricted to a group number of six for each trip (including guide and 

cook, if any). Each guide must submit a year-end report to the 

Refuge identifying the number of clients guided, the location(s) of 

fishing activities, and the number of fish caught by species. 

Due to the variety of methods that have been used to measure public 

use on the Refuge, caution is warranted when comparing past 

fishing-use figures with modern estimates. Although the accuracy of 

estimates is variable from year to year, it is still possible to assess 

general trends. As early as 1952, refuge narrative reports 

documented fly-in steelhead fishing trips to Karluk River. Because 

of the expense and difficulty of getting to remote locations, early 

recreational fishing primarily occurred off the Refuge, close to the 

City of Kodiak. During the 1960s, the popularity of fishing on the 

Refuge began increasing. By the 1980s, the Refuge was receiving an 

average of more than 2,000 fishing visits per year. A visit is one 

person visiting the Refuge for any length of time. The public use 

management plan reported an average of 2,115 visits per year 

between 1984 and 1990, with a high of 2,740 in 1987 and a low of 

1,445 in 1984. 

In the early 1990s, the Refuge estimated that about 90 percent of 

refuge recreational fishing use occurred on three river systems: 

Uganik Lake and River (25 percent), Karluk Lake and River (35 

percent), and the Ayakulik River and Red Lake (30 percent). Aerial 

surveys during 1993 and 1994 found that Chinook season on the 

Karluk and Ayakulik attracted far more visitors than any recreational 

fishery within the Refuge. 

Since 1997, standardized reporting and collection of visitor-use data 

from permitted guides and air-taxi operators has produced reliable 

and comparable estimates of recreational fishing use on the Refuge. 

Table 3-26 shows annual fishing use-days for the period 1997 

through 2003. It is important to note that estimates for this period are 

in terms of use days (one person visiting the Refuge for one day) 

rather than visits (one person visiting the Refuge for any length of 

time). Recreational fishing, both guided and unguided, currently 

accounts for slightly more than one-third of overall annual public use 

on the Refuge. Despite anecdotal evidence of fishing-use increases in 

selected areas, it appears that total use has been relatively stable for 

some time. According to Schwarz and Clapsadl (2000), estimated 

overall (including off-refuge lands) Kodiak recreational fishing effort 

in 1997 was similar to the previous 10-year average. 

Social Conditions in Popular Fishing Areas. Since the mid-1990s, 

several studies have been conducted to measure and record visitors’ 

perceptions of their fishing experiences and their opinions about 

management practices in popular refuge rivers. Visitors to the Karluk 

and Ayakulik rivers have been the focus of the most recent studies. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-94 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-26 Recreational fishing use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 

Refugewide 

Use-Days 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average 

Guided 

Recreational 

Fishing 

1,709 1,383 2,272 1,798 1,632 1,380 2,028 1,743 

Unguided 

Recreational 

Fishing 

1,355 1,339 1,470 1,661 1,445 2,151 1,801 1,603 

Total 

Recreational 

Fishing 

3,064 2,722 3,742 3,459 3,077 3,531 3,829 3,346 

Karluk River. On the Karluk River, a two-year survey project was 

recently conducted by Alaska Pacific University with assistance and 

funding from the Service (Lewis 2004). The purpose of the study 

was to assess visitors’ preferences for setting conditions, the nature 

of their experiences, and the effects of two different permit systems 

in place during Chinook fishing seasons in 2002 and 2003, 

respectively. In 2002, all visitors to the Karluk were required to 

obtain a $125 permit from Koniag, Inc. In 2003, in accordance with 

stipulations of a Master Agreement13, the Service eliminated that 

permit fee and began managing an interim limit of 70 permits per 

day from June 10 through July 15. 

Each angler who obtained a permit from Koniag, Inc., and visited the 

Karluk during the 2002 Chinook season (June 10 through July 15) 

was mailed a questionnaire in the fall of that year. With respect to 

crowding and other social conditions, respondents to the 2002 

questionnaire offered generally positive evaluations. About half 

(50.6 percent) reported that they did not feel crowded during their 

visits; the average crowding response was 3.3 (“slightly crowded”) 

on a nine-point scale. Nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of respondents 

suggested that current use on the Karluk (experienced in 2002) was 

“about right.” In addition, most respondents (65 percent) supported 

the existing fee-based, unlimited permit system. When asked about 

potential management actions to address overcrowding, 26 percent of 

respondents strongly supported limiting use during certain periods 

each season. Complete results from the 2002 questionnaire are 

available in a separate project report (Lewis 2004). 

In 2003, a slightly modified questionnaire was mailed to anglers who 

obtained a permit and visited the Karluk River during Chinook 

 

13 The Master Agreement for Protection of Certain Lands and Resources Between Koniag, Inc., the United 

States of America, and the State of Alaska, signed on July 31, 2002, requires the Service to (among other things) 

design, implement, maintain, and enforce a permit system that limits the amount of recreational use within onehalf mile on either side of the Karluk River and one-half mile of the shoreline of Karluk Lake. The agreement 

sets an interim limit of 70 people per day from June 10 through July 15, the peak Chinook season, and directs 

the Service to conduct a study to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of that number. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-95 

season. Changes were made to the questionnaire to reflect the new 

permit system. Visitors in 2003 reported slightly less crowding than 

did those in 2002, most likely related to reduced overall visitor use. 

Otherwise, 2003 visitors’ opinions regarding social conditions were 

similar to those expressed in 2002. 

A creel census conducted by ADF&G (Schwarz and Schmidt 2003) 

calculated total Karluk River14 use to be 1,560 visitor days from June 

10 through July 15, 2002. Peak use was 60 visitor days, which 

occurred on June 25. On most days, total use was well below the 

interim limit of 70 users, which was implemented in 2003. 

Preliminary visitor counts indicate that total use in 2003 was 

considerably lower than in 2002, and peak use was less than 40 

visitor days. Schwarz and Schmidt (2003) speculate that Karluk 

visitor use in 2002 may have been negatively affected by poor 

Chinook runs in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, the Chinook run was also 

poor—and late to arrive—resulting in a short-term emergency 

closure of the fishery for one week near the end of June. 

At present, crowding and other social impacts do not appear to be 

significant issues for most Karluk River visitors, and the interim 70 

permits-per-day limit is not the primary constraining factor on 

overall use or use patterns. Instead, overall use appears to be most 

influenced by the size and timing of the annual Chinook run and by 

weather, which affects fly-in access. 

Ayakulik River. Like the Karluk, the Ayakulik River draws seasonal 

concentrations of visitors who primarily target Chinook salmon 

during June. In response to visitor comments and mounting 

anecdotal evidence of declining social conditions during the Chinook 

fishery, ADF&G, with cooperation and support from Kodiak Refuge, 

conducted a creel census and visitor survey on the Ayakulik in 2003 

(Tracy and Schmidt 2004). The primary objectives of the survey 

were to (1) document daily visitor use between June 1 and July 7; (2) 

document individual angler catch and effort; (3) evaluate 

effectiveness of voluntary camping closures designed to prevent 

anglers from monopolizing prime fishing holes; and (4) identify 

users’ preferences regarding aspects of their experiences and 

potential management actions. 

A total of 341 visitors (accounting for 1,705 visitor days) were 

contacted during the study period. Peak use was 85 visitors, 

occurring on June 18, and the average daily number of users on the 

river was 45. Based on analysis of responses to the visitor survey, 

Tracy and Schmidt (2004) concluded that most Ayakulik users did 

not feel crowded during their visits, and those users generally 

supported the continuation of voluntary camping restrictions. The 

least preferred potential management action among survey 

respondents was a return to no camping restrictions. It appears that, 

 

14Between Karluk Lake and the ADF&G salmon counting weir located one-half mile upstream from Karluk 

Lagoon.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-96 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

similar to use at the Karluk River, 2003 Ayakulik use may have been 

affected by several factors, including a relatively poor Chinook run 

and the nationwide economic downturn. As with the Karluk, it also 

appears crowding and competition for fishing sites are not currently 

causing significant negative impacts on most visitors’ experiences. 

Wildlife Viewing 

Nearly all wildlife viewing centers on the Kodiak brown bear. 

Because the reliable presence of bears is so closely related to the 

timing and location of salmon runs, a good bear-viewing location can 

be ever-changing. People interested in self-guided viewing may plan 

an extended trip to the Refuge, stage from a public use cabin or 

wilderness camp, and target viewing opportunities by hiking, 

kayaking, boating, or rafting through Kodiak wildlands. Although 

opportunities for self-guided adventure abound, they require careful 

planning, a working knowledge of wilderness travel, and special 

attention to bear safety guidelines. 

The total number of wildlife-viewing use-days has been fairly stable 

recently, ranging from a low of 865 in 2001 to a high of 1,207 in 

2000. (See Table 3-27.) The mix of guided and unguided use within 

this total has varied substantially, with guided use being two to five 

times the volume of unguided use. The number of permits issued for 

wildlife-viewing and photography guides is not limited and has 

increased steadily from five in 1990 to 20 in 2000 and 25 in 2001. 

Most of the permits issued are for day use. Not all of these permits 

are used. Recent interest may have been spurred by the Conservation 

Plan revision process, with some businesses wanting to get a “foot in 

the door” in case permits were limited in the future. 

Currently there is no competitive bidding for a wildlife-viewing 

permit. An applicant submits an operations plan, and it is reviewed 

by the staff for potential conflicts with refuge purposes or other 

users. If there is no apparent problem, the operations plan is made 

part of the special conditions, and the permit is issued. The public 

use management plan reported an average of 467 visits per year 

Table 3-27 Wildlife viewing use-days on Kodiak Refuge, 1997–2003 

Refugewide UseDays 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7-Year 

Average 

Guided WildlifeViewing 

959 841 828 991 718 786 731 836 

Unguided 

Wildlife-Viewing 

187 304 279 216 147 140 174 207 

Total WildlifeViewing 

1,146 1,145 1,107 1,207 865 926 905 1,043 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-97 

between 1984 and 1990, with a high of 640 in 1990 and a low of 225 

in 1984. A visit is one person visiting the Refuge for any length of 

time. In the past, commercial photographers who visited the Refuge 

to photograph bears and other wildlife were required to obtain a 

special use permit. Refuge records show that the number issued has 

been low in recent years, only one or two permits a year – except 

1999, when four permits were issued. 

Guided viewing is offered by a range of air-taxi, lodge, and marine 

transport services. Air-taxi operators offer single-day trips that may 

combine aerial viewing, landing, and hiking to a viewing site; lodge 

operators offer a multi-day, multi-purpose venue that often includes 

guided bear-viewing. Most guided, walk-in viewing is a site- and 

time-specific group venture where bears are typically within a 50- to 

300-yard range of viewers, and bears are often aware of viewer 

presence. 

Many lodges on Kodiak Island conduct bear-viewing as part of their 

operations, but usually in conjunction with other activities such as 

recreational fishing or other wildlife-viewing. Some lodges offer 

bear-viewing exclusively during times of the year when other 

activities such as hunting are not available. Guides typically seek to 

provide small groups of clients (two to six people) a wilderness 

experience in which they have the opportunity to go unnoticed by 

bears as they watch and photograph them in their natural habitat. 

Most viewing is done at locations relatively close to the lodge and 

accessible by boat (usually a skiff, although some operators use sea 

kayaks) and possibly a one- or two-mile hike. Viewing at these areas 

is usually dictated by timing of fish migrations, which cause the 

bears to gather at predictable locations, and the huge tidal 

fluctuations in the long narrow bays of Kodiak Island, which 

determine when and for how long an outing can last. 

Some operators do not limit their bear-viewing to Kodiak Island, but 

use areas of the Katmai coast to provide additional viewing 

opportunities, especially earlier in the season. Lodges provide a 

range of wildlife-viewing opportunities over the course of several 

days. Lodge visits may involve a short hike up one of Kodiak’s 

coastal rivers, a boat ride to one of the numerous bays, a float plane 

ride to Frazer Lake, and/or an outing to watch marine mammals and 

other marine wildlife over the course of three to five days. Most 

visitors to Kodiak Island want to see a brown bear; no matter what 

type of trip they come for, a bear sighting is almost always an added 

benefit. Lodge stays typically range from $223 to $500 per person 

per day, depending on the type of trip and transportation provided. 

Air charters typically take clients to different areas during different 

times of year depending on where bears are congregated. 

Information from other pilots can be a critical decision-making factor 

when the weather is flyable to more than one location. Viewing is 

typically better along the Katmai coast during May and June when 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-98 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

bears are feeding in sedge meadows and along mud flats before the 

annual salmon migration begins. 

Once salmon start to arrive, viewing improves on Kodiak Island. 

From late July into September, bears congregate at places such as 

Karluk Lake and Frazer fish pass, which are easily accessible (by 

float plane and a short hike). One guide said it was nice to have an 

“ace in the hole” like Frazer where bears can be dependably seen. 

While these operators take small groups of two to six people, it is 

common to see other groups at these locations. A limited number of 

locations are readily accessible by float plane, unaffected by tides, 

and provide consistent chances of seeing bears. 

Many people interviewed as part of a bear-viewing assessment 

conducted by the Service (Allen and Collins 2002) believed that 

people who have experience with intensively managed bear-viewing 

areas—such as Brooks Camp in Katmai National Park, McNeil River 

on the Alaska Peninsula, and Pack Creek in Admiralty Island 

National Monument—tend to seek out and prefer more primitive 

experiences offered at other areas such as the Katmai coast and 

Kodiak Island. Several operators on Kodiak commented that people 

who do not know what to expect or who have preconceptions of an 

experience similar to McNeil River or Brooks Camp are very 

satisfied with the experience they do have and appreciate the fact that 

it is not the same type of bear-viewing they might find elsewhere. 

Two operators pointed out that not only do people seek a more 

primitive experience, but many people who want to see Kodiak bears 

are willing to give up the opportunity to see several bears along the 

Katmai coast in order to have the chance to see one Kodiak bear. 

These same opinions have been pointed out in various research 

papers, publications, and newspaper articles (Matz 2000, USFWS 

1993b).

Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Interpretation and environmental education programs are critical to 

success of the public use program. Public awareness and 

understanding of refuge resources and management activities help 

keep the public informed, generate interest and support for refuge 

management, and avoid potential problems and misunderstandings. 

The existing Comprehensive Conservation Plan recognizes the 

importance of interpretive and educational programs. It encourages 

continued use of existing facilities such as the visitor center and 

public use cabins for the dissemination of materials and knowledge. 

The refuge visitor center consists of about 1,500 square feet located 

in the refuge headquarters building just outside the City of Kodiak. 

Plans are underway for a new facility, to be built in downtown 

Kodiak, with completion planned for the summer of 2007. Attracting 

4,038 visitors in 2001, the existing center provides the public an 

opportunity to learn from exhibits, attend educational programs and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-99 

community events, acquire information about the Refuge and its 

resources (including information focused on preventing problem 

encounters between people and bears), and ask questions of refuge 

rangers. The Audubon Buskin View Trail, a one-third-mile selfguided nature trail adopted by the Kodiak Audubon Chapter, winds 

through forests adjacent to the center. 

Interpretation and education efforts include environmental education 

for home-schooled children and public and private school students, 

programs at the refuge visitor center and on refuge land, and events 

held in villages and the City of Kodiak. During the school year, 

education is focused on school programs within classrooms and 

making the visitor center a classroom for visiting school groups. 

When special community, Refuge System, or Service events occur, 

programs and activities surrounding and supporting the event are 

offered. Summer is dedicated to running an environmental education 

camp—the Kodiak Summer Science and Salmon Camp . 

The Refuge has a large and increasing presence in the Kodiak 

community through a variety of programs and events. The Whale 

Festival, held annually in April, celebrates the return of gray whales 

passing near the Island on their long migrations. The Refuge has 

participated by running the opening event, the fun run, an art show, 

whale-watching programs, and a naturalist program on the state ferry 

system. Crab Festival, ComFish, Pink Salmon Derby, parades, and 

even some impromptu events have all involved annual refuge 

participation. The Refuge is an active participant in all of Kodiak’s 

events. 

In addition to community functions, the Refuge offers its own 

programs. Families Understanding Nature (FUN Program) is a 

weekly program targeting families and home-schooled children of all 

ages. The program is structured to allow families the opportunity to 

explore nature through a variety of hands-on activities. In 2001, 17 

FUN programs, serving 446 children, were given at the refuge visitor 

center. Two off-refuge programs served another 96 students. During 

National Wildlife Refuge Week, the Refuge has conducted evening 

slide shows and hosted theatrical productions. The Junior Duck 

Stamp program increases students’ awareness of waterfowl and 

wetlands through an art contest sponsored by the Service. In 2001, 

refuge staff visited 23 classrooms to promote the contest. All villages 

received information packets on the contest. 

Perhaps the most widely known Kodiak Refuge program is the 

Kodiak Summer Science and Salmon Camp (Salmon Camp). Salmon 

Camp is the largest science-based camp in Alaska. In 2002, Salmon 

Camp was identified as one of the Service's top five environmental 

education programs. Since 1996, Kodiak Refuge, the Alaska Natural 

History Association, and many community partners have made 

Salmon Camp possible. The goal of Salmon Camp is to provide a 

hands-on, science-based camp that instills leadership in 

environmental stewardship and conservation by learning about one 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-100 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

of the most valuable of all Kodiak resources, salmon. Each week for 

seven weeks the camp targets different age groups, from preschool to 

junior high. In 1999, 160 children attended camp, with waiting lists 

in every age group. In 2002, almost 200 children attended camp. One 

measure of the camp’s success is through pre- and post-tests of 

campers. In 1999, overall scores increased 40 points, from a pre-test 

score of 35 percent correct to a post-test score of 75 percent across 

all age groups. In 2001 a 32 percent score increase was found. 

Increasing efforts and emphasis have been made by the Refuge to 

offer environmental education training to local educators. 

Environmental education programs are offered annually to village 

schools. In conjunction, a variety of video programs on Island 

natural history and refuge management topics were developed and 

made available to the public. The Refuge also cooperates with other 

agencies and groups to provide natural resource displays at the 

Kodiak airport, U.S. Coast Guard Station, local units of the Alaska 

State Park System, and the Alaska Marine Highway (ferry) terminal. 

Trends in Recreation Uses

The 1987 Refuge Conservation Plan predicted a doubling of 

recreation use between 1985 and 1995. Variations in data collection 

and reporting methods make precise analyses of trends nearly 

impossible. However, it does seem clear that recreation use of the 

Refuge has not increased as rapidly as predicted. At least since 1997, 

when the Refuge standardized its visitor-use estimation methods, 

overall recreation use has been relatively stable15. 

For the three to five years, no substantial changes in use are 

expected. Following the decline in 2000, use numbers appeared to be 

gradually rebounding toward the historic highs achieved during 1997 

through 1999; that trend is expected to continue. There are plans for 

a new visitor center, which could attract additional in-town visitors, 

but that use would not occur on the Refuge. No other large-scale 

travel or visitor infrastructure projects that might affect visitor use 

are planned. 

Throughout the life of this plan (approximately 15 years), overall 

visitor use is expected to increase 20 to 30 percent, and some shifts 

in type of use and users may also occur. This projection is based on 

information from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USDI and USDC 2002); The 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 2002); 

and a report published by the U.S. Forest Service (Bowker 2001). 

Based on recent recreation use, a 20 percent to 30 percent increase 

 

15The Refuge estimates use based on air-taxi reports. Visitors who access the Refuge in private boats or planes 

are not counted, so actual use is somewhat higher. The observation of relatively stable use since 1997 assumes 

that the proportion of private-access visitors has remained stable over that time as well. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-101 

would mean that the Refuge would receive between 9,914 and 

10,740 recreation use-days by 202016. 

Most of the projected increase in use will be due to population 

growth in Alaska and the rest of the nation. In addition, overall 

participation in wildlife-associated recreation is expected to increase 

more rapidly in Alaska than in the rest of the nation. Point estimates 

of participation for specific activities are highly variable. For 

example, according to a large-scale national survey, nationwide 

participation in fishing did not increase between 1991 and 2001; in 

Alaska, however, participation in fishing may have increased by as 

much as 36 percent during this same period (USDI and USDC 2002). 

In comparison, data from ADF&G’s statewide harvest-survey 

program suggest that fishing participation increased only slightly, 10 

percent or less, during the same period. Taking these variable 

estimates into account, overall participation in hunting and fishing in 

Alaska is projected to grow by roughly 20 percent between 2000 and 

2020, and wildlife-viewing is projected to grow by about 30 percent 

(Bowker 2001). 

Because of differential population growth, nonresident wildlife 

viewers are projected to outnumber resident viewers by 10 to 1, and 

the ratio of nonresident to resident anglers will be about one to one, 

by 2020 (Bowker 2001). For Kodiak Refuge, this means that 

wildlife-viewing is likely to increase as a proportion of total 

recreation use-days, and nonresidents will constitute a larger 

proportion of the visitor population. 

3.4 Wilderness Values 

Section 304(g) of ANILCA requires the Service to identify and 

describe certain values of the Refuge, including wilderness values. 

The term “values” is often viewed synonymously with a range of 

similar terms, from subjective beliefs and preferences (e.g. family 

values) to more objective functions, services, and benefits (e.g. 

ecological values). Of interest here are the objective kinds of values, 

specifically those related to the condition and character of the natural 

environment. 

The 1964 Wilderness Act provides a framework for identifying and 

describing wilderness values. The act recognized wilderness as a 

resource in and of itself and also established a mechanism for 

preserving that resource in a national system of lands. Thus, 

wilderness values can be grouped into two basic categories: those 

that are associated generally with wild, natural settings (the 

“wilderness resource,” which may or may not be legally protected) 

and those that are derived specifically from the long-term protections 

associated with formal Wilderness designation. There is no 

designated Wilderness on Kodiak Refuge. Therefore, only the values 

 

16Estimated “recent” recreation use is based on the seven-year average for 1997–2003. This projection does not 

include subsistence use or use by visitors who access the Refuge by private boat or plane. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-102 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

associated with the generally wild, natural condition of the refuge 

environment are described here. 

The fundamental attributes of the wilderness resource, described in 

the Wilderness Act, are size, naturalness, wildness (“untrammeledness”), and opportunities for primitive recreation (including 

solitude). In addition, wilderness values may be enhanced by special 

or unique biophysical or cultural features (e.g., wildlife 

concentrations, rare or dramatic landforms, cultural sites). 

The Wilderness Act states that a wilderness should be at least 5,000 

acres in size, or be large enough to “make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition” (Section 2[c][3]). Presumably, 

while any area of land may have wilderness values, a larger area has 

greater wilderness value than does a smaller area (all other things 

being equal). 

The significance of size is closely linked to the second fundamental 

attribute of the wilderness resource: naturalness. According to the 

Wilderness Act, naturalness refers to both the appearance and the 

functional integrity of an area. Wilderness should be largely free of 

visible human intrusions or alterations (e.g., structures, roads), and it 

should support ecological processes (the “community of life,” 

Section 2[c]) that are whole and functional. In most cases, larger 

areas are more likely than small areas to maintain their natural 

integrity. 

In addition to exhibiting naturalness, the wilderness resource should 

be predominantly wild—that is, untrammeled (uncontrolled) by 

people. In Alaska, naturalness and wildness frequently go hand in 

hand, but that is not always the case in other places. For example, a 

large private forest carefully manipulated for maximum timber 

production may appear natural; without the free play of natural 

forces (such as forest succession), however, it lacks wildness. For the 

purpose of identifying and describing wilderness values on Kodiak 

Refuge, naturalness and wildness are grouped into a single category. 

The fourth fundamental attribute of the wilderness resource, 

opportunity for primitive recreation, is facilitated and enhanced by 

the other attributes. Primitive recreation—a kind of use that is 

dispersed, undeveloped, and does not require mechanized equipment 

or facilities on site—is characterized by dimensions such as 

challenge and self-reliance. Dispersed use patterns, which frequently 

occur where there are no facilities to concentrate use, enhance the 

need for self-reliance and also provide opportunities for solitude. 

Remoteness and isolation can further enhance primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

In Alaska, wilderness can be a living, working area where 

subsistence and other traditional activities continue. ANILCA allows 

for the use of certain methods of motorized and non-motorized 

access in association with these activities and allows for the presence 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-103 

of cabins for administration of the area, for public safety, and for 

traditional and customary uses. As a result, visitors to some areas of 

the Refuge may encounter evidence of these activities. 

As directed by Sections 304(g) and 1317 of ANILCA, all Kodiak 

Refuge lands were reviewed during the first refuge planning process 

in the early 1980s “as to their suitability or nonsuitability for 

preservation as wilderness.” Since that time, approximately 175,000 

acres have been added to the Refuge. The new lands fall within the 

boundaries of the four wilderness review units identified during the 

1980s review; those boundaries are used once again for the following 

identification and description of refuge wilderness values, including 

values on the newly acquired lands. (See Figure 3-8.) 

In general, all four areas share similar attributes of large size, a high 

degree of naturalness and wildness, and abundant opportunities for 

primitive recreation. 

3.4.1 Ayakulik-Uyak Unit 

Size

This unit encompasses approximately 800,000 acres. It consists of all 

refuge lands west and south of Uyak Bay, including the Kodiak 

Refugium and four associated glacial lakes: Karluk, Frazer, Red, and 

Akalura. The largest proportion of new lands added since the 1980s 

review are located within this unit. 

Naturalness and Wildness

The unit has a distinctive flora composition and a rolling landscape 

that contrasts with the rugged mountains in the rest of the Refuge. 

The Ayakulik-Red River drainage is the largest watershed and one of 

the two most productive salmon streams on Kodiak Island. The 

Karluk River drainage, second largest on the Island, is also located in 

this unit, although much of Karluk Lake and the lower Karluk are in 

private ownership (managed by the Refuge according to the terms of 

a conservation easement agreement). Primarily treeless tundra, the 

area’s vegetation consists of a mixture of grass-sedge and shrub 

types. 

Many fish and wildlife species occur in densities that are not found 

elsewhere on the island. The Karluk and Ayakulik rivers have, by 

far, the largest Chinook and steelhead runs found on Kodiak. Several 

other very important anadromous fish streams are found in the unit. 

A variety of berries are found in the extensive shrub types that occur 

in proximity to these streams, while higher subalpine habitats 

provide extensive brown bear denning habitat. As a result, this unit 

contains some of the best brown bear habitat known. The area also 

contains key summer and fall feeding habitat for hundreds of bald 

eagles, and prime eagle nesting habitat. 

Private cabins, lodges, and other facilities, primarily associated with 

tourism and commercial fishing activities, occur on private 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-104 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

inholdings located along the coastline and the Karluk River. The 

Refuge maintains administrative facilities at Karluk Lake and 

Deadman Bay and leases some sites to the Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game to facilitate its administrative activities. The Refuge 

also maintains two public use cabins at Frazer Lake. The impacts 

from these facilities are localized. In general, lands in this unit 

remain highly natural in appearance and are free of human control. 

The impacts to naturalness and wildness from recreational hunting 

and fishing and associated fish and wildlife management activities 

are considered to be minor. 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation

Most human use in this unit consists of short-term recreation visits 

mid-April through late November. Some of the best bear-viewing, 

recreational fishing, and wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on Kodiak Island are found here. Seasonally 

concentrated use can occur on portions of the Karluk and Ayakulik 

rivers and at public use cabins. At times, opportunities for solitude 

may be compromised. However, access is limited to floatplane and 

boat; overall use is relatively low; and visitors can expect 

challenging conditions that require a high degree of self-reliance. 

3.4.2 Zachar-Uganik Unit 

Size

This unit encompasses the remaining refuge lands on Kodiak Island, 

except for the Spiridon Peninsula (approximately 618,000 acres). 

Most of the remaining new lands added since the 1980s are also 

located in this area. 

Naturalness and Wildness

Much of the rugged mountainous terrain of Kodiak Island is in this 

unit. Short, swift streams flowing through steep-walled valleys 

empty into fjordlike bays that indent the shoreline. Several small 

cirque and hanging glaciers are found in the area’s highest 

elevations—the only glaciers on the Kodiak Archipelago. 

Many of the area’s streams provide extensive spawning habitat for 

large runs of pink and coho salmon. The Uganik River system also 

provides spawning habitat for a sockeye salmon run. Prime denning 

and feeding habitats for brown bear are found in the area. Most of 

the mountain goat population on the Refuge is found here as well. 

Significant numbers of deer and bear hunters and recreational anglers 

use the area, although most activities are concentrated along the 

coastline and around Uganik Lake. The Refuge maintains a public 

use cabin at Uganik Lake and one additional cabin on Viekoda Bay. 

A number of onshore facilities for commercial setnetters are located 

along the coastline. Impacts to naturalness and wildness from these 

facilities and uses are highly localized. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-105 

Figure 3-8 Wilderness review units (1987 Conservation Plan) and rivers with exceptional values 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-106 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, located within the unit near 

the eastern boundary, has an impact on the natural integrity, apparent 

naturalness, and wildness of the Terror River watershed, especially 

in the immediate vicinity of the project. However, impacts to 

apparent naturalness are limited by the steep topography of the area, 

which helps hide the dam and access road except from the air and all 

but a few high points. Impacts to natural integrity and wildness are 

difficult to assess; on the scale of the whole unit, however, they are 

considered to be minor. 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation

Rugged terrain, salmon runs, and bear, deer, and mountain goat 

populations provide abundant primitive recreation opportunities. As 

is the case with the Ayakulik-Uyak Unit, in the Zachar-Uganik Unit, 

seasonal concentrations of visitors near cabins and primary access 

points may occasionally reduce opportunities for solitude; however, 

overall use is low, and most visitors can easily avoid the sights and 

sounds of others if they choose. 

3.4.3 Spiridon Peninsula-Uganik Island Unit 

Size

This unit encompasses approximately 151,000 acres of refuge land 

on the Spiridon Peninsula and Uganik Island, extending into Shelikof 

Strait. 

Naturalness and Wildness

The high winds and severe weather of the Shelikof Strait are a 

significant influence on the Spiridon Peninsula and Uganik Island. 

Although they share some of the same attributes as the previously 

described units, vegetation in this unit is generally more open with 

less shrub and brush habitats and more grasslands. The terrain, 

although generally steep-walled along the coastline, consists of 

rolling hills and less-rugged mountains. 

Little River is the primary salmon stream on the Spiridon Peninsula, 

providing spawning habitat for large runs of sockeye, pink, and coho 

salmon. It also supports populations of rainbow trout, steelhead, and 

Dolly Varden. Large numbers of Sitka black-tailed deer winter on 

the outer capes of the Peninsula and on Uganik Island. 

Two public use cabins are located in this unit: one at Little River 

Lake and one on the Uganik Island coast, along with onshore 

facilities for commercial setnetters. As in the other units, the impacts 

from these facilities and associated uses are highly localized. 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation

Severe weather, rather than rugged terrain, represents the primary 

challenge in this unit. The major human activity is deer hunting, 

which is facilitated by open vegetation and high densities of deer. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-107 

Seasonal concentrations of visitors can occur at the two public use 

cabins, and the open terrain provides only limited screening from 

other users. However, ample primitive recreation and solitude 

opportunities exist at most times and in most places within this unit. 

3.4.4 Red Peaks–Ban Island Unit 

Size

This unit encompasses approximately 54,000 acres facing Shelikof 

Strait on the northwestern side of Afognak Island and all of Ban 

Island. 

Naturalness and Wildness

The lands within this unit are extremely rugged, with jagged 

mountain peaks and pinnacles, steep talus slopes, and a very broken 

shoreline. Except for the highest elevations, the area is completely 

covered with stands of Sitka spruce. Brown bear, Roosevelt elk, bald 

eagle, Sitka black-tailed deer, a variety of marine mammals, and 

other wildlife use this area extensively throughout the year. One 

public use cabin is located at Blue Fox Bay. 

This area was added to the Refuge with the passage of ANILCA in 

1980; prior to that, it was part of the Chugach National Forest. The 

Forest Service recommended the area for Wilderness designation as 

part of the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II process during 

the 1970s. This area remains highly natural and wild. 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation

This is the most remote and isolated of the refuge units. Human use 

is sparse, with most activities limited to the coastline. Use of the 

cabin at Blue Fox Bay is highest during the winter months when 

other public use cabins located on freshwater become unavailable 

because of freeze-up. Extremely rugged terrain, coupled with low 

visitor numbers, provides excellent opportunities to experience the 

challenge of primitive recreation and to practice self-reliance in 

relative solitude. 

3.4.5 Existing Wilderness Recommendation 

Several recommendations for designating refuge lands as Wilderness 

were evaluated in the Final Kodiak Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement (USFWS 1987). The record of 

decision for the final plan included a recommendation that 

approximately 1.08 million acres of the Refuge be designated as part 

of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This 

recommendation includes most of the lands within the ZacharUganik Unit and lands north of Olga bay in the Ayakulik-Uyak unit. 

(See Figure 3-9.) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-108 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3.5 River Values 

Rivers are among the most important features of the refuge 

environment: they both influence and reveal the Refuge’s 

topography. In the rugged refuge landscape, rivers serve as important 

transportation corridors for people and wildlife. They provide 

essential spawning and rearing habitat for resident and anadromous 

fish, which in turn support wildlife concentrations. Collectively, 

these resources have long supported human subsistence users, and 

they attract modern recreation visitors as well. 

Based on the general attributes described previously—topography 

and geology, fish and wildlife populations, recreation opportunities, 

and cultural history—three river segments have been identified as 

exceptional examples of Kodiak Refuge rivers. (See Figure 3-8.) The 

outstanding values of these rivers are described in the following text. 

3.5.1 Ayakulik River 

The Ayakulik River is located in the southwestern portion of the 

Refuge, in an area known as the Kodiak Refugium. The segment of 

the river described here begins at the refuge boundary near the 

river’s mouth, and extends upstream approximately 25 miles on the 

main stem to the confluence of the east fork of the Ayakulik. The 

segment also includes the Red River from the outlet of Red Lake 

downstream for five miles to the confluence with the main stem. The 

entire segment corridor is on federal public lands. 

Topography and Geology

The topography of the Ayakulik drainage is significantly different 

than other areas on the Refuge. The ridges and mountains are not as 

rugged as those in the rest of the Refuge, and the area is almost 

entirely treeless. The river itself meanders across a broad, marshy 

floodplain bordered by low rolling mountains, then the plain narrows 

and enters a more constricted, mountain-lined valley. The river 

empties into a small marine estuary. The distinctive topography 

reflects a longer period of landform weathering than in adjacent 

regions of the archipelago. Geologists believe that the Ayakulik 

River area has been free of glaciation for 45,000 to 100,000 years, 

which is why it is referred to as the Refugium (Saltonstall 2003). 

Fish and Wildlife Populations

Although similar wildlife and fishery values occur on other river 

systems within the exterior boundaries of the Refuge, the Ayakulik is 

one of only two systems that have all five species of Pacific salmon 

naturally occurring. The river also has rainbow trout, a large 

steelhead population, and a very large Dolly Varden population. The 

Ayakulik drainage hosts concentrations of bears feeding on salmon 

that are some of the highest on Kodiak; 200–300 bears use the 

drainage for feeding and denning. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-109 

Figure 3-9 Existing Wilderness recommendation 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-110 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The virtually treeless drainage is the central part of the largest 

expanse of maritime tundra in the Kodiak Archipelago and supports 

a great diversity and density of nesting waterfowl and shorebirds, 

including the highest density of nesting tundra swans and the highest 

harlequin breeding counts observed on the Refuge (USFWS 1997b). 

Between 40 and 200 eagles use the Ayakulik from July through 

August, and about 50 to 80 use it in October and November for 

feeding (USFWS 1987). 

Recreation Opportunities

Outstanding fishery resources support world-class recreational 

fishing as well as hunting for deer and brown bear. Wildlife-viewing 

opportunities are also excellent. These opportunities consistently 

attract the largest concentrations of visitors anywhere on the Refuge. 

Cultural History.

Recent surveys have confirmed the locations of at least 

20 archaeological sites, some of which may be as old as 7,500 years. 

One particular site below the confluence of Bear Creek is at least 

three-quarters of a mile long and contains approximately 20 outlines 

of old structures (Saltonstall 2003). 

3.5.2 Spiridon River 

The Spiridon River segment begins at the river’s mouth in Spiridon 

Bay, extends upstream for approximately 13 river miles to the 

confluence with a tributary locally known as Munsey’s Creek, and 

then up the creek for approximately one mile—for a total segment 

length of approximately 14 miles. The whole of the segment corridor 

is on federal public lands. 

Topography and Geology

The river has its headwaters in a series of small feeder tributaries 

originating from the mountain glaciers around Koniag peak, the 

highest mountain in the Kodiak Archipelago. The river flows 

through deep canyons at a moderate to low gradient, often heavily 

braided, until it reaches a small canyon just above Spiridon Bay, 

where it becomes a single channel with numerous rapids. From the 

river, there are scenic vistas of steep terrain rising above the valley 

floor and spectacular views of mountain glaciers that are visible from 

Munsey’s Lake and other locations within the corridor. The glacial 

character of the drainage is highly evident, which makes the Spiridon 

River significantly different from other refuge rivers. 

Fish and Wildlife Populations

The river supports populations of Dolly Varden and runs of pink, 

chum, coho, and sockeye salmon. Excellent denning and browsing 

habitat supports local brown bear, and there is also habitat for 

harlequin ducks and other waterfowl and shorebirds. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-111 

Recreation Opportunities

The river provides good to excellent recreational fishing opportunities, 

wildlife-viewing, and deer and bear hunting. Opportunities in this area 

are dominated by the remote and nearly inaccessible nature of the river. 

Because of tidal conditions, the river mouth may only be accessed at 

high tide with a small skiff. Conditions sometimes allow float planes to 

land at Munsey’s Lake, where visitors can float to the ocean. Due to 

rapids near the river’s mouth, floating is challenging. 

Cultural History

There is a site with four house pits at the mouth of the river that may be 

1,000 years old. This area was surveyed in 1977, and the river has not 

been surveyed since because of its inaccessibility. 

3.5.3 Uganik River 

The segment described here covers approximately 17 miles of the 

Uganik River, including approximately five miles of the Lower Uganik 

from its mouth in the East Arm of Uganik bay to the outlet of Uganik 

Lake, approximately nine and a half miles of the Upper Uganik 

upstream from its inlet to Uganik Lake, and approximately two and a 

half miles of the Upper East Fork from its confluence with the main 

stem. The entire segment corridor is on federal public land. 

Topography and Geology

The Uganik River area has the most rugged and scenic mountain 

terrain on Kodiak Island. Uganik Lake is surrounded by steep-sided 

ridges, which make it significantly different from other refuge lakes. 

The glacial-fed river, with headwaters near Mt. Glottof, flows through 

deep canyons at a fairly steep gradient initially; about 10 miles above 

Uganik Lake, it becomes more braided, with frequent gravel bars, as it 

flows through a broad valley. 

Fish and Wildlife Populations

The drainage supports resident populations of rainbow trout and Dolly 

Varden as well as anadromous runs of sockeye, pink, chum, and coho 

salmon and occasional steelhead. The combination of salmon runs and 

the diversity of forage provided by berry crops and sedge meadows 

supports a high density of brown bears. The estuary at the river mouth 

supports a June concentration of bears that are attracted to the area to 

feed on new shoots of tidal vegetation and an early run of sockeye. Bears 

also return to this area in the fall to feed on pink and chum salmon runs 

(Rohrer 2002). From late July to early August, large numbers of bears 

feed almost exclusively on the newly emerging shoots of longawn sedge 

(Carex macrochaeta)—a unique behavior to this region—in the high 

mountain tundra where the Uganik headwaters are located. Sitka blacktailed dear, red fox, and beaver are found throughout the drainage. Bald 

eagles use the corridor for nesting and feeding. Habitat for harlequin 

ducks and other waterfowl is also present. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-112 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cultural History

In 1896, Alaska Packers Association built a cannery at Mush Bay, 

which is where the lower Uganik River empties into the ocean. This 

cannery was built specifically to take advantage of the unusually 

large sockeye salmon that return to this river each year. In the 1920s 

and 1930s, two other canneries were built for packing and salting 

salmon. Commercial fish traps were installed in Mush Bay and the 

East Arm of the Uganik to support the canneries. None of these 

canneries are still operating. Some known archaeological sites are 

located along the lower Uganik and its mouth (Saltonstall 2003). 

3.6 Refuge 

Infrastructure and 

Administration 

3.6.1 Administrative Facilities 

Administrative facilities described in this section include offices, 

residences (quarters), bunkhouses, maintenance shops, warehouse 

space, vehicle storage, aircraft hangar or airport leases and tie-down 

space or float ponds or docks, storage sites for fuel and other 

hazardous materials, and remote administrative sites. 

The Service’s primary Kodiak Refuge administrative facilities are 

located five miles west of the City of Kodiak. These facilities, 

including the aircraft hangar near Kodiak airport, are on lands 

withdrawn for the U.S. Coast Guard. Coast Guard Land Use Permit 

DOT-CG17-55087-flp authorizes the use by Kodiak Refuge of 35 

acres at the administrative site and one acre at the hangar. This 5-

year lease was last renewed on July 24, 1999; it is currently in the 

process of being renewed. A triplex located within the City of 

Kodiak is owned by the U.S. Forest Service; use by Kodiak Refuge 

is authorized through Memorandum of Agreement 14-16-007-81-

5530 signed in 1981. Use of the float-plane base on Lily Lake is 

authorized through a lease with the City of Kodiak. In addition, the 

Refuge maintains remote administrative facilities or sites at Camp 

Island on Karluk Lake, at Terror Bay, and at Deadman’s Bay. These 

are all located on lands administered by Kodiak Refuge. 

Table 3-28 is a comprehensive list of all current administrative 

facilities used and maintained by the Refuge, including pertinent 

information on the adequacy of the facilities to meet current and 

projected refuge needs. 

Additional administrative facilities necessary for implementation of 

the Refuge’s current program of work are identified in Table 3-29. If 

additional facilities are required to implement a specific alternative, 

these facilities and associated costs are identified in the discussion of 

that alternative. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-113 

3.6.2 Refuge Staffing 

The Kodiak Refuge staff presently consists of 20 permanent 

positions. The following are permanent positions unless otherwise 

noted: 

 Refuge manager 

 Deputy refuge manager 

 Supervisory wildlife biologist 

 Wildlife biologist (Refuge Operating Needs System) 

 Wildlife biologist (boat operator) 

 Wildlife biologist (permanent part-time) 

 Wildlife biologist (subsistence) 

 Refuge information technician (subsistence—permanent parttime) 

 Marine machinery mechanic 

 Fisheries biologist (pilot) 

 Biological science technician (fisheries) 

 Supervisory park ranger 

 Refuge operations specialist 

 Park ranger (law enforcement)—two positions 

 Maintenance worker 

 Airplane pilot 

 Administrative technician 

 Administrative technician (permits) 

 Office automation clerk 

In addition, three to 10 positions are filled on a seasonal basis. 

To effectively manage the Refuge’s current program of work, six 

additional permanent full-time positions are needed: 

 Outdoor recreation specialist for the visitor center 

 Park ranger for Salmon Camp 

 Refuge operations specialist for permits 

 Refuge operations specialist for administration and facilities 

 Maintenance worker 

 Ecologist 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-114 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 3-28 Existing administrative facilities for Kodiak Refuge 

Facility Size 

(sq. ft.) 

Description 

Headquarters 

Office and Visitor 

Center 

4,000 Good condition, inadequate space for 

existing staff, meetings, and storage 

Residence #2 1,944 Good condition, employee housing 

Residence #3 1,944 Good condition, employee housing 

Residence #4 1,944 Good condition, employee housing 

Residence #5 1,944 Good condition, employee housing 

Bunkhouse 1,704 Good condition, housing for summer 

employees, volunteers, and other 

employees on assignment 

Shop 2,400 Good condition, inadequate space and 

heating system 

Aircraft Hangar 3,600 Good condition, located on Coast 

Guard Station near Kodiak airport 

Float Plane Base Good conditions, located at Lily Lake 

Triplex Residence 2,949 Good condition, located in City of 

Kodiak, employee housing 

Headquarters 

Office Annex 

 576 Poor condition, staff office space 

Pan-Abode Storage 

Shed 

 300 Poor condition, unheated storage 

Container Storage 

Shed 

1,120 Poor condition, unheated storage 

Administrative 

Bunkhouse 

630 Good condition, southwest Camp 

Island 

Administrative Fuel 

Shed 

288 Good condition, southwest Camp 

Island 

Administrative 

Pan-Abode 

850 Fair condition, northeast Camp Island 

Administrative 

Bunkhouse 

1,410 Fair condition, northeast Camp Island 

Administrative 

Boathouse/Shop 

825 Fair condition, northeast Camp Island 

Administrative 

Bunkhouse 

1,600 Poor condition, Terror Bay 

Administrative 

Bunkhouse 

750 Poor condition, Deadman Bay 

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all facilities are located at the 

headquarters site. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-115 

Table 3-29 Additional facilities needed to support current 

refuge programs 

Facility Size (sq. ft) Description 

Visitor Center 10,000 Need larger facility for visitor 

services 

Equipment Storage 

Building 

4,000 Need building for equipment and 

vehicle storage 

Bunkhouse 4,200 Need additional housing for 

seasonal employees and volunteers 

Office Space 6,800 Need additional office, storage, 

meeting, and computer space 

Residence 1,944 Need additional employee housing 

3.7 References Cited 

ACFEC. 2005. “Fishing statistics and activities.” Accessed January 

5, 2006. At http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/ 

bit/mnusalm.htm.on the World Wide Web, 

produced by Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry 

Commission. 

ADF&G. 1985. “Alaska habitat management guide, southwest 

region, fish and wildlife histories, habitat 

requirements, distribution, and abundance.” Vol. 1. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Division of Habitat. 

ADF&G. 1992. “Customary and Traditional Use Worksheet II (13) 

Deer—Game Management Unit 8, November 1992.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Division of Subsistence. 

ADF&G. 2000. “Kodiak Island weir locations.” Accessed July 7, 

2003. At http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/ 

on the World Wide Web, produced by Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries. 

ADF&G. 2002a. “Commercial Salmon Fishery Summary, Kodiak 

Management Area.” Kodiak, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries. 

ADF&G. 2002b. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 240 pp. 

ADF&G, and NPS. 2003. “Best practices for viewing bears on the 

west side of Cook Inlet and the Katmai Coast.” Anchorage, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation; and National Park Service, Katmai National Park and 

Preserve. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-116 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

AEIDC. 1979. “An assessment of environmental effects of 

construction and operation of the proposed Terror 

Lake hydroelectric facility, Kodiak, Alaska.” 

Prepared for the Kodiak Electric Association. 

Kodiak, Alaska: Arctic Environmental Information 

and Data Center. 334 pp. 

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation. 2000. “Annual 

Report.” Accessed May 23, 2003. At 

http://www.akaerospace.com/frames1.html

World Wide Web, produced by Alaska Aerospace 

Development Corporation. (PDF file) 

Allen, S., and A. Collins. 2002. “An assessment of bear-viewing 

opportunities relevant to management of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

77 pp. 

Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, and V.D. Berns. 1980. Brown 

bear summer use of alpine habitat on Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. In proceedings from It. 

Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:297–305. 

Aumiller, L.D., and C.A. Matt. 1994. Management of McNeil River 

State Game Sanctuary for viewing of brown bears. 

In proceedings from International Conference on 

Bear Research and Management. J.J. Claar and P. 

Schullery, eds. 9:283–293. 

Ballard, W.B., S.D. Miller, and T.A. Spraker. 1982. “Home range, 

daily movements, and reproductive biology of 

brown bear in southcentral Alaska.” Canadian 

Field-Nat. 96(1): 1–5. 

Barnes Jr., V.G. 1984. “Progress Report: Brown bear studies.” 

Unpublished report. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Center. 28 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G. 1990. “The influence of salmon availability on 

movements and range of brown bears on southwest 

Kodiak Island.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8: 

305–313. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., USGS retired biologist. 2004. Telephone 

conversation about bear–human interactions and 

bear behavior changes and effects on bear survival, 

to L. Kerr, refuge manager, Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. March 9. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1990. “Survival and productivity 

of female brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska.” 

Progress Report 1989. Kodiak, Alaska: Kodiak 

Brown Bear Res. and Habitat Maintenance Trust. 

12 pp. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-117 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1992. “Survival and productivity 

of female brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska, 

and application of aerial survey methods to estimate 

density and composition of brown bears on Kodiak 

Island, Alaska.” Unpublished work progress report 

on file at Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1997a. “Brown bear population 

assessment on the Shearwater Peninsula and Kiliuda 

Bay area, Kodiak Island, Alaska.” Final Report. 

Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. National Biological Service 

and Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 35 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1997b. “Population ecology of 

brown bears on Aliulik Peninsula, Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Final Report; National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Project 94-237. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

National Biological Service and Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game. 43 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and R.B. Smith. 1998. “Estimates of brown bear 

abundance on Kodiak Island, Alaska.” Ursus 10: 1–9. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G. Wilker. 2000. “Brown bear activity, 

behavior, and response to public use at Karluk Lake, 

Alaska.” Unpublished report on file. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 50 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker. 1998. “Distribution, patterns of 

use, and behavior of brown bears associated with a 

bear-viewing program on Thumb River, Kodiak 

Island, Alaska.” Job Completion Report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. National Biological Survey and Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 32 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker 2002. “Assessment of the 

vulnerability of habituated bears to sport harvest in 

the Karluk Lake vicinity of Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.” Kodiak Archipelago Bear 

Conservation and Management Plan. Anchorage, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game. pp. T-1 

through T-5. 

Batchelor, R. 1968. “Sitka black-tailed deer investigations.” Annual 

project segment report, Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration Project W-6P-3, workplan A. Juneau, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 

Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. 

New York, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 409 

pp. 

Berns, V.D., G.C. Atwell, and D.L. Boone. 1980. “Brown bear 

movements and habitat use at Karluk Lake, Kodiak 

Island.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4: 293–

296. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-118 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Berns, V.D., and R.J. Hensel 1972. “Radio tracking brown 

bears on Kodiak Island.” In S. Herrero, ed. Bears—

Their Biology and Management. Morges, 

Switzerland: Int. Union Conserv. Nat. New Ser. 23. 

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group. 1999. “Landbird 

conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic 

regions.” Version 1.0; unpublished report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Bowker, J.M. 2001. “Outdoor recreation by Alaskans: projections for 

2000 through 2020.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR527. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 22. 

Braendel, K., Kodiak area big-game guide. 2003. Conversation about 

changes in berry abundance related to deer 

populations, with B. Pyle, biologist, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. December 9, 2003. 

Brennan, Kevin. Kodiak Area salmon and herring biologist, 

ADF&G-Commercial Fishery Division. 2005. 

Conversation re: contribution of Kodiak Refuge 

salmon stock to commercial fishery and other related 

information and data, to Kevin VanHatten, fishery 

biologist, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. January 

2005. 

Brown, G. 1996. Safe travel in bear country. New York, New York: 

Lyons and Burford. 146 pp. 

Burris, O.E., and E. McKnight. 1973. “Game transplants in Alaska.” 

Technical Bulletin. #4. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. 57 pp. 

Capps, S.R. 1937. “Kodiak and adjacent lands, Alaska.” Bulletin. 

800-C. U.S. Geological Survey. 73 pp. 

Cassirer, E.F., J.D. Reichel, R.L. Wallen, and E.C. Atkenson. 1996. 

“Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histronicus) United 

States Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management 

Habitat Conservation Strategy for the U.S. Rocky 

Mountains.” Lewiston, Idaho: Collaboration of the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana 

Heritage Program, Grand Teton National Park, and 

the Howk Mountain Sanctuary Association. 

Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. 

Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, M.D. Kunze, 

B.G. Marcot, J.F. Palmisana, R.W. Plotnikoff, W.G. 

Pearcy, S.A. Simenstad, and P.C. Trotter. 2000. 

“Pacific Salmon and Wildlife—Ecological Contexts, 

Relationships, and Implications for Management.” 

Special Edition Technical Report. Olympia, 

Washington: Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-119 

Chatto, T. 1998. “A review of Sturgeon River chum salmon 

(Oncorhynchus keta) escapement and 

recommendations for management and research.” 

Unpublished report on file at Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. Kodiak, Alaska: Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. 17 pp. 

Chatto, T., Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Fishery Biologist and 

Pilot. 2000. Telephone conversation re: hydropower 

projects on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, to W. 

Keogh, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Water 

Resources Branch. August 8, 2000. 

Clark, K.W. 1957. Seasonal food habits of the Kodiak bear. In 

proceedings from Trans. North Am. Wildlife and 

National Resources Conf. 22:145–149. 

Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly 

bears of Yellowstone: their ecology in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem, 1959-1992. Washington, 

D.C.: Island Press. 

Curran, J.H., D.F. Meyer, and G.D. Tasker. 2003. Estimating the 

magnitude and frequency of streamflows for 

ungaged sites on streams in Alaska and 

conterminous basins in Canada. Denver, Colorado: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. (Prepared in cooperation with the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 

Anchorage, Alaska.) 

DCED. 2000a. “Alaska Community Database Online.” Accessed 

July 7, 2000. At http://www.state.ak.us/ 

mra/CF_COMDB.htm on the World Wide Web, 

produced by Alaska Department of Community and 

Economic Development. 

DCED. 2000b. “Alaska community database, detailed community 

data.” Accessed August 4, 2000. At 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/mra/ 

CF_BLOCK.htm on the World Wide Web, produced 

by Alaska Department of Community and Economic 

Development. 

DCED. 2004. “Alaska Economic Information System: Kodiak Island 

Census Area: Subsistence.” Accessed August 24, 

2004. At http://www.dced.state.ak.us/ 

dca/AEIS/AEIS/Kodiak_Subsistence_ 

Narrative.htm on the World Wide Web, 

produced by Alaska Department of Community and 

Economic Development. 

Diters, C. 1999. “Kodiak Refuge Cultural Resources Guide.” Report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-120 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

DNR. 2000. “Alaska Dam Inventory database (AKDAMINV.xls).” 

Unpublished spreadsheet. Anchorage, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Mining and Water. 

DOI/MMS. 1984. “Final environmental impact statement: Gulf of 

Alaska–Cook Inlet lease sale 88.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service. 

Ehm, A.E. 1983. “Oil and gas basins maps of Alaska.” (map) 

1:2,500,000. Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources. 

Fall, J.A., ed. 1991. “Subsistence harvest and uses in seven Gulf of 

Alaska communities in the second year following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill.” Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 300 pp. (Technical Paper No. 218) 

Fall, J.A., and C. Utermohle. 1999. “Subsistence harvests and uses in 

eight communities ten years after the Exxon Valdez

oil spill.” Technical Paper No. 252. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 646 pp. 

Fleming, M., and P. Spencer. 2005. “Habitat Mapping of the Kodiak 

Archipelago.” Digital data files, maps, and User’s 

Guide. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Geographic 

Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Forsell, D.J., and P.J. Gould. 1981. “Distribution and abundance of 

marine birds and mammals wintering in the Kodiak 

area of Alaska.” Report. FWS/OBS 81/13. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Office of Biological Services. 

Fried, N., and B. Windisch-Cole. 1999. “Kodiak.” Alaska Economic 

Trends 19(9): 3–13. 

Goldsmith, S., J. Brian, and A. Hill. 2003. “The Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge: Economic Importance—A Report 

for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: Institute for Social and Economic Research, 

University of Alaska Anchorage. 

Gotthardt, T., C. Heaton, J. Michaelson, and C. Coray. 2002. 

“National Wildlife Refuge Species of Concern GIS 

Database.” CD-ROM. Anchorage, Alaska: 

Cooperative Project between Alaska Natural 

Heritage Program, Environmental Resources 

Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage, and U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 

Hall, E.R. 1984. Geographic variation among brown and grizzly 

bears (Ursus arctos) in North America. Lawrence, 

Kansas: University of Kansas Museum of National 

History. (Special Publication) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-121 

Hensel, R.J., W.A. Troyer, and A.W. Erickson. 1969. “Reproduction 

in the female brown bear.” J. Wildlife Management

33: 357–365. 

Herrero, S. 2002. Bear attacks: their causes and avoidance. Guiford, 

Connecticut: Lyons Press. (282 pp.) 

Hilderbrand, G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. 

Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C. Servheen. 1999. “The 

importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body 

size, population productivity, and conservation of 

North American brown bears.” Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 77: 

132–138. 

Hosking, H. 1984. “On-site monitoring of construction of Terror 

Lake Hydroelectric Project, Kodiak, Alaska.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

49 pp. 

Hunt, B. 1994. Behavioral ecology of breeding harlequin ducks in 

Jasper National Park: time–activity budgets and 

effects of disturbance. In proceedings from 

Harlequin Duck Symposium. Hornsby Island, B.C., 

Canada. March 13–15, 1994. 

Jackson, D.R., and M.P. Ruccio. 2001. “Annual Management Report 

for Kodiak, Chignik, and South Alaska Peninsula 

Area Groundfish Fisheries.” September 2001. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 

Johnson, P.R., and C.W. Hartman. 1969. Environmental Atlas of 

Alaska. College, Alaska: Institute of Environmental 

Engineering, University of Alaska. 

Jones, S.H., R.J. Madison, and C. Zenone. 1978. “Water resources of 

the Kodiak–Shelikof subregion, south-central 

Alaska.” Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 

2 map sheets. 

Jonkel, C.J. 1980. “Winter disturbance and grizzly bears.” Special 

Report No. 46. Missoula, Montana: University of 

Montana, Border Grizzly Project. 

3 pp. 

Karlstrom, T.N.V., and G.E. Ball, eds. 1969. The Kodiak Island 

Refugium: its geology, flora, fauna, and history. 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Boreal Institute, 

University of Alberta. 

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. 2000. “Kodiak Archaeology.” 

Accessed August 27, 2004. At 

http://www.kodiak.org/kodiak_archaeolog

y.html on the World Wide Web, produced by 

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce and the Kodiak 

Island Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-122 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. 2001. “Kodiak Region 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.” 

Accessed May 23, 2003. At 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/oedp/ 

pubs/Kodiak_CEDS.pdf on the World Wide Web, 

produced by Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. Source 

last updated August 2001. 

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. 2004. “Kodiak Island: the Emerald 

Isle.” Accessed August 24, 2004. At 

http://www.kodiak.org/answer.html on the 

World Wide Web, produced by Kodiak Chamber of 

Commerce and the Kodiak Island Convention and 

Visitor’s Bureau. 

Krueger, C.T., T. Chatto, S. Miller, and B. Spearman. 1999. 

“Mitochondrial DNA variation in steelhead trout 

(Onchorynchus mykiss): Comparison of collections 

from the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.” 

Alaska Fisheries Technical Report. No. 54. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Kurten, B. 1973. “Transberingian relationships of Ursus arctos

Linne (brown and grizzly bears).” Biologicae B: 1–

10. 

Lanctot, R., B. Goatcher, K. Scribner, S. Talbot, B. Pierson, D. Esler, 

and D. Zwiefelhofer. 1999. “Harlequin Duck 

Recovery from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A 

Population Genetics Perspective.” Auk 116(3): 781–

791. 

Larned, W.W. 1994. “Distribution and abundance of Steller’s eiders 

in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska, March 1994.” 

Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

19 pp. 

Larned, W.W. 2001. “Distribution and abundance of Steller’s eiders 

in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska, Jan–Feb 2001.” 

Unpublished report.: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

11 pp. plus appendix. 

Leer, J., compiler. 1978. A conversational dictionary of Kodiak 

Alutiiq. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language 

Center, University of Alaska. (With introduction by 

Jeff Leer.) 

Lentfer, J.W., R.J. Hensel, L.H. Miller, L.B. Glenn, and V.D. Berns 

1972. “Remarks on denning habits of brown bears.” 

In S. Herrero, ed. Bears and Their Biology and 

Management: Int. Union Conserv. Nat. New Serv. 

Vol. 23. 

Lewis, A. 2004. “Karluk River Visitor Survey 2002-2003.” 

Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Pacific University. (Manuscript on file at U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service regional headquarters, 

Anchorage, Alaska.) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-123 

Magoon, L.B., A.H. Bouma, M.A. Fisher, M.A. Flampton, E.W. 

Scott, and C.L. Wilson. 1979. “Resource report for 

proposed OCS sale No. 60, Lower Cook InletShelikof Strait, Alaska.” Open File Report. 79–600. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 38 pp. 

Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of 

developments and primary roads on grizzly bear 

habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.

In proceedings from Interntl. Conf. on Bear Res. and 

Manage. 7:259–273. 

Matz, G. 2000. “The value of Cook Inlet brown bears.” Draft 

document. Anchorage, Alaska: Eco Analysis. 

48 pp. 

Merriam, H.R. 1964. “Sitka black-tailed deer studies.” Segment 

report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 

W-6-R-5 and 6, work plan A. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. 

39 pp. 

Miller, S., and J. Schoen 1999. “Chapter 5: Brown bear conservation 

action plan for North America.” In S. Herrero and B. 

Peyton, eds. Bears--Status survey and conservation 

action plan: ICUM/SSC bear and polar bear 

specialist groups. Gland, Switzerland. 

Miller, S.M., and D.W. McCollum. 1999. Less May Mean More: 

Maximizing the Economic, Environmental, and 

Social Benefits from Alaska’s Visitors Industry. In 

proceedings from Can the Last Frontier Have a 

Sustainable Future? Anchorage, Alaska. 1999. 

NMFS. 2003. “Commercial Fishery Landings and Dollar Value at 

Kodiak for dates 1992-2001.” Accessed May 22, 

2003. At http://www.st.nmfs.gov/ 

st1/commercial/landings/port_yeard.html

on the World Wide Web, produced by National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Nowacki, G., P. Spencer, T. Brock, M. Fleming, and T. Jorgenson. 

2001. “Ecoregions of Alaska and neighboring 

territories.” (map) Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

NSRE. 2002. “National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE): 2000–2002.” Athens, Georgia: The 

Interagency National Survey Consortium, 

coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, 

Recreation, Wilderness and Demographics Trends 

Research Group, and the Human Dimensions 

Reference Information. 

Olson, T.L., B.K. Gilbert, and R.C. Squibb. 1997. “The effects of 

increasing activity on brown bear use of an Alaska 

river.” Biological Conservation 89: 95–99. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-124 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Orth, D.J. 1967. Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Washington, 

D.C.,: Government Printing Office. (U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 567; reprinted in 1971 

with minor revisions) 

Paetkau, D., G.F. Shields, and C. Strobeck. 1998. “Gene flow 

between insular, coastal and interior populations of 

brown bears in Alaska.” Molecular Ecology 7(10): 

1283–1292. 

Plafker, G. 1971. “Possible future petroleum resources of the Pacificmargin Tertiary Basin, Alaska.” In I.H. Cram, ed. 

Future petroleum provinces of the United States-—

their geology and potential. Memoir No. 15: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists. pp.

120–135. 

Price, M. 2001. “Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Chum 

Salmon, and Steelhead Smelt Emigration in the 

Sturgeon River, Kodiak, Alaska.” Alaska Fisheries 

Data Series. No. 2001-2. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 

Rausch, R.L. 1963. “Geographic variation in size in North American 

brown bears, Ursus arctos, L., as indicated by 

condylobasal length.” Canadian Journal of Zoology

41: 33–45. 

Reynolds, P.E., H.V. Reynolds, and E.H. Follmann. 1987. 

“Responses of grizzly bears to seismic surveys in 

northern Alaska.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.

7: 169–175. 

Rieger, S., D.B. Schoephorster, and C.E. Furbush. 1979. 

“Exploratory soil survey of Alaska.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 

Rinkelberg, E. 1997. “Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) 

behavior and habitat use in a northern Rocky 

Mountain stream.” M.S. thesis. University of 

Montana. Missoula, Montana. 

Rohrer, R., Kodiak Island commercial big-game guide. 2002. 

Conversation re: bear use of Mush Bay and lower 

Uganik River, to B. Pyle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service wildlife biologist, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Sagalkin, N.H. and Spalinger, K. 2005. "Annual management report 

for the groundfish fisheries in the Kodiak, Chignik, 

and South Alaska Peninsula Management Areas, 

2004." Fishery Management Report No. 05-58. 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-125 

Saltonstall, P., Alutiiq Museum archeologist. 2003. Conversation re: 

possible Uganik River and Spiridon River 

archaeological sites, to B. Pattinson, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service biological technician, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. April 7, 2003. 

Schoen, J., and M. Kirchhoff. 1990. “Seasonal habitat use by Sitka 

black-tailed deer on Admiralty Island, Alaska.” 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 371–377. 

Schreiner, E.G. and A Woodward. 1994. “Responses of vegetation to 

reductions in goat density.” In D.B. Houston, E.G. 

Schreiner, and B.B. Moorhead, eds. Mountain goats 

in Olympic National Park: biology and management 

of an introduced species. Scientific Monograph 

NPS/NROLYM/

NRSM-94/25. USDI National Park Service, Denver, 

Colorado. pp. 129-144. 

Schrof, S.T., and S.G. Honnold. 2003. “Salmon Enhancement, 

Rehabilitation, Evaluation, and Monitoring Efforts 

Conducted in the Kodiak Management Area 

Through 2001.” Regional Information Report. 

4K03-41. Kodiak, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 

Schwarz, L., and M. Clapsadl. 2000. “1997 and 1998 area 

management report for the recreational fisheries of 

the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Islands 

regulatory areas.” Fishery Management Report. No. 

00-1. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fish. 

Schwarz, L., D. Tracy, and S. Schmidt. 2003. “Karluk River visitor 

use census, 2002.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Research and Technical Services. 

Scott, C., A. Paige, and L. Brown. 2001. “Community Profile 

Database.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Selinger, J.S. 1995. “Seasonal habitat relationships of adult female 

deer on Kodiak Island, Alaska.” M.S. thesis. 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Sellers, R., and L.D. Aumiller. 1994. Brown bear population 

characteristics at McNeil River, Alaska. In 

proceedings from International Conference on Bear 

Research and Management. 9:283-293. 

Shaker, J., Alaska Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service subsistence biologist. 2003. Telephone 

conversation re: fish harvest numbers, with T. 

Fischbach, fishery technician, fish ticket data entry, 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. February 4, 2003. 

Shelton, J.G. 1994. Bear Encounter Survival Guide. Hagensborg, 

B.C., Canada: Pogany Productions. 230 pp. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-126 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Smith, R.B. 1979. History and current status of Sitka black-tailed 

deer in the Kodiak Archipelago. In proceedings from 

conference held in Juneau, Alaska. O.C. Wallmo and 

W.W. Schoen, eds. Series No. R10-48. USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, in cooperation with 

the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 

Smith, R.B. 1981. “Management of Kodiak brown bear, 1958–

1980.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. 15 pp. 

Smith, R.B. 1989. “Unit 8 deer survey-inventory progress report.” 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report for Grant 

W-23, Study 2.0. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. pp. 78–112. 

Smith, R.B., V.G. Barnes Jr., and L.J. Van Daele. 1989. Brown 

bear–human conflicts in the Kodiak Archipelago, 

Alaska. In proceedings from Symp. Bear People 

Conflicts. M. Bromley, ed. pp. 111–119. 

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada: 

Canadian Government of Northwest Territories. 

Smith, R.B., and L.J. Van Daele. 1990. “Impacts of construction and 

operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

on brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska.” Int. 

Conf. Bear Res. and Manage 8: 93–103. 

Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaska 

seabird colonies. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. 

(FWS/OSB-78/78) 

Spearmann, B., fisheries biologist, Conservation Genetics 

Laboratory. 2004. Conversation regarding Karluk 

and Ayakulik Chinook salmon, to H. Clough, refuge 

planner, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. August 27, 

2004. 

Spencer, Paige. Plant ecologist, National Park service. E-mail on 

field observations related to wildlife impacts on 

vegetation, received by Bill Pyle, biologist, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. April 11, 2005. 

Stovall, R. 2000a. “Sitka black-tailed deer browse inventory and 

monitoring report for 2000 on the Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

14 pp. 

Stovall, T. 2000b. “Sitka black-tailed deer winter mortality annual 

report 2000 for the Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 9 pp. 

Talbot, S.L., and G.F. Shields. 1996. “Phylogeography of brown 

bears (Ursus arctos) of Alaska and Paraphyly within 

the Ursidae.” Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution

5(3): 477–494. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-127 

Tracy, D., and J.S. Schmidt. 2004 (in press). “Summary of the 2003 

Ayakulik River Visitor Use Census.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 

Division of Sport Fish. 74 pp. 

Troyer, W.A., and R.J. Hensel. 1964. “Structure and distribution of a 

Kodiak bear population.” J. Wildlife Management

28: 769–772. 

Troyer, W.A., and R.J. Hensel. 1969. “The brown bear of Kodiak 

Island.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. 233 pp. 

USDI and USDC. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, 

D.C.,: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & 

Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 

USFWS. 1987. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Wilderness 

Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 533 pp. 

USFWS. 1989. “Annual narrative report, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge.” Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 

USFWS. 1993a. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Files of 

materials compiled by refuge biologists who 

participated in the biological program review. 

Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 1993b. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Final Public 

Use Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Public Use Regulations.” Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 1997a. “Federal Subsistence Board Meeting Materials, 

April 7, 1997.” Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. (On file.) 

USFWS. 1997b. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge River 

Management Report.” Unpublished report on file at 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Kodiak, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1998. “Five-year plan of study, water resources inventory 

and assessment, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” 

WRB 98-02. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Region 7. 

USFWS. 2000. “Notes of introduced species workshop, June 7–9, 

2000, Camp Island, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge.” Unpublished report. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 11 pp. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-128 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

USFWS. 2002. "Stock assessment—Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris), 

Southwest Alaska stock." Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals 

Management. 8 pp. 

USFWS. 2003. Transcript of the Kodiak/Aleutians Federal 

Subsistence Regional Council meeting, Kodiak, 

Alaska, March 20, 2003. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. (On file.) 

USFWS. n.d. “Unpublished data on brown bear densities from aerial 

surveys and other refuge field work.” Located in the 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge files maintained 

by the refuge biologist. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

USGS. 1989. “Alaska Index: Streamflow, Lake Levels and Water 

Quality Records to September 30, 1998.” Open File. 

89-269. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Geological 

Survey. (Also available at 

http://ak.water.usgs.gov/) 

Van Daele, L.J., Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Wildlife Conservation. 2001a. Personal 

communication regarding population status of 

nonnative species, to Conservation Plan Meeting, 

September 17, 2001. 

Van Daele, L.J. 2001b. “Unit 8 deer.” In M. Hicks, ed. Annual 

management progress report of survey-inventory 

activities. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game. pp. 108. (Federal Aid to Wildlife 

Restoration Program Report Project Grants W-27-2 

and W-27-3, Study 2.0) 

Van Daele, L.J., biologist, ADF&G. 2003a. Conversation and three 

e-mail messages about defense-of-life-or-property 

bear kills in the Kodiak Refuge area 

(e-mail on file at Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

office), to B. Pyle, biologist, Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. October 13, 2003. 

Van Daele, L.J. 2003b. The history of bears on the Kodiak 

Archipelago. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Natural 

History Association. 88 pp. 

Van Daele, L.J., Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Wildlife Conservation. 2003c. Letter regarding 

mountain goat population size and proposed hunting 

permit number, to P. Holmes, Kodiak Fish and 

Game Advisory Committee. January 28, 2003. 

Van Daele, L.J., area biologist, ADF&G. 2004a. Conversation about 

bear-denning areas and other topics related to the 

comprehensive conservation plan, to B. Pyle, 

biologist, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. March 

10, 2004. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3-129 

Van Daele, L.J. 2004b. “Status of wildlife populations in game 

management unit 8, 13 January 2004.” Unpublished 

report on file. Kodiak, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game. 

Van Daele, L.J., V.G. Barnes Jr., and R.B. Smith. 1990. “Denning 

characteristics of brown bears on Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Intl. Conf. Bear Res. Mange. 8: 257–267. 

Van Daele, L., and J. Crye 2002. “Elk management report of surveyinventory activities 1 July 1999–30 June 2001, Unit 

8.” In C. Healy, ed. Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration, Survey-Inventory Management Report, 

Project 13.0. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 

pp. 10–23. 

Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. “Revision of 

preliminary classification for vegetation of Alaska.” 

May 1982. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

von Huene, R., E.H. Lathram, and E. Reinmitz 1971. “Possible 

petroleum resources of offshore Pacific-margin 

Tertiary Basin, Alaska.” In I.H. Cram, ed. Future 

petroleum provinces of the United States—their 

geology and potential: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Memoir No. 15. pp. 136–151. 

Waits, L.P., S.L. Talbot, R.H. Ward, and G.F. Shields. 1998. 

“Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of the North 

American brown bear and implications 

for conservation.” Conservation Biology 12(2): 408–

417. 

Walker, T. 2002. “Alaska Bear-Viewing Areas.” In K.L. Lew, ed. 

Kodiak Archipelago Conservation and Bear 

Management Plan. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. (Appendix G) 

Wallen, R.I. 1987. “Habitat utilization by harlequin ducks in Grand 

Teton National Park.” M.S. thesis. Montana State 

University. Bozeman, Montana. 

Warner, S.H. 1987. “Visitor impact on brown bears, Admiralty 

Island, Alaska.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8: 

377–381. 

Wiley, J.B., and J.H. Curran. 2003. Estimating annual high-flow 

statistics and monthly low-flow statistics for 

ungaged sites on streams in Alaska and 

conterminous Canada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

(Prepared in cooperation with the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 

Anchorage, Alaska.) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-130 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wilker, G., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service refuge officer, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 2003. Conversation at 

Camp Island re: subsistence elk harvest on Afognak 

Island, with Tracyann and Anthony Fischbach, U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service wildlife biologists, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. May 24, 2003. 

Wilker, G.A., and V.G. Barnes. 1998. “Responses of brown bears to 

human activities at O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Ursus 10: 557–561. 

Zwiefelhofer, D.C. 2002a. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 2002 

Bald Eagle Nesting and Productivity Surveys.” 

Unpublished annual refuge report. Kodiak, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

19 pp. 

Zwiefelhofer, D.C. 2002b. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 2002 

Riparian Harlequin Duck Observations.” 

Unpublished annual refuge progress report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

15 pp. 
Chapter 4 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-1 

4. Environmental Consequences 

The purpose of this chapter is to identify, describe, and compare the 

effects of four alternatives (including current management) on the 

physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment proposed in 

this final Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (Plan). Current management (Alternative A) 

provides the basis for comparing the effects of three action 

alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D). The effects on Refuge 

resources of various management actions proposed by each 

alternative were assessed. The following topics were analyzed in this 

assessment: 

 Access to bear concentration areas 

 Public use cabins 

 Camping areas 

 Bear-viewing programs 

An analysis of the effects of management actions on the physical 

environment has been conducted for aquatic habitats. Although all 

species on the Refuge are important, many species are not expected 

to experience any change as a result of implementing any of the 

alternatives. For that reason, not all Refuge species are discussed in 

this chapter. An analysis of the effects of management actions on the 

biological environment has been conducted for the following: 

 Vegetation 

 Fish populations 

 Bird populations 

 Brown bear populations 

 Nonnative mammal populations 

 Marine mammal populations 

An analysis of effects on the human environment has been conducted 

for the following: 

 Local population and economy 

 Subsistence 

 Guides and commercial operators 

 Bear and deer hunting 

 Recreational fishing 

 Wildlife viewing 

 Wilderness and river values 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cultural resources would be protected under all alternatives; none of 

the alternatives would be expected to adversely affect cultural 

resources. For this reason, there is not a separate section on cultural 

resource impacts. 

Site-specific environmental effects of activities that would require 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation will be 

addressed in subsequent environmental assessments or 

environmental impact statements. 

4.1 Analyses 

4.1.1 Physical Environment 

Aquatic Habitats

The effects of all alternatives on aquatic habitat are anticipated to be 

of short duration and very localized, thereby causing no measurable 

degradation of aquatic habitats. 

Increased public use of aquatic habitats within bear concentration 

areas is possible under Alternatives B and D, which could cause 

some localized trampling of aquatic vegetation. 

No changes to aquatic habitats are anticipated from the continued use 

of public use cabins under Alternatives A, B, and D. A detailed 

analysis of the potential effects of adding additional cabins is not 

possible with the existing information because the number and 

locations of possible future cabins are not known. Additional sitespecific analysis would be conducted prior to constructing any new 

cabins. 

Camping area management is not expected to cause adverse effects 

on aquatic habitats. Camping area improvements could provide 

additional protection of aquatic habitats by keeping human waste 

away from waterbodies and directing some activities away from 

shorelines. 

Cumulative Effects. None of the proposed management actions or 

combinations of actions, under any of the alternatives, is likely to 

have measurable effects on aquatic habitats within the Refuge. 

4.1.2 Biological Environment 

Vegetation

Adverse impacts to vegetation could occur through direct damage 

such as trampling or removal and through the introduction of 

invasive plants. Under all alternatives, the introduction of invasive 

plants to Refuge lands is possible. Orange hawkweed has become 

established on Refuge and adjacent private lands at Camp Island, an 

area where several facilities are located. Seeds and plant parts of 

invasive species that can be transported in gear and clothing and on 

vehicles used to access the Refuge (e.g., float planes and boats) are 

difficult to protect against. If visitation to other areas of the Refuge 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-3 

increases, the likelihood of an invasive plant being accidentally 

brought to an area would also increase. Invasive plants are most 

likely to become established in areas where native vegetation has 

been disturbed (e.g., cabin sites). 

Alternative A. Currently less than five acres of the Refuge’s 

vegetation cover has been displaced by cabins and other structures. 

Seasonally some vegetation adjacent to popular fishing areas is 

trampled. Staff observations (Getman 2004) suggest that the native 

grasses recover quickly, and bare ground areas are not developing 

with current use. 

Under Alternative A, public use cabins would continue to be 

available, and additional cabins could be added to the program. 

Construction of new cabins would result in removal of native 

vegetation from the footprint of the cabin and any associated 

facilities. Given the amount of vegetation that would be removed 

compared to the size of the Refuge, this effect would be negligible. 

Invasive plants could become established at cabin sites because of 

the frequent presence of visitors and existing vegetation and soil 

disturbance. Cabin sites would be relatively easy to monitor for the 

presence of invasive plants, and eradication efforts could be 

undertaken prior to invasive plants spreading beyond the immediate 

vicinity. 

Alternative B. The effects of proposed camping area management 

would be similar to the effects of public use cabin management. In 

Alternative B, improvement of camping areas with facilities such as 

latrines and food caches would be done to mitigate effects of visitor 

use. These facilities might concentrate recreation activities. In those 

cases, social trails would likely develop and cause increased 

trampling of vegetation. The opportunity for the spread of invasive 

plants to these highly used areas would be slightly increased, 

although monitoring for invasive plants and any necessary treatment 

would be easier than at dispersed camping areas. 

Reopening the O’Malley area to bear viewing would slightly 

increase the possibility of invasive plants becoming established in 

the area. Refuge staff could monitor changes in vegetation while 

monitoring compliance with special use permit conditions. 

Alternative C. Cabins would be phased out under Alternative C, 

eventually returning the footprints of the cabins and related 

structures (estimated at less than five acres) to native vegetation. 

Displaced cabin users may choose to camp on the Refuge and could 

potentially trample vegetation on larger areas than those currently 

occupied by cabins and related structures. 

As in Alternative B, reopening the O’Malley area to bear viewing 

would slightly increase the possibility of invasive plants coming into 

the area. Monitoring would be facilitated by the intensive 

management presence on site. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alternative D. The effects of cabin management under Alternative D 

would be similar to those under Alternatives A and B. Effects of 

campsite management would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Effects of reopening the O’Malley area to bear viewing would be the 

same as under Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects. Monitoring proposed under Alternatives B, C, 

and D should ensure that damage to vegetation is detected prior to 

becoming even locally widespread and that invasive plants are 

detected in high-use areas prior to becoming well established. The 

possibility of invasive plants becoming established in other areas of 

the Refuge exists under all alternatives, but the probability would be 

low. 

Fish Populations

Any management that affects public use levels, locations, and 

distribution could have some influence on fishery resources. Most 

Refuge visitors fish as a primary or incidental activity. Public use 

cabins attract anglers. Many bear viewers also engage in angling. 

Angling impacts to fish populations are generally addressed by State 

of Alaska’s fishing regulations. Effects to fish habitats on the Refuge 

are considered in siting facilities. Measurable impacts to fish 

populations are not expected. However, if adverse effects were to 

occur, the state and the Refuge would make necessary management 

changes to keep the public use compatible with Refuge purposes and 

to ensure protection of fishery resources. 

Cumulative Effects. None of the alternatives is likely to have a 

measurable effect on fish populations within the Refuge. 

Bird Populations

Riparian areas and wetlands are usually considered the most 

sensitive habitats and receive primary impacts from habitat 

alterations and disturbance made by humans. The majority of human 

activities taking place on Kodiak Refuge occur on or adjacent to 

some type of water. When assessing the potential for impacts to 

drainages or watersheds, estuarine and intertidal habitats must be 

included. Estuaries often contain the greatest avian biodiversity and 

are focal points of local productivity. Some tidal areas are also the 

focus for human access to riparian areas and watersheds; others, 

however, are not because they are difficult to access. 

In localized areas of concentrated public use, such as near public use 

cabins, at bear-viewing sites (e.g. Frazer fish pass), and on certain 

rivers (e.g. Ayakulik and Karluk during the Chinook salmon run), 

some displacement would likely occur and there could be a minor 

effect on local breeding if use occurs during the nesting season. The 

degree of impact would depend on the tolerance of each species to 

stress or disturbance and the capability of populations to return to 

their original state after the disturbance. Threshold responses would 

vary within a species and between species groups. The effects of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-5 

human presence in an area on various bird species vary in relation to 

time and location (Furness and Greenwood 1993). 

Alternative A. The seasonal limits on public use of bear 

concentration areas under regulations proposed in Alternative A 

would probably have negligible effects on bird populations. Any 

limits on human presence in an area could, however, generally be 

considered beneficial and should have beneficial effects on Refuge 

bird species in the area. 

Under Alternative A, opportunities for Refuge visitors to use cabins 

could be expanded. Increased human presence at the additional 

public use cabins would affect birds, as previously described. 

Alternative B. Effects of increasing the number of public use cabins 

would be as previously described. Because more cabins would be 

allowed under Alternative B than under the other alternatives, this 

alternative has the greatest potential to adversely affect bird 

populations in the immediate vicinity of cabins. Improving camping 

areas with facilities such as latrines and food caches might 

concentrate or increase public use in the areas of these 

improvements. Management that increases or prolongs human 

presence—such as providing bear-viewing opportunities at O’Malley 

River—also increases the potential for impacts to birds. 

Alternative C. Phasing out the public use cabin program may slightly 

reduce impacts in cabin areas if the amount of use at former cabin 

sites is reduced. Seasonal closures of some bear concentration areas 

would serve to protect bird species in those areas. To the extent that 

nesting and fledging occur during the times of these closures, effects 

on bird populations would be positive. Effects from bear viewing at 

O’Malley River would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Alternative D. Effects of public use cabin management under 

Alternative D are the same as under Alternative A. As under 

Alternative B, improving camping areas with facilities such as 

latrines and food caches may concentrate or increase public use in 

areas of improvements. Effects of bear viewing at O’Malley River 

would be the same as under Alternatives B and C.

Cumulative Effects. Recent studies (Broseth and Pedersen 2000, 

Fraser and Sweetapple 1992, Lyon and Burham 1998, Marks 1994, 

Rempel et al. 1997) conclude that human-induced impacts are 

directly related to access, with decreasing effects as distance 

increases from the source location (trail, road, cabin, etc.) of human 

access. Low-level or chronic impacts can normally be characterized 

as localized and of short duration. However, some of these impacts 

can become cumulative on more sensitive bird species such as 

harlequin ducks (Clarkson 1992). 

The primary causes of impacts to bird population are disturbance, 

habitat alterations and trampling, direct take, or human-induced 

mortality. Access sites, historic camping areas, public use cabins, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and other areas with human use are predictable focal points for 

impacts. Impacts to birds from bear and wildlife viewing, as 

described under all alternatives, would depend on distribution, 

frequency, and numbers of people engaged in this activity. Overall, 

negligible impacts would be expected. Yet, at some areas, adverse 

impacts could occur and affect the survival, reproduction, 

distribution, or behavior of a specific group of individuals in a 

localized area for one generation or less without affecting the 

regional population. Habitat composition and structure would remain 

unchanged; habitat quality, however, may be affected by indirect 

actions (e.g., disturbance or displacement affecting a specific group 

of individuals that may result in altered use of an area). Impacts to 

bird populations or habitat quality and composition in localized areas 

are possible at popular viewing locations when high numbers of 

viewers use an area over long periods of time. These impacts would 

be sufficient to cause a change in abundance or distribution for more 

than one generation but would be unlikely to affect the integrity of 

the regional population over the long term. 

Brown Bear Populations

In salmon-spawning areas where bears concentrate to feed, new or 

increased human use would disrupt and displace bears in areas where 

they were unaccustomed to close human activity. Bears that 

encounter human activity would likely stop their normal activity 

pattern and move away from the source of the disturbance (Wilker 

and Barnes 1998). Repeated, nonthreatening human encounters 

would result in a variety of responses by bears. Some bears would 

become habituated to routine human activity, continuing their regular 

daily activity and patterns of habitat use at normal levels in the 

presence of humans (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 1997, Olson et al. 1997). 

Other bears would respond by avoiding humans. This is especially 

true of adult males, which may be intolerant of other bears during the 

nonbreeding season (Mattson et al. 1987, Olson et al. 1997). 

Intolerant bears would respond to human activity by reducing their 

use of the concentration areas to times when humans are gone, 

shifting their activity to areas further from humans, or abandoning 

the area altogether (Olson et al. 1997, Warner 1987). This temporal 

or spatial shift in activity may affect bear survival and productivity if 

it results in nutritional stress, injury, or death of bears driven away 

from prime feeding areas or into territorial conflicts with other bears. 

If human activity in bear concentration areas increases or becomes 

unpredictable, bear use of the concentration areas would decrease 

(Wilker and Barnes 1998). The level of impact would be greater 

where these changes occurred in or adjacent to prime bear foraging 

habitat having high local bear densities (Mattson et al. 1987, Warner 

1987). 

Alternative A. The current regulatory proposal (see Alternative A, 

section 2.7 in Chapter 2) grew out of the 1993 Kodiak Refuge public 

use management plan (USFWS 1993). Selection of these areas of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-7 

concern was based on data from ongoing bear stream surveys. 

Biologists continue to believe that these are the most important areas 

to be addressed. Some minor updates to the proposed closures have 

been made as a result of new information. For example, the proposed 

closure dates for the Lower Dog Salmon area have been adjusted as 

better information has been obtained through ongoing surveys. 

Day use restrictions, proposed for five areas of concern, would 

prevent future impacts to bears that are associated with overnight 

camping in these areas. All public use of these areas during the 

period of bear concentration would be limited to daytime hours only. 

Camping by guided viewers, the largest percentage of the bearviewing public, has been prohibited in these areas by administrative 

restrictions since the regulations were proposed in the late 1990s. 

Day use restriction may also be an appropriate tool to protect bears at 

other accessible concentration areas not addressed by this alternative. 

Bears in these areas would continue to be disturbed, displaced, and 

moderately affected by inconsistent timing and distribution of human 

activity. 

Provisions could be made for developing additional general and areaspecific guidelines to facilitate safe and compatible day use. Such 

guidelines or restrictions could influence the type and location of 

daytime public access and use (ADF&G and NPS 2003, Walker 

2002). For example, bear viewers could be encouraged to use a 

specific trail or route to reach a viewing site, as currently occurs at 

Frazer fish pass. Such standards would minimize impacts to bears 

because human activities would be focused, consistent, and 

predictable (Walker 2002, Wilker and Barnes 1998). 

Bear-viewing opportunities could increase and public use could 

become more consistent in areas managed under seasonal day use 

restrictions. Bear habituation could increase, and disturbance and 

displacement could decrease as public use became more frequent, 

consistent, and predictable (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 2002, Wilker and 

Barnes 1998). However, no information is currently available on 

movements of habituated bears nor on possible long-term 

consequences to the bear populations of habituation. These topics 

would need further study. 

Seasonal closures would afford bears a high level of protection in 

four areas targeted for such restrictions. Bears would continue to 

exhibit natural, wild patterns of activity and habitat use. Positive 

effects of the closures on bears would be greatest at areas where 

public use would become established absent closure regulations. The 

positive effects of closures would be fewest at less accessible areas. 

Seasonal closure of two denning areas would increase security of the 

areas for bears. The two areas targeted for closure, Den Mountain 

and Baumann Creek, differ somewhat in terms of accessibility for 

wintertime human activity. Den Mountain is more accessible and 

thus more vulnerable to snowmachine use. Because of its terrain, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Baumann Creek is less accessible to snowmachine use. However, 

snowmachine tracks have been observed entering the Refuge near 

Viekoda River and traversing parts of Baumann Creek (Wilker 

2004). Closure of these areas would prevent adverse impact to bears 

sufficient to cause a change in abundance or distribution for more 

than one generation. 

Continuing current management of camping areas could result in 

highly localized, negligible, short-term adverse impacts to bears, 

specifically related to the absence of government-provided 

temporary garbage and food storage facilities at sites commonly used 

by campers. Absence of these facilities could increase incidents of 

bears obtaining food and garbage at campsites. The number of 

incidents would likely increase as public use increases. Successful 

bear raids would condition bears to consider human camps as food 

sources and could cause adverse bear–human interactions. However, 

the public is increasingly aware of the benefits of using personally 

owned electric fences and bear-resistant storage containers. In highuse areas where public and bear safety problems have been 

documented, the Refuge could implement on-site management to 

minimize impacts, as has been demonstrated at the Bare Creek 

camping area along the Ayakulik River. Negative bear–human 

interactions were substantially reduced after the Refuge established a 

temporary electric fence enclosing bear-resistant storage containers 

that the public could use to store food and garbage. 

Use of public use cabins has a generally positive impact on bears. 

Refuge cabins afford relatively secure temporary storage of food, 

garbage, and game meat. Cabin permits require proper use of these 

facilities, including removal of all food and garbage at the end of 

each trip. Effectiveness is indicated by the absence of historical 

records of adverse bear–human incidents attributed to the cabin 

program. Adverse bear–human interactions occasionally occur in the 

Refuge back country and are associated with temporary tent camps, 

especially those with game meat stored nearby (Smith et al. 1989). 

Another positive impact of the cabin program is related to visitor 

experience. Cabins provide the most secure option for overnight use 

by visitors with limited experience camping in bear country. The 

combination of secure facilities and cabin-permit requirements serve 

to educate visitors in appropriate back country “bear-aware” 

practices. 

The cabin program could have serious adverse impacts on bears if 

cabins were sited in bear concentration areas. None of the seven 

current cabins is located in such an area, and no new cabins would be 

constructed in concentration areas. Cabins at O’Malley River and 

Red Lake were removed in the past because they were located in 

bear concentration areas. 

The continued closure of the O’Malley River area could have 

positive effects on bears. During summer, disturbance would be 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-9 

limited primarily to that caused by low-flying aircraft, which can 

cause disturbance such as displacement from feeding areas; 

separation of sows and their cubs that could lead to cub mortality; 

and physiological stress to individual bears that overheat while 

fleeing from disturbance. However, aircraft use that results in 

harassment of wildlife (generally less than 800 feet above ground 

level) could result in a citation under the Airborne Hunting Act (16 

U.S.C. 742j-1) and lead to prosecution and possible forfeiture of the 

offending aircraft (50 CFR 19.11[a][2]). Minor adverse effects due to 

disturbance, displacement, and habituation are anticipated if public 

use increases during June and October, when the O’Malley area is 

open to public use. 

Cumulative Effects. Alternative A would result in generally positive 

effects to bears. Bears would be positively affected by seasonal 

access restrictions at five areas (including O’Malley River) and 

continued effective operation of the public use cabin program. 

Effects of seasonal day use restrictions would be generally positive, 

assuming the restrictions would be accompanied by carefully 

designed public-use guidelines. While use by commercial operators 

and their clients at these sites would be allowed once regulations 

were in place, unguided users who are currently free to visit any and 

all areas would also be required to adhere to the access regulations. 

Management of camping areas would continue to be reactive to 

situations with increased concern about public and bear safety. None 

of the actions identified in this alternative would significantly 

influence the size and productivity of the Refuge’s bear population. 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, no regulations seasonally 

restricting or limiting public access to bear concentration areas 

would be adopted. The Refuge would use a stakeholder process to 

identify one or more areas where voluntary use guidelines would be 

developed and tested. Some areas currently closed to guided use by 

administrative restriction likely would be opened to use by 

commercial operators and their clients. Increased commitment to 

successful implementation would be expected from citizens because 

of their involvement in crafting the voluntary use guidelines. 

Continuing dialogue among the Refuge and stakeholders during 

implementation would ideally enable rapid modification of 

guidelines to correct problems and to refine management. Additional 

bear concentration areas could be addressed through the same 

process if voluntary guidelines proved effective. 

Several factors would determine the overall impact of Alternative B 

on bears, including the specific areas for which guidelines would be 

developed, level of guideline detail, availability of Refuge staff to 

monitor use by bears and people, and compliance by unguided 

visitors. No day use only restrictions, voluntary or otherwise, are 

contemplated for this alternative. 

Guidelines that increase consistency and pattern of human activity 

would increase neutral bear habituation and correspondingly reduce 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

disturbance and displacement. The conservative implementation 

strategy—first testing development and application of voluntary 

guidelines in a single or limited number of areas—would minimize 

adverse bear impacts because the limited resources of the Refuge for 

education of users and monitoring of resources would be focused 

most efficiently, and evaluation of management results would be 

improved. 

Effectiveness of guidelines would be related to the level of guideline 

detail, the extent to which users were informed of guidelines, and the 

Refuge’s field staffing capability. For example, guidelines could 

suggest how people should plan and act to avoid surprising a bear at 

close range and how to respond if they do (ADF&G and NPS 2003). 

Area-specific guidelines could encourage establishment of routine 

patterns of visitor access and use adapted to unique cover, terrain, 

and bear-distribution characteristics of each concentration area 

(Barnes Jr. and Wilker 2002, Sellers and Aumiller 1994). 

Effectiveness of guidelines would likely differ between guided and 

unguided visitors. Guides would be required to comply with 

guidelines as conditions of their special use permits. Additionally, 

guided visitors would have least impact on bears because guides 

would presumably augment application of the guidelines with their 

experience, skill, and attitude. Many unguided visitors would have 

appropriate experience, but some would not. Ill-advised or 

inexperienced use by one individual could displace some bears 

(Wilker 2004). In the most extreme case, this behavior could 

provoke human injury or result in death of a bear. 

A voluntary guideline could also be developed and seasonally 

applied to protect denning bears in areas such as Den Mountain. 

Upper slopes of this mountain consistently support concentrated 

denning activity by adult female bears (Van Daele et al. 1990). The 

area can be readily reached by snowmachines when snow cover is 

sufficient at lower elevations. Although most snowmachine users 

would likely adhere to a guideline discouraging use of this area, 

some would not. Ill-advised or uninformed snowmachine use that 

disturbs denning bears, even by a single individual, could cause 

bears to abandon dens and newborn cubs incapable of travel (Jonkel 

1980). 

Ultimately the efficacy of an experimental guideline-only strategy is 

uncertain. Total compliance by unguided visitors would not be 

expected, especially if the scope of the initial program exceeds the 

Refuge’s field patrol capability. Although the Service is not aware of 

any documented cases where guidelines were exclusively used to 

effectively manage human activity in bear concentration areas, 

Kodiak Refuge is currently assessing the effectiveness of voluntary 

guidelines for managing human activities on the Ayakulik River. The 

preliminary assessment of this program indicates that the voluntary 

guidelines are accomplishing the management objectives. 

Management of these types of areas has typically involved a 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-11 

combination of guidelines and restrictions geared to encourage 

responsible visitor conduct while restricting type, location, and 

period of visitor activity (Walker 2002). The success of guidelines, 

measured in the effects of human activity on bears and the quality of 

visitor experience, would depend on three primary factors: careful 

design; effective administration, including dissemination of program 

information; and complete compliance by all visitors. 

Alternative B would allow development of temporary facilities in 

camping areas to minimize impacts to bears. Specifically, impacts to 

bears such as food conditioning would be prevented because some 

campers would have a place to securely store garbage and food. The 

storage place would consist of bear-resistant containers enclosed by a 

small, temporary electric fence. Once established, such a facility 

would require periodic in-season maintenance by Refuge staff, 

commitment by the public, and cooperation of air transporters to haul 

garbage back to town. Such minor facilities, on-site management, 

and public commitment have collectively minimized adverse bear 

impacts resulting from food conditioning at the Bare Creek camping 

area along the lower Ayakulik River. 

Under Alternative B, new cabins could be added to the public use 

cabin program. Impacts to bears would not be expected to differ 

markedly from those expected under Alternative A. Both alternatives 

would similarly minimize impacts of back-country use by making 

the location of such use predictable to bears, making secure the 

storage of bear attractants (food, garbage, and game meat), and 

requiring cabin users to comply with the terms of their cabin permits. 

The Service would expect minor impacts to bears from the 

commercial bear-viewing program being established at O’Malley 

River under Alternative B. These noticeable but minor impacts 

would be limited mainly to unhabituated animals that traditionally 

use the access trail and the area near the viewing site in July and 

August. Some affected bears would gradually habituate to this 

activity; others would shift their daily activity patterns to avoid it 

(Sellers and Aumiller 1994). Yet other bears would probably move 

to and remain at different foraging sites. Although these animals may 

encounter increased competition with other bears, their survival 

would not be jeopardized. 

Initial declines in summer bear use would be followed by a gradual 

increase in use to preprogram levels as displacement decreased and 

habituation increased (Barnes Jr. and Wilker 2002, Wilker and 

Barnes 1998). Bear use would be unlikely to differ significantly from 

preprogram levels after year four of program operation (Barnes Jr. 

2004). 

Bears would be minimally disturbed by viewing-program activities 

because the type, level, timing, and distribution of human activity 

would be carefully managed. Access to and from the viewing site 

and activity at the viewing site would be managed similarly to the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

agency-run viewing program conducted in 1992. However, some 

additional impacts to individual bears would be expected because of 

the realities of monitoring a commercial operation. Those could 

likely be alleviated only through presence of an on-site agency 

monitor and strict penalties for noncompliance. 

The camp adjacent to the concentration area would have negligible 

effects on bears (Wilker and Barnes 1998). Careful camp 

management would ensure safety and prevent problems. Curious 

bears approaching camp would be deterred. Although other activities 

such as fishing could occur in the camp vicinity, effects on bears 

would be negligible because these activities would occur outside the 

bear concentration area. 

Viewing-program characteristics could change if fall bear viewing 

were authorized. Because of changes in distribution of food 

resources, bears increasingly use the lake shore area for travel and 

foraging in fall. Despite this need, adult males might tend to avoid 

the lake shore or shift activity patterns in response to human activity. 

If fall viewing were allowed, social conflicts between bear viewers 

and bear hunters could develop. 

The annual seasonal closure currently in effect extends from June 25 

through September 30. This allows unrestricted public access for a 

month before the start of hunting season. Habituated bears in the 

O’Malley area would be somewhat at risk of harvest, although the 

risk to individual bears is reduced by several factors (Barnes Jr. and 

Wilker 2000). The bears most likely to become habituated include 

females accompanied by cubs, which are protected from harvest by 

regulation, and subadults whose small size makes them less 

attractive as trophy animals. Harvest levels under current 

management are, in general, conservative. Consequently, natural 

mortality is a more significant factor on the local bear population 

using the O’Malley River site during the viewing period than is 

recreational and subsistence harvest. Few bears are present in the 

O’Malley area during the spring bear-hunting season because of the 

absence of spring forage in the area. Bears do not begin to 

congregate here in large numbers until the salmon runs start. 

In summary, a commercial viewing program would have minor 

short- and long-term effects on bears, assuming strict adherence to 

program requirements. Impacts would be minor mainly because the 

type, distribution, and level of human activity would be consistent 

and carefully regulated; human use would be limited to the access 

trail and vicinity of the viewing site, a relatively small portion of the 

concentration area; and most bears initially disturbed by humans 

would gradually habituate to them and resume traditional habitat use 

patterns. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of Alternative B would result in 

moderate negative impacts to bears—changes affecting a local 

population sufficient to cause a change in abundance or distribution 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-13 

for more than one generation but unlikely to affect the integrity of 

the regional population over the long term. Impacts would be mainly 

due to effectiveness, or lack thereof, of management of public use in 

concentration areas other than O’Malley River. Specifically, bears 

could be persistently displaced by repeated noncompliance with 

voluntary use guidelines by unguided visitors and the fact that the 

guidelines would not contain any camping provisions. 

In contrast, restrictions in effect at O’Malley River would result in 

only minor negative effects due to occasional displacement and 

minor habituation of bears, assuming strict adherence to viewing 

requirements. Management of the public use cabin program would 

continue much as under Alternative A, resulting in generally positive 

impacts to bears. Active management of camping areas to avoid bear 

and human safety problems using the least intrusive methods would 

also have generally positive effects. 

Although there likely would be more impacts to bears than under 

Alternatives A, C, and D, none of the actions identified in this 

alternative would significantly influence the size and productivity of 

the Refuge’s bear population. 

Alternative C. As with Alterative B, a stakeholder planning process 

would be used to select foraging concentration areas for management 

focus with Alternative C. Access restrictions would be targeted to 

areas of greatest current agency concern and public interest. 

Voluntary guidelines would be a component of planning and 

management. See the description of effects for Alternative B for a 

more complete discussion of the manner in which voluntary use 

guidelines would be developed and implemented. The major 

difference is that this alternative assumes that regulations would be 

the eventual outcome. While guidelines would be used to field test 

public use management actions, they would likely be turned into 

regulations, and some areas would likely be limited to day use only 

by regulation. 

As with Alternative A, two denning areas would be closed to 

snowmachine use by regulation. See Alternative A for a discussion 

of the likely effects of these proposed closures. As in Alternative A, 

campsite management would be reactive, potentially leading to 

highly localized adverse impacts to individual bears. 

This alternative would cause minor negative impacts to bears 

because public use cabins would gradually be eliminated. Increased 

impact would likely result from increased confrontations between 

bears and those visitors who fail to use “bear-aware” camping 

practices such as proper storage of food and garbage. Camp-related 

bear confrontations occur every year on Kodiak Island (Van Daele 

2004). Most are prompted when bears are attracted to the smell of 

food, garbage, or harvested fish and game. While most 

confrontations result in successful bear deterrence and no long-term 

impact to bears, others do not. Bears that successfully procure camp 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

food, garbage, or harvested fish and game would likely provoke 

future confrontations because they were conditioned to human camps 

as potential food sources. Ultimately, such bears could die in defense 

of life or property (DLP) incidents (Smith et al. 1989). 

Impacts to bears at the O’Malley River bear-viewing area would be 

generally the same as those described for Alternative B. Any viewing 

program would be managed in a manner similar to that described in 

Alternative B and modeled on the program run at this location by the 

Refuge in 1992. However, this alternative would potentially have the 

least impact of the bear-viewing options because of the control 

inherent in a purely agency-run viewing program. 

Cumulative Effects. Overall impacts associated with Alternative C 

would be positive. With respect to bear concentration areas, impacts 

would be similar to those anticipated for Alternative A, assuming the 

stakeholder process was effective and because regulations, 

potentially, including day use only restrictions, would be adopted. 

As with Alternatives B and D, a viewing program at O’Malley River 

would result in minor adverse effects due to negligible displacement 

and minor habituation of bears. However, this alternative would 

potentially have the least impact of the viewing options because of 

the control inherent in a purely agency-run viewing program. 

Positive effects are somewhat countered by some likely negative 

effects. Elimination of the public use cabin program would have 

minor negative impacts, and an increase in DLP incidents could be 

expected. Reactive management of camping areas would also have 

minor negative effects. 

None of the actions identified in Alternative C would significantly 

influence the size and/or productivity of the Refuge bear population. 

Alternative D. Consistent with Alternatives B and C, Alternative D 

would use a stakeholder planning process to evaluate areas 

warranting increased management attention. Some of these priority 

areas are highlighted in the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation 

and Management Plan (ADF&G 2002). Voluntary guidelines for use 

of selected areas would be developed, possibly including some day 

use only restrictions. This would be similar to Alternatives B and C 

in terms of overall process. However, unlike Alternative B, 

regulations under Alternative D would be one possible 

implementation tool. If guidelines proved ineffective because of their 

voluntary nature, they would become the basis for permanent 

regulations. Meantime, all parties would have had the opportunity to 

field test and refine proposed management. Unlike under Alternative 

C, regulations under Alternative D would be seen as a last resort, not 

the assumed outcome. 

Alternative D would result in minor impacts to bears due to shortterm displacement and long-term habituation. Displacement would 

mainly result from newly occurring visitor activity in areas where 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-15 

current administrative restrictions were replaced by voluntary 

guidelines, an active education effort by field staff, and possible 

restrictions by regulation (e.g., a prohibition on overnight camping). 

Over time, bear use would increase to current levels as management 

measures took force and bears neutrally habituated to 

nonthreatening, consistent, and predictable human activity (Sellers 

and Aumiller 1994). 

Alternative D would also affect bears in some foraging concentration 

areas where public use currently occurs but is unmanaged. Although 

some bears are habituated to humans in these areas, others are not, 

primarily because of irregular timing, type, and distribution of 

human activity. Bear displacement would decrease and habituation 

would increase in response to restrictions and guidelines. 

Specifically, possible camping restrictions would limit activity type 

and timing while other guidelines or restrictions could control 

activity distribution. The option of adopting regulations would 

increase compliance by unguided visitors. 

In sum, the management intent under Alternative D would be to 

minimize bear displacement by encouraging or requiring limited, 

routine, and consistent human activity in compliance with voluntary 

guidelines and restrictions applied to foraging concentration areas of 

priority concern. Such an outcome would be consistent with 

successful, compatible practices of visitor management applied to 

foraging concentration areas in coastal Alaska (Walker 2002, Wilker 

and Barnes 1998). It would also be consistent with the Kodiak 

Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan (ADF&G 

2002), which recommended “[m]anaging critical bear habitat to 

prevent adverse impacts” and “encourag[ing] only those bear–human 

interactions that are compatible with maintaining the natural 

behavior of wild bears and protection of their wilderness habitat” 

(ADF&G 2002). 

Only the Den Mountain denning area would be closed by regulation 

where denning females are thought to be most vulnerable to 

snowmachine disturbance (Van Daele 2004). See Alternative A for 

additional discussion of potential effects. 

Effects of campsite management under Alternative D would be the 

same as those discussed for Alternative B. Active management, 

using the least intrusive methods, would be allowed. Effects of the 

public use cabin program under Alternative D would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Generally, positive impacts to 

bears would be expected because visitor use would be safely 

managed and occur in locations predictable to bears. 

The effects of a bear-viewing program at the O’Malley River area 

would be expected to be generally the same as those identified under 

Alternatives B and C. Because some viewing opportunities would be 

allocated to commercial guides, this alternative would be expected to 

have slightly more impact than Alternative C, but less impact than 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alternative B. The presence of agency staff on site would be 

expected to provide a margin of assurance that individual bears 

would not be disturbed because of careless interpretation or 

implementation of the viewing program. 

Cumulative Effects. Alternative D would result in minor negative 

impacts—more impact than Alternative A, but less than 

Alternative B. In comparison with Alternative C, the actions in this 

alternative for management of bear concentration areas in general 

would result in approximately the same impact, but the proposed 

management of the O’Malley River area would result in slightly 

more impact. 

Implementation of access and bear-viewing management would 

initially affect bears at concentration areas newly opened to managed 

bear viewing and other public uses. This use would disturb and 

displace unhabituated bears, resulting in a measurable short-term 

decline in bear use levels despite application of seasonal area use 

guidelines and restrictions. Recovery to current bear use levels would 

be expected possibly by year two or three and probably by year four 

(Barnes Jr. 2004) because most bears would be habituated to 

nonthreatening, consistent, and predictable visitor activity. 

The strategy for management of O’Malley River would have more 

adverse impact than Alternatives A and C but less than Alternative B. 

Public use cabin and campsite management under Alternative D 

would have generally positive effects on bears. 

None of the actions identified in Alternative D would significantly 

influence the size and/or productivity of the Refuge’s bear 

population. 

Nonnative Mammal Populations (Sitka Black-Tailed Deer, 

Roosevelt Elk, and Mountain Goat)

Under all alternatives, management of bear concentration areas, 

including management of bear viewing, would have no measurable 

effects on deer, goat, or elk populations. Bear concentration areas are 

generally not favored places to hunt deer, so it is very unlikely that 

the seasonal limits on access to bear concentration areas would 

change deer hunting pressure. Mountain goat and elk do not occur in 

these bear concentration areas; therefore, no effects are expected to 

these populations. 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, opportunities for Refuge visitors 

to use cabins could be expanded. More cabins, or cabins placed in 

areas of higher deer and elk densities, could result in greater harvests 

of animals. Anecdotal reports from hunters using public use cabins 

indicate that deer populations experience temporary local declines 

around some cabins during hunting season. If deer or elk populations 

declined because of hunting pressure, the state could change hunting 

regulations and negate effects from increased hunter access. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-17 

Alternative B. Alternative B allows the potential of the greatest 

number of public use cabins. Effects on deer and elk populations 

would be as described under Alternative A. Any declines in 

populations associated with hunting would be mitigated through 

changes in hunting regulations. As stated previously, climatic factors 

are the main influence on fluctuating ungulate populations within the 

Refuge. Improving camping areas with facilities such as latrines and 

food caches might concentrate or slightly redistribute hunting. If 

these improvements were made in areas where deer, elk, or mountain 

goats congregate, local, temporary declines in populations could be 

similar to those predicted for areas near cabins. Again, changes in 

hunting regulations would mitigate any adverse effects from greater 

hunter density caused by improved camping areas. 

Alternative C. Over time, phasing out public use cabins, as called for 

under Alternative C, could affect deer and elk populations by slightly 

decreasing hunter access and therefore hunting pressure, although the 

expected effect would be negligible. Mountain goats are not located 

in areas near cabins; therefore, no effect is expected on this species. 

Alternative D. Effects on deer and elk populations from the Refuge’s 

public use cabin program would be as described under Alternative A. 

Again, any declines in populations associated with hunting would be 

mitigated through changes in hunting regulations. As stated 

previously, climatic factors are the main influence on fluctuating 

ungulate populations within the Refuge. The effects of proposed 

camping-area improvements would be similar to the effects of public 

use cabins. 

Cumulative Effects. None of the alternatives is likely to have a 

measurable cumulative effect on deer, elk, or mountain goat 

populations within the Refuge. 

Marine Mammal Populations

Although marine mammals occur in the coastal waters surrounding 

Kodiak Refuge, marine mammals do not occur within its boundaries. 

Habitats within Kodiak Refuge support myriad natural resources, 

including salmon and other fish, that support marine mammals living 

within the waters surrounding the archipelago. Under Alternatives A, 

B, and D, opportunities for Refuge visitors to use cabins could be 

expanded. Currently Blue Fox Bay, Viekoda Bay, and Uganik Island 

cabins are located along the coast, offering visitors a base from 

which to possibly interact with sea otters or other marine mammals. 

Any new cabins along the coast could increase the possibility of 

human–marine mammal interactions. Despite this, any effects on sea 

otters or other marine mammals are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative C calls for phasing out the public use cabin program. 

Over time, Alternative C would likely decrease the number of 

visitors to these areas and thus the number of human–marine 

mammal interactions, although only negligible effects are expected. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cumulative Effects. None of the proposed management actions or 

combinations of actions, under any of the alternatives, is likely to 

have any effect on marine mammal populations. 

4.1.3 Human Environment 

Local Population and Economy

No proposed Refuge management actions are likely to affect the 

Kodiak Island Borough population or the populations of individual 

communities within the borough. The economy of the borough is 

dominated by commercial fish harvesting and processing. 

Commercial salmon fishing may be regarded as Refuge-dependent in 

that Refuge designation ensures protection of the lakes and rivers 

that provide the habitat necessary to support the salmon fisheries. 

Commercial fishing, other than setnet sites and related facilities 

authorized on the Refuge, is not an on-site Refuge activity. 

Commercial fishing is not likely to be affected by any proposed 

Refuge management actions. 

The primary mechanisms by which the proposed alternatives could 

affect the economy are direct spending by the Refuge to accomplish 

management objectives and the manipulation of on-site recreation 

and tourism opportunities for both visitors and commercial service 

providers. Because Refuge spending does not vary significantly 

among the proposed alternatives, the effects of that spending are not 

analyzed here. Opportunities for recreation and tourism do vary 

among the alternatives, and the effects of those variations are 

analyzed in the following text. It is important, however, to note that 

on-site Refuge recreation and tourism activities represent only a 

small fraction of the overall Kodiak Island Borough economy. Any 

effects on recreation and tourism caused by Refuge management 

actions are certain to be correspondingly small, localized, and 

insignificant when considered in the larger context of the borough 

economy. 

The proposed alternatives for camping area management would have 

negligible effects on the economy, whether viewed locally or in the 

context of the larger borough. 

Cabins contribute to the economy in several ways. Cabin users pay a 

fee that is used by the Refuge for cabin maintenance and related 

activities. Cabins may attract some users who would not choose to 

visit the Refuge if they were not available. Travel to cabins usually 

requires hiring a commercial air taxi, and air-taxi operators spend 

part of the revenues from transporting cabin users on fuel and other 

business-related items in the Kodiak area. Because so many Refuge 

activities involve the use of cabins, it is extremely difficult (and of 

questionable utility) to estimate the proportion of economic activity 

that is attributable solely to the presence of cabins themselves. 

Therefore, only the relative differences among the proposed cabin 

management alternatives are analyzed here. Similarly, the potential 

economic impacts of a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River are 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-19 

difficult to evaluate because they depend on the specific design of a 

given program; thus, these impacts are only discussed in general 

terms and in contrast to the larger Refuge economy. 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, as many as two new cabins 

could be built, and cabins on acquired lands could be managed for 

public use. Because the number of suitable private cabins likely to be 

acquired is small, the overall change in the number of public use 

cabins would also be small, and the subsequent effect on the 

economy would be negligible. 

Under Alternative A, current and potential future access limits, 

especially those aimed solely at commercial use, could affect the 

potential economic significance of Refuge bear-viewing activities. 

However, only the seasonal closures constitute practical limits; areas 

limited to day use are still available for use, and it is unlikely that 

commercial guides or well-informed private visitors would want to 

camp within known bear concentration areas. 

At present, it appears that there is little demand among unguided or 

commercial users for access to seasonally closed and limited use 

areas other than O’Malley River. According to an assessment 

conducted by Allen and Collins (2002), there is sufficient demand to 

consider revising the O’Malley River closure to allow a bear-viewing 

program there. Therefore, continued seasonal closure of the 

O’Malley River site under Alternative A could limit the potential 

economic significance of bear viewing on the Refuge. However, 

because the area is already closed, continued closure cannot 

represent a significant impact. 

Alternative B. Alternative B would allow more public use cabins as 

needed to meet demand. Currently the cabin system is not occupied 

to capacity, even during peak use periods, and visitor use is only 

expected to increase around 1 percent per year. Over time, small 

annual increases could result in substantially increased visitation and 

cabin demand. However, it would still likely be many years (beyond 

the 15-year life of this plan) before cabin numbers could increase to 

where the practical economic effects of this alternative would be 

greater than those associated with Alternatives A and D. 

Alternative B calls for reopening the O’Malley River area for a 

commercial bear-viewing program. According to a report by the 

Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of 

Alaska (Goldsmith et al. 2003), wildlife viewing on the Refuge (of 

which bear viewing is a subset) currently supports an average of 4.5 

annual jobs (because many tourism jobs are seasonal, they are 

converted to annual jobs for comparison with other industries). A 

substantial increase in viewing demand could conceivably support 

several additional jobs. However, when considered in the context of 

other Refuge-dependent activities, including commercial fish 

harvesting and processing, wildlife viewing represents only a 

fraction of one percent of overall employment impact; even a 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

severalfold increase in jobs would not be significant in this larger 

context. (For comparison, commercial fish harvesting and processing 

support an estimated average of 1,200 annual jobs in the Kodiak 

Island Borough.) 

Assuming that demand is sufficient to support a commercial viewing 

program at O’Malley River, a localized positive effect is possible 

under Alternative B. In 1994, the most recent year that a commercial 

viewing service was offered at O’Malley, 51 clients paid 

approximately $1,400 each for a multiday experience—representing 

a 50 percent booking rate (Allen and Collins 2002). Assuming a 100 

percent booking-rate, a similar operation could generate as much as 

$142,800 in gross revenue (in 1994 dollars). According to Allen and 

Collins (2002). However, the 1994 operator needed to operate at near 

capacity just to break even. Moreover, Alternative B would only 

provide the opportunity for one guide business to operate at 

O’Malley. Any positive effects would primarily apply to the few 

individuals engaged in that business (and, to a lesser extent, air taxis 

and other providers of support services and equipment); in the larger 

context of the Kodiak economy, the positive economic effects would 

be negligible. 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, public use cabins would be 

phased out entirely. If all the activities currently associated with 

cabins (including use of air taxis) were subsequently eliminated, this 

alternative could have a negative impact on the Refuge-area 

economy. However, it is unlikely that such a scenario would 

develop. It is much more likely that many activities formerly 

associated with cabins would simply shift to tent camps or private 

facilities. 

Effects of management of bear concentration areas, other than 

O’Malley River would be very similar to those identified under 

Alternative A. Only seasonal closures would limit bear-viewing 

opportunities. Day use only limits should not hinder opportunities for 

wildlife viewing. 

Economic effects of establishing a government-run bear-viewing 

program at O’Malley River would be similar to those identified 

under Alternative B, except that any jobs created would be in the 

public rather than private sector. Because they would likely be 

seasonal positions, the rate of pay for these government jobs would 

probably be similar to pay in the private sector for similar work. Fees 

would likely be collected under a program in which they could be 

returned to site management. Unlike a private program, a 

government-run program would not have to recover full costs, with 

additional funds coming from appropriated moneys to cover 

operating expenses. As under Alternative B, overall economic effects 

from bear viewing would be negligible for the borough at large. 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, public use cabins would have 

the same negligible effects on the economy as under Alternative A. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-21 

Effects of management of bear concentration areas, other than 

O’Malley River, would be very similar to those identified under the 

other alternatives. As with the other alternatives, demand for access 

to O’Malley River and other bear concentration areas could expand 

in the future under Alternative D. A substantial increase in bearviewing demand could conceivably support several additional jobs. 

Alternative D management of the O’Malley River bear-viewing 

program would provide opportunities for a few new seasonal jobs in 

the private and public sectors. Yet, once again, any positive effects 

would apply primarily to a few individuals; in the larger context of 

the Kodiak economy the effects would be negligible. 

Cumulative Effects. Individually, none of the alternatives is likely to 

have more than a minor, localized effect on economic conditions. 

Camping, cabin use, and bear viewing, although important activities 

on the Refuge, generate only a small fraction of income and jobs in 

the Kodiak Island Borough; the economic effects of any related 

changes will be proportionally small as well. In short, the cumulative 

effects of management actions proposed under Alternatives A 

through D are likely to be negligible. 

Subsistence

None of the proposed alternatives is likely to significantly restrict 

subsistence resources, uses, or access to resources. Effects on 

subsistence resources are described elsewhere in this chapter (e.g., 

bear, deer, mountain goat, fish populations). This section describes 

effects on subsistence uses and access. Management of camping 

areas under all of the alternatives would have no effects on 

subsistence uses or access. 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, commercial use of nine bear 

concentration areas would continue to be seasonally closed or limited 

to day use only, and these and other areas could be seasonally limited 

for all users when the Refuge public use management plan (USFWS 

1993) is fully implemented. Because there is some overlap between 

seasonal closures and the start of the subsistence deer-hunting season 

in August, it is possible that seasonal closures could reduce hunting 

opportunities. 

Alternative A would close two bear denning areas to snowmachine 

use. Although one area is close to the village of Port Lions and bears 

may be taken for subsistence use during December, use of 

snowmachines for subsistence hunting is not known on Kodiak 

Refuge. In a typical Kodiak Island winter, snow depth is inadequate 

to support snowmachine use at low elevations. No effects on 

subsistence use from closing these areas are expected. 

Under Alternative A, opportunities for Refuge visitors to use cabins 

could be expanded through adding two new cabins to the public use 

cabin system. Most subsistence activities occur along the coast near 

island communities. Currently Bluefox Bay, Viekoda Bay, and 

Uganik Island cabins are located along the coast, although well away 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from communities where subsistence use is concentrated. In 2000 

and 2001, about 10 percent of Refuge cabin reservations were held 

by residents of the City of Kodiak; no residents of other Refuge 

communities reserved cabins. Under this alternative, cabins would 

remain available for use for subsistence or other activities. Any 

effects on subsistence from new cabins would be evaluated as cabin 

proposals are evaluated. 

Under Alternative A, the area near the O’Malley River outlet would 

continue to be closed seasonally to all public use. Opportunities for 

subsistence use of this area would not change. 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, opening bear concentration 

areas to commercial use and adopting voluntary guidelines for public 

use is not likely to have any effects on subsistence use. There would 

be some potential for interaction with subsistence deer hunters in the 

early fall if any subsistence hunting occurs in these areas. Having no 

snowmachine access closures would ensure that snowmachines could 

be used for access to hunt during winter subsistence seasons. 

Under Alternative B, the public use cabin program could be 

expanded to meet demand. Stakeholders would be consulted prior to 

adding new cabins to the program, and any effects on subsistence 

would be evaluated prior to adding new cabins to the system. 

Establishing a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River would have 

no effect on subsistence use of the area because it would remain 

closed to other uses, including subsistence, until September 30. 

There is a remote possibility of bear viewers and subsistence hunters 

both being in the area during October. 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, the effects on subsistence of 

managing bear concentration areas would be similar to those under 

Alternative A. However, because stakeholders would be involved in 

developing and testing guidelines prior to their adoption as 

regulations, effects on subsistence could be considered in detail 

during the stakeholder process. The effects of snowmachine closures 

to two bear denning areas would be as described under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C calls for phasing out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major construction, maintenance, or acquisition 

projects. People who have used Refuge public use cabins to support 

subsistence activities would have to camp or to relocate subsistence 

activities to other areas. However, the opportunity to conduct 

subsistence activities would not be changed. There may be less 

general public use of cabins sites when cabins are removed because 

visitors who are not comfortable camping on the Refuge would be 

displaced; also, other camping may be more dispersed without cabins 

to attract visitors to specific locations. 

The effects from proposed bear viewing at O’Malley River would be 

the same as described under Alternative B. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-23 

Alternative D. The effects of the public use cabin program under 

Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative A. 

Because of stakeholder involvement in siting new cabins, there 

would be even less potential for any conflicts between subsistence 

use and the cabin program. 

The effect of closing one bear denning area to snowmachine access 

would be negligible for the reasons described previously under 

Alternative A. 

The effects of the public use cabin program under Alternative D 

would be the same as described under Alternative A. However, there 

may be greater opportunity for stakeholder participation in 

recommending and evaluating new cabins for the public use cabin 

system. Based on stakeholder input, cabins could be sited to facilitate 

subsistence activities or to channel other public use away from 

popular subsistence areas, depending upon public input and 

evaluation of effects. 

The effects from proposed bear viewing at O’Malley River would be 

the same as described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects. Those alternatives with stakeholder planning 

processes—Alternatives B, C, and D—would provide subsistence 

users greater opportunities for involvement in day-to-day Refuge 

management. Input about subsistence activities and existing or 

potential conflicts would be considered as guidelines are developed 

for management and prior to development of new facilities. 

However, none of the proposed alternatives is likely to restrict 

subsistence use of the Refuge nor access to subsistence resources. 

Guides and other Commercial Service Providers

Under all alternatives, management of camping areas, cabins, and 

most bear concentration areas would have negligible effects on 

commercial service providers. Under Alternatives B and D, some 

new opportunities could be created for commercial bear-viewing 

services through reopening the currently closed O’Malley River site 

and as many as nine other bear concentration areas. Reopening the 

O’Malley site would constitute the most immediate and direct 

change, proposed under any of the alternatives, in opportunity for 

commercial service providers. However, the positive impacts of such 

a change would be limited in scope and scale; the opportunity to 

actually operate at the O’Malley site would be limited to a very few 

individuals or businesses, and the gross revenues from commercially 

run viewing would likely be less than $200,000 (estimate derived 

from reported revenues in 1994, the most recent year a commercial 

viewing service was offered at O’Malley). 

Alternative A. Under current management (Alternative A), a 

proposed regulation (if adopted) would limit camping within onequarter mile of public use cabins and within 200 yards of federal or 

state administrative facilities. This regulation would be unlikely to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

affect guides or their clients because guided groups do not typically 

choose to camp near cabins or administrative facilities. There are no 

provisions for improvements or facilities at camping areas. 

As many as two new public use cabins could be constructed and 

added to the seven currently in use, and acquired cabins could be 

converted to public use. The number of public use cabins is unlikely 

to affect commercial operators because they are not permitted to use 

public cabins in their operations. 

Alternative A maintains the current seasonal closure of the O’Malley 

River area, and guide access to nine bear concentration areas is 

seasonally limited through special conditions on special use permits 

for commercial operators. 

Alternative B. Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B would not restrict 

camping near public use cabins or federal or state administrative 

facilities. However, no effect on commercial service providers or 

their clients is likely for two reasons: (1) there is not currently a 

camping restriction in place (although a regulation has been 

proposed) and (2) guided groups, as noted previously, are unlikely to 

camp near cabins or administrative facilities. Camping areas could 

receive some improvements to mitigate impacts as needed. These 

improvements would have no effects on opportunities for 

commercial operators or their clients. 

Additional public use cabins could be added to meet demand 

(through building or acquisition) under this alternative. Adding 

cabins to meet demand would have no effect on commercial 

operators because they are not permitted to use public use cabins as 

part of their operations. 

Under Alternative B, proposed regulations to seasonally restrict all 

public access at nine bear concentration areas would be replaced 

with voluntary guidelines for public use. Current special use permit 

conditions for commercial use would be replaced by conditions 

mirroring the new voluntary public-use guidelines. Because 

commercial operators would be required to comply with the 

guidelines as a condition of their special use permits, there would be 

few practical effects from this change. Some concentration areas that 

are currently closed altogether to commercial users could be 

reopened, but challenging access and lack of facilities may limit their 

commercial viability. Overall, the effects of replacing proposed 

regulations with guidelines would likely be negligible. 

Under Alternative B, the seasonal closure at O’Malley River would 

be modified to allow operation of a commercial bear-viewing 

program. Such a change would create a new business opportunity for 

one commercial operator, including one or more guides and 

associated support services (e.g., air-taxi services). Reopening the 

O’Malley River site to commercial use would clearly have a positive 

effect on opportunities for commercial operators and their clients. In 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-25 

practical terms, however, the magnitude of the effect (increased 

commercial opportunities) would be small because only one operator 

would eventually be selected to guide visitors at O’Malley. 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, a regulation restricting camping 

within one-quarter mile of public use cabins or federal or state 

administrative facilities would be adopted. As described previously 

under Alternative A, the effects of this regulation on commercial 

operators would be negligible. 

In contrast to Alternative B, Alternative C calls for phasing out the 

public use cabin program by allowing natural attrition of cabins. 

Because commercial operators are not allowed to use public cabins 

in their operations, this alternative would have no direct effect on 

opportunities for them or their clients. A small positive effect on 

commercial operators is possible if some would-be cabin users are 

displaced to commercial camping or private lodge facilities. 

However, any cabin phase-out would occur slowly and extend well 

beyond the life of this plan. The likely positive impacts for 

commercial operators would be negligible. 

Regulations similar to those proposed in Alternative A would be 

adopted to seasonally restrict all public access to selected bear 

concentration areas. The regulations could differ slightly from those 

proposed under Alternative A, based on the latest resource 

information; the effects on commercial operators, however, are 

expected to be the same. 

Alternative C calls for reopening the O’Malley River site to allow for 

a government-run bear-viewing program. This alternative could 

result in increased opportunities for commercial support services 

(such as air taxis), but it would not directly affect opportunities for 

private wildlife-viewing guides. Relatively speaking, this alternative 

provides more commercial operator opportunities than does 

Alternative A, but fewer than does Alternative B. 

Alternative D. The effects of Alternative D management of camping 

areas are the same as those described under Alternatives A and C. 

The effects of public use cabin management under this alternative 

would be the same as those associated with Alternative A. 

As would Alternative B, this alternative would replace proposed 

public-use regulations at bear concentration areas with voluntary 

guidelines. Additionally, some bear concentration areas could be 

limited by regulation to day use only. Whether public-use 

restrictions are voluntary or mandatory (i.e., based on regulations) is 

largely irrelevant for commercial operators because they are required 

to comply with all restrictions through special conditions included in 

their special use permits. Some concentration areas that are currently 

closed altogether to commercial users could be reopened, but 

challenging access and lack of facilities would likely limit the 

commercial viability of at least some of them. Moreover, the areas 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

that are currently closed to commercial use represent only a fraction 

of the known bear concentration areas across the Refuge (most are 

currently open to commercial operators). Overall, the effects of 

replacing proposed regulations with guidelines would be negligible 

(the same as with Alternative B). 

Alternative D would reopen the O’Malley River site to public use 

with a mixture of government-run and commercial bear-viewing 

opportunities. Alternative D would allow more commercial 

opportunities compared to current management (Alternative A) and 

the strictly government-run program proposed in Alternative C and 

fewer opportunities compared to Alternative B. Overall, the positive 

effect on commercial operators would be relatively small for the 

same reasons described previously under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects. The only proposed change under any of the 

alternatives that is likely to have immediate, direct effects on 

commercial service providers is reopening the O’Malley River bearviewing site. Alternative D would also allow for new commercial 

opportunity at O’Malley, but only Alternative B calls for a wholly 

commercially run viewing operation. In addition, Alternatives B and 

D could allow some areas currently closed to commercial use to be 

reopened (according to strict guidelines). Cumulatively, of all 

alternatives, Alternative B would have the greatest positive effect on 

commercial opportunities. The magnitude of this effect would 

depend on the specific nature of the reopened bear concentration 

areas (access, viewing locations, etc.) and the design of the O’Malley 

River viewing program. 

Bear Hunting

The State of Alaska has primary responsibility for managing bear 

hunting throughout the Kodiak Archipelago. For areas away from the 

road system (including all of the Refuge), the state issues a limited 

number of bear hunting permits for both spring and fall hunts to both 

resident and nonresident hunters who are selected in a lottery. A 

limited number of permits are also available to nonresident clients of 

guides with exclusive use areas on the Refuge. Compared to the 

effects of this limited permit system, most effects of the various 

Refuge management alternatives would be negligible. 

Improving camping areas through facilities such as outhouses and 

food caches would not likely affect bear hunting, nor would changes 

to the public use cabin system. 

Access restrictions associated with bear-viewing opportunities at 

O’Malley River, and restrictions at other bear concentration areas, 

whether they are adopted through voluntary guidelines or formal 

regulations, would not affect bear hunting because the timing of 

limits would not overlap with either spring or fall hunting seasons. 

Similarly, the various alternative approaches to establishing a bearviewing program at O’Malley would not affect bear hunting because 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-27 

the proposed programs would only operate during summer when no 

bear hunting occurs. 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, a regulation restricting camping 

near public use cabins and administrative facilities would eventually 

be adopted. This regulation would not likely affect bear hunters 

because most Refuge visitors do not choose to camp near such 

facilities, and bear hunters in particular are not likely to camp near 

other people. 

Many Refuge visitors base their activities out of public use cabins. 

Bear hunters may use these cabins, but they may also base their 

activities out of privately operated lodges, temporary guide camps, or 

private tent camps. Under Alternative A, opportunities for bear 

hunters to use cabins could be expanded through the addition of as 

many as two new cabins and through adding formerly private cabins 

to the public use cabin system. However, because the limiting factor 

for bear hunting is the drawing permit system, cabin availability 

would not directly affect opportunities for bear hunting. 

Under Alternative A, the area near the outlet of O’Malley River 

would continue to be closed seasonally to all public use. 

Commercially guided use of nine other areas would continue to be 

seasonally closed or limited to day use only. None of these seasonal 

limits, nor others proposed in the Refuge public use management 

plan (USFWS 1993), would directly impact bear-hunting 

opportunities because the limited-use and hunting seasons do not 

overlap. The spring hunting season runs from April 1 through May 

15; the fall season runs from October 25 through November 30. 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, regulations restricting camping 

near cabins and administrative facilities would not be adopted. This 

approach is not likely to affect opportunities for bear hunting or the 

nature of bear hunters’ experiences. 

The effects of the public use cabin program under Alternative B 

would be similar to those described previously under Alternative A. 

Although under Alternative B there would be potentially more cabins 

available than under the other alternatives, the state drawing permit 

system would remain the dominant limiting influence on bear 

hunting. 

The voluntary guidelines proposed under Alternative B for access to 

bear concentration areas would have no direct or indirect negative 

effects on bear hunting activities or opportunities because they do 

not overlap with bear hunting seasons. Similarly, reopening the 

O’Malley River site to bear viewing would not affect bear hunting 

because the opening would not overlap with the spring or fall 

hunting seasons. See the section on bear populations in this chapter 

(page 4-6) for a discussion of the effects of hunting on O’Malley 

area brown bears. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, a regulation restricting camping 

near public cabins and administrative facilities would eventually be 

adopted. As is the case under Alternative A, this regulation would 

not have any effects on bear-hunting opportunities under 

Alternative C. 

Alternative C calls for phasing out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major construction, maintenance, or acquisition 

projects. Over time, this alternative could reduce and eventually 

eliminate the opportunity for hunters to base their activities out of 

public cabins. Hunters would be forced to rely on commercial 

services or private, temporary tent camps as bases for their activities. 

However, the permit drawing system would continue to be the 

primary limiting factor on bear-hunting opportunities. 

Even if cabins were completely eliminated, the total number of bear 

hunters visiting the Refuge probably would not change. The nature 

of available bear-hunting experiences, however, could change. 

Hunters who enjoy staying in a cabin as part of their experience 

would be negatively affected. Because no data regarding the 

importance of cabins in bear hunting experiences are available, it is 

difficult to estimate the magnitude of this impact. The basic 

prerequisite for any Refuge bear hunting experience is still, however, 

the availability of limited permits; compared to the permit system, 

the effects of any changes in cabin availability on bear hunting 

would be negligible. 

The seasonal access limits proposed under Alternative C for bear 

concentration areas would have no effects on bear-hunting effort or 

opportunities because they do not overlap with bear-hunting seasons. 

Similarly, the proposed reopening of O’Malley River for bear 

viewing would also not occur during the bear-hunting seasons. 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, a regulation restricting camping 

near public cabins and administrative facilities would eventually be 

adopted. As under Alternatives A and C, this regulation would have 

no effects on bear hunting. 

Cabin management under Alternative D would similarly have 

negligible effects on bear hunting as is the case under Alternatives A 

and B. The drawing permit system would remain the dominant 

influence on bear hunting. 

Guidelines for use of bear concentration areas and the proposed 

reopening of O’Malley River for bear viewing would have the same 

effects as those described in Alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative Effects. Bear hunting on the Refuge is managed within 

the larger context of the entire Kodiak Archipelago. None of the 

alternatives would have much cumulative effect on bear hunting 

within the Archipelago. Within the smaller Refuge context, 

Alternative C could have a minor negative effect on some bear 

hunters’ experiences by phasing out cabins. This effect is difficult to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-29 

quantify, even in relative terms, but is likely to be far outweighed (in 

terms of influence) by the simple availability of permits. Overall, 

none of the alternatives would have a significant cumulative effect 

on bear hunting. 

Deer Hunting

The State of Alaska has primary responsibility for managing deer 

hunting throughout the Kodiak Archipelago, although the federal 

government plays an important role in managing the federal 

subsistence hunt on Refuge lands. No limits exist on the number of 

deer hunters allowed each year, but there are limits (which may 

differ for state and federal hunts) on the number of deer each hunter 

may take. These limits are based primarily on the health and size of 

the deer population. Harsh winters periodically cause significant 

reductions in the deer population and subsequent reductions in 

hunting opportunity and participation. Weather-induced population 

fluctuations are the dominant influence on deer hunting on the 

Refuge. Compared to population fluctuations, the effects of the 

proposed alternative management actions on deer hunting would be 

negligible. 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, camping areas would not be 

improved, no facilities would be provided, and regulations restricting 

camping near public cabins and administrative facilities would 

eventually be adopted. These regulations could limit camping 

opportunities for some hunters, but hunters generally do not choose 

to camp near other people or facilities; overall, the effect would be 

negligible. 

Under Alternative A, opportunities for deer hunters to use cabins 

could be expanded through addition to the public use cabin program 

of as many as two new cabins plus former private cabins. When there 

is unmet demand for cabin space among deer hunters, construction or 

addition by other means of cabins near prime hunting locations could 

mean expanded opportunities for deer hunting. However, Refuge 

records show that public cabins tend to operate at well below 

capacity. The health and size of the deer population is likely to 

remain the primary determinant of deer hunting opportunity and 

participation. 

The area near the outlet of O’Malley River would continue to be 

closed seasonally to all public use under Alternative A. Commercial 

use of nine other bear concentration areas would continue to be 

seasonally closed or limited to day use only, and these and other 

areas could be seasonally limited for all users when the Refuge 

public use management plan (USFWS 1993) is fully implemented. 

Because there is some overlap between the seasonal closures and the 

start of the deer-hunting season in August, seasonal closures could 

reduce hunting opportunities. Because not all bear concentration 

areas are necessarily good places to hunt, and because the proposed 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

closures represent less than two percent of the land area of the 

Refuge, the magnitude of this effect would be small. 

Alternative B. Alternative B calls for improving camping areas with 

facilities such as latrines and food caches, which could slightly 

improve the safety and convenience of deer-hunting experiences—

but only for hunters who stay at improved sites. Under this 

alternative, regulations restricting camping near cabins and 

administrative facilities would not be adopted. Because deer hunters 

are unlikely to camp near cabins (especially if they are occupied) or 

other facilities, they would only be affected if other people camped 

near a cabin the hunters themselves were occupying. Given the low 

likelihood of such a scenario, the effects of this approach are 

expected to be negligible. 

With respect to public use cabin management, the effects of 

Alternative B would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Building or acquiring additional cabins could expand 

opportunities for deer hunters in cases of unmet cabin demand, but 

the limiting factor would continue to be the deer population itself. 

Under Alternative B, proposed regulatory use restrictions in bear 

concentration areas would be replaced with voluntary guidelines. 

Commercial operators would be required to comply with the 

guidelines. Private deer hunters might choose to ignore the 

guidelines and access restricted areas, but most of them would likely 

comply with the guidelines. Therefore, effects of this approach 

would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Reopening the O’Malley River site for a bear-viewing program, 

regardless of whether that program is government-run or privately 

run, would not affect deer hunting. The site is currently seasonally 

closed to deer hunters (and all other public users), and under all 

action alternatives it would remain seasonally closed to all users 

except those participating in a sanctioned bear-viewing program. 

Alternative C. The effects of camping area management under 

Alternative C would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C calls for phasing out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major construction, maintenance, or acquisition 

projects. Over time, this alternative could affect deer hunting by 

reducing and eventually eliminating the opportunity for hunters to 

base their activities out of public use cabins. Hunters would be 

forced to rely on commercial services or private, temporary tentcamps as bases for their activities. However, the size of the deer 

population would continue to be the primary limiting factor on 

hunting opportunities. 

Even if cabins were completely eliminated, the total number of deer 

hunters visiting the Refuge probably would not change. The nature 

of available deer-hunting experiences, however, could change. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-31 

Hunters who enjoy staying in a cabin as part of their experience 

would be negatively affected. Because no data regarding the 

importance of cabins in Refuge deer hunting experiences are 

available, it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of this impact. 

However, the basic prerequisite for any Refuge deer-hunting 

experience is the availability of deer. Compared to the size of the 

deer population in a given year, the effects of any changes in cabin 

availability on deer hunting would likely be negligible. 

With respect to management of bear concentration areas and bear 

viewing at O’Malley River, Alternative C would have effects similar 

to those of Alternative B. 

Alternative D. The effects of camping area management under 

Alternative D would be the same as those described under 

Alternative B. 

The effects of management of the public use cabin program under 

Alternative D would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

The effects of managing bear concentration areas, and O’Malley 

River bear-viewing management, under Alternative D would be the 

same as those described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects. Access restrictions in bear concentration areas, 

whether they are enforced by regulation or involve voluntary 

guidelines, could have a minor negative effect on deer-hunting 

opportunities. As previously noted, the eventual elimination of 

public cabins as proposed under Alternative C could lead to changes 

in the nature of available deer-hunting experiences. This effect is 

difficult to quantify, even in relative terms, but it is likely to be far 

outweighed (in terms of influence) by fluctuations in the size of the 

deer population. Overall, none of the proposed alternatives would 

have a significant cumulative effect on Refuge deer hunting. 

Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing on the Refuge is managed by the State of 

Alaska. Recreational fishing guides are managed by the Refuge 

through the special use permitting process. No changes to the 

permitting process are proposed under any of the alternatives. 

Similar to bear and deer hunting, the dominant influences on fishing 

opportunities and experiences are likely to be the health and size of 

fish stocks, the timing of runs, and related management actions by 

the state (e.g., determining seasons and bag limits). 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A (current management), camping 

areas would not be improved, no facilities would be provided, and 

regulations restricting camping near public cabins and administrative 

facilities would eventually be adopted. This approach to camping 

area management would have negligible impacts on fishing 

opportunities or experiences. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Current management also allows construction of as many as two new 

public cabins and conversion of acquired cabins to public use. 

Fishing is a popular activity for many cabin users, but cabin 

availability does not appear to be a significant limiting factor in 

fishing participation. Even the most heavily used cabins are rarely 

occupied at full capacity. Adding cabins to the seven that are 

currently available could provide a small increase in fishing 

opportunities, especially in popular areas and during peak use 

periods. The overall effects on fishing, however, would be 

negligible. 

If regulations proposed under Alternative A were adopted, portions 

of four drainages (Connecticut Creek, Humpy Creek, Seven Rivers, 

and Lower Dog Salmon Falls) would be seasonally closed to all 

public use, and five other drainages (Red Lake River and shoreline, 

Upper Thumb, Southeast Creek, Little River Lake lakeshore, and 

Deadman Bay Creek) would be seasonally limited to day use only. 

The proposed regulations would seasonally preclude all fishing in 

selected areas of the Refuge. 

Few opportunities for fishing would be lost because of the proposed 

regulations. Most of the areas proposed for closure are not popular 

fishing areas; timining of the closures may not necessarily overlap 

with the best fishing periods; and the areas that attract bears for 

feeding on fish (shallows and falls) often make them poor sites for 

anglers. The proposed day use restrictions would not likely affect 

fishing; anglers would be prevented from camping in restricted areas, 

but they could still fish during the day. Overall, the effects of the 

proposed closures would be negligible. 

Under Alternative A, the former bear-viewing site at O’Malley River 

would remain seasonally closed to all public use. 

Alternative B. Under alternative B, campsites could be improved and 

facilities provided if needed to mitigate use impacts. These actions 

could have a small positive effect on fishing experiences by helping 

to maintain the aesthetic and ecological integrity of popular fishing 

areas. The overall effects on fishing, however, would be negligible. 

Similarly, the effects of not restricting camping near cabins and 

administrative facilities would be negligible. The primary purpose of 

such a regulation would be protection of facilities, and few anglers 

choose to camp near them anyway. 

Alternative B would allow additional public use cabins to be built or 

acquired as needed to meet demand. Because state regulations and 

fish stocks—not cabin availability—are the primary limiting factors 

on fishing opportunities, the overall effects of adding new public use 

cabins would be negligible. 

This alternative calls for replacing regulatory access restrictions with 

voluntary guidelines in bear concentration areas. Commercial 

operators would be required to comply with guidelines. Compared to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-33 

Alternative A, Alternative B would have relatively less impact on 

private anglers because no areas would be outright closed to use. 

With respect to recreational fishing opportunities and experiences, 

this approach does not differ significantly from current management, 

and would have negligible effects. Similarly, reopening the 

O’Malley River site for a commercial bear-viewing program would 

have no effect on fishing. The area is seasonally closed to all public 

use now, and it would remain closed to all use other than the 

sanctioned viewing program. 

Alternative C. The effects of camping area management under 

Alternative C would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C calls for phasing out the public use cabin program by 

not undertaking major construction, maintenance, or acquisition 

projects. Over time, this alternative could affect recreational fishing 

by reducing and eventually eliminating the opportunity for anglers to 

base their activities out of public use cabins. However, fish stocks 

and state regulations would continue to be the primary limiting 

factors on fishing opportunities. Even if cabins were completely 

eliminated, total recreational fishing effort on the Refuge probably 

would not change. 

The nature of available fishing experiences, however, could change. 

Anglers who enjoy staying in a cabin as part of their experience 

would be negatively affected. Because no data regarding the 

importance of cabins in fishing experiences on the Refuge are 

available, it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of this impact. 

Compared to the size and timing of fish stocks, and related state 

regulations, however, the effects on recreational fishing of any 

changes in cabin availability would be negligible. 

The effects of bear concentration area management would be similar 

to those described in Alternative A, except that regulatory proposals 

could be modified after considering the latest resource information. 

Reopening the O’Malley River site for a government-run bearviewing program would have the same effects as those described in 

Alternative B. 

Alternative D. Campsite management under this alternative would 

have the same effects as those described in Alternative B. 

Cabin management under Alternative D would have the same effects 

as those described in Alternative A. 

Management of bear concentration areas would have the same 

effects as those described in Alternative B. 

Reopening the O’Malley River site for a mixture of government- and 

privately run bear-viewing opportunities would have the same effects 

as those described in Alternative B. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cumulative Effects. None of the alternatives is likely to have a 

significant cumulative effect on Refuge recreational fishing 

opportunities or experiences.

Wildlife-Viewing Opportunities

Wildlife viewing on the Refuge would be affected by the various 

proposed management actions in much the same way as fishing and 

hunting. That is, the most important influence will be the availability 

(presence) of viewable wildlife rather than any specific management 

action taken by the Refuge. Campsite and cabin management actions 

would not have significant effects on wildlife viewing. Proposed 

access restrictions could limit valuable viewing opportunities in 

selected areas. Also, the decision about if and how to reopen the 

O’Malley River site to bear viewing would clearly have a direct 

impact on Refuge wildlife-viewing opportunities and experiences, 

with the potential for increased participation (measured in use-days) 

by as much as 50 percent. 

Alternative A. Camping area management practices under 

Alternative A (current management) would not have any significant 

effects on wildlife-viewing opportunities or experiences. 

The effects of constructing or acquiring new public use cabins under 

Alternative A would depend largely on where new cabins are 

located. Cabins located near prime viewing locations could expand 

opportunities and attract additional wildlife-viewing participants. It 

is not likely, however, that cabins would be located very near to 

wildlife concentration areas because of concerns about impacts 

(especially with respect to bears). Therefore, the effects of adding 

public use cabins are likely to be negligible. 

Under Alternative A, regulations to seasonally restrict all public 

access at nine bear concentration areas would eventually be adopted; 

commercial access to these areas would continue to be restricted 

through special conditions applied to use permits until the 

regulations are in place. Because bear concentration areas potentially 

represent prime viewing areas, adopting regulations could adversely 

affect unguided (noncommercial) wildlife-viewing opportunities. 

Challenging access and lack of facilities may limit current use of 

these areas, but regulations would eliminate all use (seasonally) and 

also prevent future opportunities for use. These effects would be 

limited to the nine identified concentration areas. 

Overall, the regulations proposed in Alternative A would likely have 

a major, but localized, effect on bear-viewing opportunities on the 

Refuge. This effect might not be reflected in the total number of 

viewing participants because wildlife viewing often occurs in 

conjunction with other activities that would be minimally affected by 

the area closures (e.g., recreational fishing). 

Alternative A calls for maintaining the seasonal closure of a former 

bear-viewing site at O’Malley River. Because that area is currently 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-35 

closed and no change is proposed, this (in)action would have no 

effect on wildlife viewing. 

Alternative B. Camping area management actions proposed in 

Alternative B would not affect wildlife-viewing opportunities or 

experiences on the Refuge. 

The effects of cabin management would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, proposed regulations would be replaced by 

voluntary guidelines for access and use in bear concentration areas. 

Commercial users would be required to comply with the guidelines. 

Depending on the specific language of the guidelines, this approach 

would have relatively less impact on wildlife-viewing opportunities 

than would Alternative A. For commercial users who are currently 

prevented from accessing some concentration areas, this alternative 

would expand viewing opportunities. This approach would have a 

positive effect on wildlife-viewing opportunities; however, as with 

Alternative A, the effect would be localized (limited to the identified 

concentration areas) and somewhat muted by challenging access and 

lack of facilities, which function as natural constraints on viewing in 

some concentration areas. 

Alternative B calls for a limited reopening of the O’Malley River 

bear-viewing site. Bears are the most popular wildlife-viewing 

attraction on the Refuge. In recent years, the Refuge has received an 

average of about 900 guided wildlife-viewing use-days per year 

(based on air-taxi reports). A commercial bear-viewing program at 

O’Malley River, modeled after the 1992 program could support 

approximately 400 bear-viewing use-days if operated at full capacity. 

The last year a commercially guided viewing program was offered at 

the O’Malley site, it operated at about 50 percent capacity, hosting 

51 viewers for four days each. Therefore, reopening the O’Malley 

River bear-viewing site for operation of a commercial viewing 

program could clearly have a substantial positive effect on wildlife 

viewing opportunities, leading to 100 percent increase in 

participation. However, unguided visitors or those who would prefer 

not to participate in a commercial viewing program would not be 

affected. They would still be seasonally precluded from visiting the 

site. 

Alternative C. Camping area management actions proposed in 

Alternative C would not affect wildlife-viewing opportunities or 

experiences on the Refuge. 

Alternative C would allow natural attrition of public cabins, 

eventually phasing out the public cabin system altogether. Although 

many wildlife-viewing participants base their activities out of public 

cabins, the availability of cabins is not likely to be a significant 

limiting factor for wildlife viewing. If cabins were unavailable, 

Refuge visitors could still base their activities out of tent-camps or 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-36 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

private facilities. The absence of cabins might discourage a few 

potential viewers from visiting the Refuge, but the effects of this 

action would be negligible. 

The effects of managing bear concentration areas under 

Alternative C would be essentially the same as those described in 

Alternative A. 

The effects of reopening the O’Malley River site for a governmentrun bear-viewing program would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B. However, if the government program were not run on 

a full-cost-recovery basis, it might attract some users who would be 

unable to afford a commercial viewing experience. In this way, 

Alternative C could expand viewing opportunities for a larger 

segment of the general public than could Alternative B. 

Alternative D. As with the other alternatives, camping area 

management actions proposed in Alternative D would not affect 

wildlife-viewing opportunities or experiences on the Refuge. 

The effects of cabin management would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A. 

The effects of managing bear concentration areas under 

Alternative D would be the same as those described in Alternative B. 

The effects of reopening the O’Malley River site for a mixture of 

government-run and commercially run bear-viewing programs would 

be essentially the same as those described in Alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative Effects. Alternative A provides the fewest wildlifeviewing opportunities. Nine bear concentration areas (potential 

viewing areas) would be seasonally closed (four areas) or limited to 

day use only (five areas) during prime bear use periods, and the 

former bear-viewing site at O’Malley River would remain closed. In 

contrast, the cumulative effects of actions proposed in each of 

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide for significantly expanded 

viewing opportunities. Relative to the other alternatives, Alternative 

D would have the greatest positive effect by replacing most access 

restrictions with guidelines and reopening the O’Malley River 

viewing site for both government and private viewing programs. 

Wilderness Values

By definition, management actions that permanently alter the 

naturalness and wildness of the landscape or reduce opportunities for 

visitors to experience primitive recreation constitute negative 

impacts on wilderness values. None of the proposed management 

alternatives are likely to result in large-scale changes to the overall 

wilderness values of the Refuge, but some management actions 

could result in localized negative effects. 

Alternative A. Not improving camping areas, as proposed under 

Alternative A, would retain naturalness and wildness of the Refuge 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-37 

yet could lead to more diffuse negative effects if camping area 

impacts and informal social trails proliferate. Given current and 

projected low public use levels, the overall effect of such impacts is 

likely to be negligible. 

By definition, the presence of human-made structures such as cabins 

reduces the wilderness values of an area. However, negative impacts 

associated with cabins are extremely local in nature, and individual 

cabins do not constitute a significant threat to the overall wilderness 

values of the Refuge. Under Alternative A, the current seven public 

use cabins could be expanded through the construction of two new 

cabins or addition of acquired private cabins to the public use cabin 

system. Changing private cabins to public use would not affect 

current wilderness values of the Refuge because those structures are 

already in place. The addition of two new cabins could result in local 

impacts to wilderness values in the areas immediately surrounding 

the cabins, but the impacts to the overall wilderness values of the 

Refuge would be negligible. 

Adopting regulations to seasonally limit access to 10 bear 

concentration areas (including O’Malley River) would not affect the 

physical wilderness values of the Refuge. However, slight negative 

effects on visitors’ perceptions of primitive recreation opportunities 

are possible. 

Alternative B. Improving camping areas with primitive facilities 

such as food storage areas and latrines, as proposed under 

Alternative B, would have localized negative effects on wilderness 

values but negligible effects overall. Encouraging visitors to camp 

near one another at improved areas could reduce opportunities for 

the solitude component of primitive recreation. However, absent a 

Refuge requirement to use improved areas, visitors who value 

solitude would still be free to use other areas. 

Under Alternative B, new cabins could be constructed as needed to 

meet demand. Existing public use cabins are not used at capacity at 

this time, and little increase in public use is anticipated for the next 

five years; after that, a fairly gradual increase is predicted for the 

next 10 years, the life of this plan. Also, the number of sites that 

would be suitable for public use cabins—considering reasonable 

access, attractive activities, and compatibility with refuge purposes—

is fairly limited (USFWS 2003). Anticipated effects would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A: a decrease in wildness and 

naturalness and primitive recreation experience in the areas 

immediately surrounding cabins. 

Under Alternative B, management of bear concentration areas, other 

than O’Malley River, would have no effect on the wilderness values 

of these areas. Opportunities for primitive recreation would be 

preserved. Under Alternative B, the seasonal closure at O’Malley 

would be modified to allow a bear-viewing program. If the program 

involved construction of new permanent facilities, localized impacts 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-38 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

to wildness and naturalness could occur. Increased air-taxi traffic and 

habituation of bears could further affect wilderness values. The 

behavior of wildlife is sometimes used as a measure of naturalness. 

Cumulatively, the impacts associated with an intensely managed 

bear-viewing operation could result in negative effects on wilderness 

values, even beyond the immediate area of O’Malley. However, 

given the Refuge’s general minimal management approach and 

mandates to protect bears and other resources, it is very unlikely that 

such a scenario would develop. Management of bear viewing at 

O’Malley River under Alternative B would be expected to have 

some minor localized adverse impacts, but overall would have 

negligible effects on the wilderness values of the Refuge. 

Alternative C. The effects of not improving camping areas under 

Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative A: the 

possibility for diffuse negative effects if camping-area impacts and 

informal social trails proliferate. 

Under Alternative C, existing public use cabins would be allowed to 

deteriorate and eventually disappear through natural weathering. 

Over time, this could result in localized positive effects on 

wilderness values, yet the effects on the overall wilderness values of 

the Refuge would be negligible. 

As described for Alternative A, Alternative C management of bear 

concentration areas would have no effect on wilderness values of the 

Refuge. Effects of management of a bear-viewing program at the 

O’Malley River would have the same effects described under 

Alternative B. 

Alternative D. As under Alternative B, Alternative D’s proposal for 

improving camping areas with primitive facilities such as foodstorage areas and latrines could have localized negative effects on 

wilderness values but negligible effects overall. 

Public use cabins under Alternative D would have the same effects 

as described for Alternative A: local impacts to the wilderness values 

of areas immediately surrounding two new cabins, but these impacts 

would be negligible on the overall wilderness values of Refuge 

lands. 

Management of bear concentration areas under Alternative D would 

have no adverse effects on wilderness values because management 

intent is to manage the landscape and wildlife in a natural condition. 

Some additional regulation of visitors could affect the experience of 

primitive recreation, but most of the Refuge would remain open to 

primitive recreation with minimal restrictions designed to protect 

refuge resources that coincide with wilderness values. Effects of 

management of a bear-viewing program under Alternative D would 

be essentially the same as under Alternatives B and C, although there 

could be slightly more air traffic with the presence of private guides 

and government guides. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-39 

Cumulative Effects. Individually, none of the actions proposed 

under any of the alternatives would have significant effects on the 

wilderness values of Kodiak Refuge lands. However, in combination, 

the actions proposed under Alternative B could have a long-term 

negative effect. Indefinite expansion of the cabin program, improved 

camping areas, and a privately guided bear-viewing operation at 

O’Malley River would all result in increased evidence of human use 

and subsequent reductions in naturalness and wildness. Standard 

minimal management practices would mitigate some of these effects; 

over time, however, and if public use were to increase, some local 

changes to wilderness values at areas where there are facilities and 

concentrated public use would occur. These lands would still possess 

outstanding wilderness values and be eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System should such a designation 

be pursued in the future. 

River Values

This section describes the potential effects of the alternatives on the 

river-related values inventoried for the Ayakulik, Spiridon, and 

Uganik rivers described in section 3.5 of Chapter 3. Management 

actions that alter the free-flowing nature of river segments would 

constitute significant negative impacts on river values. None of the 

alternatives would alter the free-flowing nature of river segments. 

Generally, management proposed under all alternatives would 

continue to protect river values found in the three drainages. 

Alternative A. If regulations proposed under Alternative A were 

implemented, public access to the Red Lake River and shoreline 

would be limited to day use for two months annually. Visitors would 

not be allowed to camp within the area during July and August but 

could still view bears and engage in other activities. This closure 

could be viewed as a negative effect on the recreation values but a 

positive effect on the fish and wildlife values of the river corridor. 

New cabins could be constructed within river corridors under 

Alternative A. It is likely that cabins would be constructed adjacent 

to saltwater or lakes where access would be easier. Effects would be 

analyzed when specific locations are identified. 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, public access, including access 

by wildlife viewing guides, would be allowed to the river corridors. 

Voluntary guidelines adopted would be designed to protect all river 

values. 

Alternative B public use cabin management would have no effect on 

identified river values unless new cabins were constructed in river 

corridors. As under Alternative A, it is likely that cabins would be 

constructed adjacent to saltwater or lakes where access would be 

easier. Effects would be analyzed when specific locations are 

identified. 

Alternative C. Alternative C management would affect identified 

recreation and fish and wildlife values if re-evaluation of bear 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

concentration areas led to seasonal closures on the Ayakulik River. 

Closures could impede public access at specific locations, limiting 

visitors’ abilities to fish, hunt, camp, and view wildlife. Closures 

would help to protect identified fish and wildlife values, including 

bears. Effects associated with management under this alternative are 

expected to be locally notable if bear concentration areas are 

seasonally closed to public access but negligible when looking at the 

entire drainage’s characteristics. 

The Uganik River is the only identified river with a public use cabin 

located nearby. Average annual use at this cabin from 1999 through 

2002 was 343 use-days. Some recreation-related opportunities could 

be lost if the Uganik Lake cabin is phased out because those visitors 

who would not come to the area without a cabin would be displaced. 

Other visitors would continue to come and camp in the area, and 

some people might come to the area because it would offer a more 

primitive experience without a cabin. Removal of the cabin could 

provide some protection for identified fish and wildlife values, 

including bears, because fewer people may be staying overnight at 

the cabin location; however, the positive benefits of public use 

cabins—such as fewer confrontations between bears and humans—

would be lost. Effects associated with management of public use 

cabins under this alternative are expected to be negligible when 

looking at the entire drainage’s characteristics. 

Camping area management under Alternative C would have no effect 

on the three rivers because management is not expected to affect 

identified river values. 

Alternative D. Although Alternative D could potentially limit access 

to bear concentration areas to day use only, the effects of such 

actions are expected to be negligible to identified values on all rivers. 

Visitors could still camp nearby and continue to engage in hunting, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and other activities during daylight hours. 

As with Alternative B, management of public use cabins under 

Alternative D would have no effect on the three rivers unless new 

cabins were constructed in river corridors, which is unlikely because 

of access and resource management considerations. Under 

Alternative D, as under Alternatives A and B, public use cabins 

could be constructed adjacent to saltwater or lakes where access 

would be easier. Effects would be analyzed when specific locations 

were identified. 

Camping area management under Alternative D is expected to 

protect and enhance identified values within river corridors by 

directing human occupancy away from the rivers’ banks and out of 

movement corridors that bears use. 

Cumulative Effects. Generally, management proposed under all 

alternatives would continue to protect river values found in the three 

drainages. None of the alternatives would alter the free-flowing 

nature of river segments. Changes in identified river values would be 

localized and minor. Negative effects to one value (e.g., recreation) 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-41 

would be offset by positive effects to another value (e.g., fish and 

wildlife). No significant changes in river values are likely under any 

of the alternatives. 

4.2 Relationship Between 

Short-Term Use of the 

Environment and LongTerm Productivity 

Under all alternatives, the primary on-site short-term uses of Kodiak 

Refuge and its resources would be subsistence and recreation. The 

primary off-site short-term use of resources originating on Kodiak 

Refuge is commercial fishing in waters adjacent to the Archipelago. 

Monitoring and regulation of harvested fish and wildlife populations 

by ADF&G and the Service would ensure the long-term productivity 

of fish and wildlife populations. None of the short-term uses 

described in any of the alternatives would affect the long-term 

productivity of the ecosystem. 

4.3 Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitment 

of Resources 

The irreversible commitment of resources means that nonrenewable 

resources are consumed or destroyed. Examples include the 

destruction of cultural resources by other management activities and 

mineral extraction that consumes nonrenewable minerals. 

The irretrievable commitment of resources represents trade-offs 

(opportunities forgone) in the use and management of natural 

resources. Irretrievable commitment of resources includes the 

expenditure of funds, loss of production, or restriction on resource 

use. 

Decisions made in a comprehensive conservation plan do not 

represent actual irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. A conservation plan determines the kinds and levels of 

activities appropriate within the laws establishing the refuge. A 

decision to irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources occurs in 

the following circumstances: 

 When the Service makes a project or site-specific decision 

 At the time Congress acts on a recommendation to establish a 

new conservation system unit such as Wilderness or to include a 

river in the Wild and Scenic River System 

Mineral leasing and development would not be allowed within the 

Refuge under any of the management categories proposed. 

Therefore, these resources could not be irreversibly committed 

unless the Plan was amended. Future decisions on the location or 

development of any new public use cabin or administrative facility 

within the Refuge would take into account the cultural resources and 

could minimize or eliminate the possibility of losing those resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-42 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wilderness and river-related values are protected by the management 

categories applied to the Refuge and would not be irreversibly lost or 

committed under any of the alternatives. 

Limits on the level of guided use with the Refuge would be an 

example of an irretrievable commitment of resources. None of the 

alternatives propose any change in the level of big-game guided use 

being provided on the Refuge. 

4.4 Environmental Justice 

A federal agency is required to identify and address, as appropriate, 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations (Executive Order 

12898, February 11, 1994; amended January 30, 1995, by Executive 

Order 12948). This includes health risks and other impacts for people 

who rely principally on fish or wildlife for subsistence. 

As described in Chapter 3, communities associated with Kodiak 

Refuge are rural, contain many low-income households, and 

maintain subsistence lifestyles. The nature of the proposed action—

revision of the conservation plan for the Refuge—is very different 

from the proposals often associated with environmental justice issues 

(such as siting of pollution-causing facilities). None of the 

alternatives evaluated in the final environmental impact statement 

(EIS) would place a disproportionate weight of any adverse effects 

on low-income and/or minority populations. Maintaining highquality habitat and healthy populations of fish and wildlife, 

maintaining water quality, and providing opportunities for 

subsistence are legislated purposes of the Refuge; the Service cannot 

compromise these values and their associated uses under any 

management alternative. While the alternatives contain slightly 

different approaches to meeting the purposes, none favor activities or 

projects that would direct negative impacts toward low-income 

and/or minority populations. 

4.5 Section 810 Evaluation 

Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) requires an evaluation of the effects on subsistence uses 

for any action to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the 

use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands. The evaluation 

consists of three parts: 

 A finding of whether or not a proposed action would have a 

significant restriction on subsistence uses 

 A notice and hearing if an action is found to have a significant 

restriction on subsistence uses 

 A three-part determination prior to authorization of any action if 

there is a significant restriction on subsistence uses 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-43 

Chapter 3 of this document describes current uses of the Refuge for 

subsistence, whereas this chapter describes anticipated effects of 

each alternative on those subsistence uses. Because this is a longrange programmatic plan that describes possible changes in 

management direction for Kodiak Refuge, it does not propose any 

site-specific development or allow any new types of uses or 

development that would pose risks to subsistence uses of the Refuge. 

The preferred alternative (Alternative D) does not contain actions 

that would reduce subsistence uses because of direct effects on 

wildlife or habitat resources or that would increase competition for 

resources. 

The preferred alternative similarly would not change the availability 

of resources by altering their distribution or location. The general 

goal is to maintain habitat and wildlife populations currently 

occurring on the Refuge. 

Finally, the preferred alternative would not reduce subsistence uses 

because of limitations on access, by physical or legal barriers, to 

harvestable resources. This evaluation concludes that the action 

would not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses. 

4.6 Summary Comparison of 

Environmental Effects 

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the environmental effects described 

in this chapter. The following definitions (as they relate to biological 

resources) are important to understand the effects described in the 

table: 

Short-Term Effects: Anticipated to occur within five years from 

implementation of this Plan. 

Long-Term Effects: Anticipated to occur after or last longer than five 

years after this Plan has been implemented.

Negligible Effects: Temporary effects that do not result in a change 

in survival, reproduction, distribution, or behavior for individuals. 

The ability of the habitat to support populations would remain 

unchanged (e.g., temporary disturbance of a specific group of 

individuals that does not result in a change in use of an area). 

.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consquences 

4-44 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table 4-1 Summary comparison of effects of implementing the alternatives 

Resource/ 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Aquatic habitats Negligible effects Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Vegetation Negligible effects; potential for 

introduction or expansion of invasive plants 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 

Fish populations A detailed analysis of effects on fish 

populations cannot be conducted until site-specific actions are developed. No measurable impacts to fish populations expected 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 

Bird populations Overall negligible effects; some 

adverse impacts affecting survival, reproduction, distribution, or behavior in a localized areas are possible; however, the adverse impacts are unlikely to adversely affect integrity of regional population over long term 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 

Brown bear populations 

No significant effects on size and productivity of bear population 

Negative impacts affecting local population but not sufficient to affect integrity of Refuge population in long term 

Same as Alternative A Same as 

Deer, elk, goats No measurable long-term effects on 

populations within the Refuge 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 

Marine mammals 

Not likely to have any effect on marine mammals 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 
Chapter 4: Environ

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Resource/ 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Local population No effects on Kodiak Island 

Borough population or populations of individual communities 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 

Local economy Negligible effects overall on Kodiak 

economy 

Negligible effects overall on Kodiak economy but slight positive effect from increased bear viewing and cabin program 

Negligible effects overall but slight positive effect from increased bear viewing, perhaps offset by slight negative effect from elimination of cabins 

Same as 

Subsistence Negligible effects Same as Alternative A and 

increased opportunity for subsistence users to participate in Refuge management through stakeholder planning for bear concentration areas. 

Same as Alternative B Same as 

Guides and commercial operators 

Negligible effects Slight increase in guided bearviewing opportunities Same as Alternative A Same as 

Bear hunting Negligible effects; hunting regulated 

by state and by Federal Subsistence Board 

Same as Alternative A Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future 

Same as 

Deer hunting No changes to deer -hunting 

opportunities 

Same as Alternative A Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to hunters in the future 

Same as 

Recreational fishing 

Negligible effects on recreational fishing opportunities 

Same as Alternative A Negligible effects, although 

cabins would no longer be available to anglers in the future 

Same as 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-46 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Resource/ 

Value 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Wildlife viewing If proposed regulations are 

implemented, they would reduce wildlife-viewing opportunities because of closure of additional areas to general public access during bear-viewing season and no O’Malley bear-viewing program 

Greatest potential for providing viewing opportunities because of unregulated use in bear concentration areas, reopening O’Malley and new public use cabins 

Bear concentration area opportunities similar to Alternative A; O’Malley program may attract more viewers if lower cost than under Alternatives B and D; reduced opportunity for those who would use public use cabins. 

Manageconcentprovide current viewing O’Malleuse cabi

Wilderness values 

Overall impact negligible. Addition of structures and not improving campsites could result in localized negative impacts. 

Long-term negative effect due to expansion of cabin program, improved camping areas, and guided bear viewing at O’Malley. However, lands would still retain overall wilderness values and be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Over time, elimination of the cabin program could result in localized positive effects on wilderness values; however, the effects on the overall wilderness values of the Refuge would be negligible. 

Overall Additiohave slieffects; would beffects ooffset bphysicaenviron

River values No effect Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-47 

4.7 References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 240 pp. 

ADF&G, and NPS. 2003. “Best practices for viewing bears on the 

west side of Cook Inlet and the Katmai Coast.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish 

Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation; and 

National Park Service, Katmai National Park and 

Preserve. 

Allen, S., and A. Collins. 2002. “An assessment of bear-viewing 

opportunities relevant to management of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 77 

pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., ADF&G retired biologist. 2004. Telephone 

conversation about bear–human interactions and bear 

behavior changes and effects on bear survival, to L. 

Kerr, refuge manager, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. March 9. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G. Wilker. 2000. “Brown bear activity, behavior, 

and response to public use at Karluk Lake, Alaska.” 

Unpublished report on file. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

50 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker. 1997. “Distribution, patterns of 

use, and behavior of brown bears associated with a 

bear-viewing program on Thumb River, Kodiak 

Island, Alaska.” Job Completion Report. Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. National Biological Survey and Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 25 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G.A. Wilker 2002. “Assessment of the 

vulnerability of habituated bears to sport harvest in 

the Karluk Lake vicinity of Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alaska.” Kodiak Archipelago Bear 

Conservation and Management Plan. Anchorage, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game. pp. T-1 

through T-5. 

Broseth, H., and H.C. Pedersen. 2000. “Hunting effort and game 

vulnerability studies on a small scale: a new technique 

combining radio-telemetry, GPS, and GIS.” J. of 

Applied Ecology 37: 182–190. 

Clarkson, P. 1992. A preliminary investigation into the status and 

distribution of harlequin ducks in Jasper National 

Park. In proceedings from Harlequin Duck 

Symposium, Northwest Section of the Wildlife 

Society Meeting. Moscow, Idaho. April 23–24, 1992. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-48 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Fraser, K.W., and P.J. Sweetapple. 1992. “Hunters and hunting 

patterns in part of the Kaimanawa recreational 

hunting area.” New Zealand Journal of Zoology 19: 

91–98. 

Furness, R.W., and J.J.D. Greenwood. 1993. Birds as Monitors of 

Environmental Change. New York, New York: 

Chapman and Hall. 356. 

Getman, M., deputy refuge manager, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. 2004. Personal communication about area of 

refuge covered by facilities and impacts to vegetation 

and other resources from facilities, camping, and 

other uses, to H. Clough, refuge planner, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. March 10. 

Goldsmith, S., J. Brian, and A. Hill. 2003. “The Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge: Economic Importance—A Report 

for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: Institute for Social and Economic Research, 

University of Alaska Anchorage. 

Jonkel, C.J. 1980. “Winter disturbance and grizzly bears.” Special 

Report No. 46. Missoula, Montana: University of 

Montana, Border Grizzly Project. 3 pp. 

Lyon, L.J., and M.G. Burham. 1998. “Tracking Elk Hunters with 

Global Positioning System.” Research Paper RMRSRP-3. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 

Marks, S.A. 1994. “Local hunters and wildlife surveys: a design to 

enhance participation.” African Journal of Ecology 

32: 233-254. 

Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of 

developments and primary roads on grizzly bear 

habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 

In proceedings from Interntl. Conf. on Bear Res. and 

Manage. 7:259–273. 

Olson, T.L., B.K. Gilbert, and R.C. Squibb. 1997. “The effects of 

increasing activity on brown bear use of an Alaska 

river.” Biological Conservation 89: 95–99. 

Rempel, R.S., P.C. Elkie, A.R. Rodgers, and M.J. Gluck. 1997. 

“Timber-management and natural-disturbance effects 

on moose habitat; landscape evaluation.” J. of 

Wildlife Management 61: 517–524. 

Sellers, R., and L.D. Aumiller. 1994. Brown bear population 

characteristics at McNeil River, Alaska. In 

proceedings from International Conference on Bear 

Research and Management. 9:283–293. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-49 

Smith, R.B., V.G. Barnes Jr., and L.J. Van Daele 1989. Brown bear–

human conflicts in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska. 

In proceedings from Symp. Bear People Conflicts. M. 

Bromley, ed. pp. 111–119. Yellowknife, Northwest 

Territories, Canada: Canadian Government of 

Northwest Territories. 

USFWS. 1993. “Public Use Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Public Use Regulations.” Kodiak, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 2003. “Notes of Kodiak comprehensive conservation 

planning team meeting, February 25–26, 2003, at 

Kodiak, Alaska.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (On 

file with Kodiak Refuge headquarters and with the 

Alaska Regional Office Refuge Planning staff.) 

Van Daele, L.J., ADF&G biologist. 2004. Conversation about defense 

of life or property kills of brown bears on Kodiak 

Archipelago, other human-bear encounters, and bear 

concentration areas, including denning areas., with B. 

Pyle, biologist, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

March 9. 

Van Daele, L.J., V.G. Barnes Jr., and R.B. Smith. 1990. “Denning 

characteristics of brown bears on Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Intl. Conf. Bear Res. Mange. 8: 257–267. 

Walker, T. 2002. “Alaska bear viewing areas.” In K.L. Lew, ed. 

Kodiak Archipelago Conservation and Bear 

Management Plan. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. (Appendix G) 

Warner, S.H. 1987. “Visitor impact on brown bears, Admiralty Island, 

Alaska.” Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8: 377–

381. 

Wilker, G., refuge officer, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 2004. 

Conversation about observations of bear–human 

interactions during his years of participating in refuge 

bear research and study projects, with L. Kerr, refuge 

manager, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. March 

11. 

Wilker, G.A., and V.G. Barnes. 1998. “Responses of brown bears to 

human activities at O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, 

Alaska.” Ursus 10: 557–561. 
Chapter 5 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-1 

5. Evaluation of the Alternatives 

5.1 Evaluation Criteria 

The alternatives described in Chapter 2 were evaluated against six 

criteria based on existing law and policy. These criteria were selected as 

being the most important factors to be used in selecting the preferred 

alternative. Following are these criteria, in order of importance: 

1. How well does the alternative satisfy the purposes of Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge, Refuge) and 

other provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA)? 

2. How well does the alternative satisfy the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System? 

3. How well does the alternative contribute to meeting the 

goals of the Refuge? 

4. How does the alternative address the issues and concerns 

identified during scoping? 

5. How well does the alternative maintain biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health at the Refuge and 

ecosystem scales and contribute to managing the Refuge as 

part of an ecosystem? 

6. How well does the alternative agree with Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADF&G) management plans for the area? 

The differences among the alternatives are relatively small. Each 

action alternative (Alternatives B, C, and D) varies only slightly 

from the current management direction; therefore, differences in 

meeting the evaluation criteria are slight. Alternatives that would 

clearly not meet the purposes of the Refuge or System mission were 

not developed. Scoping did not identify any major issues that would 

result in significant changes in management direction for the Refuge. 

The most important criterion used in evaluating the alternatives is the 

degree to which the alternatives achieve the purposes of the Refuge 

as mandated by ANILCA. Chapter 4 describes the physical, 

biological, and socioeconomic impacts of each of the alternatives 

and provides a summary of the projected changes. 

5.2 Response to Refuge 

Purposes 

All alternatives conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in 

their natural diversity; preserve water quality and quantity; meet 

international treaty obligations; and provide opportunities for 

continued subsistence uses. Alternatives C and D provide a slightly 

higher level of conservation of natural habitats and wildland values 

on the Refuge by increasing the amount of land in the Minimal 

Management category. Alternative C adds 11,362 acres to this 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

5-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

category, while Alternative D adds the most: 12,579 acres. The 

Refuge would continue to provide quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities. 

5.3 Response to National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Mission 

All alternatives were developed with the refuge system mission in 

mind, and all contribute to meeting that mission. The Refuge plays a 

part in supporting migratory birds, salmon, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and marine mammals that migrate to other areas seasonally. Many 

other species—such as brown bear, elk, mountain goat, and bald 

eagle—use the Refuge year-round. 

5.4 Response to Refuge Goals 

Refuge goals reflect the purposes of the Refuge and the missions of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (Service). 

Alternatives B, C, and D provide management direction to achieve 

refuge goals. Although the alternatives may differ in management 

strategies and tools used to ensure that fish and wildlife populations, 

their habitats, and other resources on the Refuge are properly cared 

for, they are all in conformance with law and policy. Common to all 

alternatives is the promotion of close working relationships with the 

State of Alaska, local communities, and other public and private 

partners. 

Each alternative provides opportunities for compatible uses on the 

Refuge, including subsistence, wildlife-dependent recreation, and 

commercial activities. Although all the alternatives would meet 

resource needs and satisfy public interests, Alternatives B, C, and D 

provide better options for meeting refuge goals than does Alternative 

A. This is shown through the additional direction for monitoring and 

evaluation of resources on and public uses of the Refuge. (Goals and 

objectives for the Refuge are found in Chapter 2, section 2.1.) 

5.5 Response to Issues 

This section summarizes the potential management actions that 

directly address the central planning issues identified in Chapter 1 of 

this document (see Table 5-1). 

5.5.1 Management of Public Use 

Under all alternatives, guided use and other commercial activities on 

the Refuge would continue to be managed via special conditions 

attached to special use permits. Voluntary use guidelines for all users 

would be developed under Alternatives B, C, and D; the success of 

the guidelines would determine whether regulatory restrictions 

would be necessary in the future. The Refuge would manage other 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-3 

Table 5-1. Evaluation of alternatives based on significant issues 

Issue/Concern Alternative A 

(Current 

Management) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Protection of 

Bear 

Concentration 

Areas 

Adopt regulations to 

seasonally restrict all 

public access at 9 

bear concentration 

areas. Continue 

restrictions on 

commercial 

operators until 

regulations are in 

place. Close 2 

denning areas to 

snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public 

use of bear 

concentration areas. 

Commercial 

operators would be 

required to comply 

with guidelines. No 

areas closed to 

snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public 

use. Reevaluate 

regulatory proposal 

based on current 

resource 

information; 

seasonal closures or 

day-use only 

restrictions could be 

proposed for some 

areas. Close 2 

denning areas to 

snowmachine use. 

Develop voluntary 

guidelines for public 

use. Commercial 

operators would be 

required to comply 

with guidelines. 

Some areas would 

be limited to dayuse-only by 

regulation. Close 1 

denning area to 

snowmachine use. 

Management of 

Public Use 

Cabins 

Allow 9 public use 

cabins (7 exist now; 

could construct 2 

more); abandoned 

cabins or cabins on 

newly acquired lands 

could be managed as 

public use cabins. 

Allow more public 

use cabins as needed 

to meet demand; 

stakeholder input 

would be sought 

prior to constructing, 

replacing, or 

relocating cabins. 

Allow natural 

attrition of public 

use cabins; 

eventually phase out 

cabin program. 

Same as Alternative 

A; stakeholder input 

would be sought 

prior to constructing, 

replacing, or 

relocating cabins. 

Management of 

Camping Areas 

Camping areas not 

improved; no 

facilities provided. 

Could improve 

camping areas; 

provide facilities if 

needed to mitigate 

impacts. 

Same as Alternative 

A 

Same as Alternative 

B; use least intrusive 

management 

necessary to mitigate 

impacts. 

Management of 

O’Malley River 

Maintain seasonal 

closure of former 

bear-viewing site at 

O=Malley River. 

Reopen O’Malley 

site to bear viewing 

for guided viewing 

program (1 operator) 

similar to 1992 

program. 

Reopen O’Malley 

site to bear viewing 

with a governmentrun program similar 

to that offered in 

1992. 

Reopen O’Malley 

site to bear viewing 

with a mixture of 

government-run and 

privately guided 

viewing 

opportunities. 

general public uses via two primary mechanisms: management of 

camping areas and administration of the public use cabin program. 

Management of Camping Areas1

Under current management (Alternative A), no additional 

improvement of camping areas or installation of facilities such as 

food caches or primitive toilets would occur unless all other methods 

 

1

 Camping areas are undeveloped sites where people camp. Improving camping areas may consist of providing the 

minimum development, equipment, and facilities necessary for resource protection or public health and safety. 

These improvements could be minor leveling of tent sites, maintenance of user-developed trails, or provision of 

outhouses, temporary bear-resistant food storage containers, or temporary solar-powered electric fences. 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

5-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

of reducing impacts were ineffective; however, regulations to restrict 

camping near public use cabins and administrative facilities would 

be adopted. This alternative would reduce the potential for conflicts 

between cabin users and campers, but it would do little to address 

potential campsite impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife. 

Alternative C would continue the current management direction. 

Under Alternative B, improving camping areas and installing 

appropriate facilities could occur, but regulations restricting camping 

near cabins would not be adopted. This alternative could mitigate 

impacts to camping areas, but it would not address the potential for 

conflicts between cabin users and other visitors who choose to camp 

very near occupied public use cabins. Under Alternative D, 

improvements could be undertaken and regulations restricting 

camping near cabins and administrative facilities would be adopted. 

This alternative would mitigate impacts to resources (soil, 

vegetation, and wildlife) and also mitigate potential conflicts 

between cabin users and tent campers. 

Public Use Cabins

Public use cabins serve as important focal points for many unguided 

refuge visitors. Therefore, the cabin program represents an important 

mechanism for managing the amount and distribution of public use. 

Three of the four alternatives allow for relocation of existing cabins 

and some increases in their numbers; Alternative C would allow 

natural attrition of existing cabins and eventually result in 

elimination of the program. Alternative B would allow relocation of 

existing cabins and expansion of cabin numbers (through new 

construction or through management for public use of cabins on 

newly acquired lands). This alternative could conceivably result in a 

significant increase in the current total of seven public cabins. 

Alternatives A and D would allow for relocation of existing cabins, 

construction of as many as two new cabins, and management of a 

limited number of cabins on newly acquired lands for public use. 

5.5.2 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas 

Access by commercial users to selected bear concentration areas is 

currently restricted via special conditions attached to special use 

permits. Under Alternative A, regulations would be adopted 

restricting noncommercial public access to these same areas. In 

addition, regulations would be adopted to close two bear denning 

areas to snowmachine use. Under Alternative B, voluntary guidelines 

for use of bear concentration areas would be developed; they would 

apply to both commercial users (as special conditions on their 

permits) and noncommercial users. No snowmachine closures would 

occur. Alternative C would include elements of both Alternatives A 

and B. Voluntary guidelines would be developed and applied to all 

users, regulatory proposals would be reevaluated based on current 

resource information, and possible closures or day-use-only limits 

could be adopted for some areas. Two areas would be closed to 

snowmachine use. Finally, Alternative D would include voluntary 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-5 

guidelines for all users and some regulations restricting certain areas 

to day-use only; only one area would be closed by regulation to 

snowmachine use. 

5.5.3 Management of O’Malley River 

Under all alternatives except A, the regulation seasonally closing 

O’Malley River to public use would be modified to allow the 

operation of a bear-viewing program at that site. The three action 

alternatives differ only in the type of program favored. Alternative B 

would allow development of a commercially guided (single 

concessionaire) viewing program structured similarly to the viewing 

program in place in 1992. Alternative C would allow a similar 

program run by the government instead of a private operator. 

Alternative D would allow the development of both private- and 

government-run viewing programs (although they would not operate 

simultaneously). 

5.6 Biological Integrity and 

Ecosystem Management 

Service policy on maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System provides refuge 

managers with direction to follow while achieving refuge purposes. 

The policy also provides an evaluation process for analyzing refuges 

and—through resource assessment, planning, and compatibility 

processes—for setting appropriate management direction to maintain 

and, where appropriate, restore biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. 

Consistent with this policy and refuge purposes, each alternative 

evaluated in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan provides 

management direction that maintains the biotic and abiotic 

conditions on Kodiak Refuge within historic ranges. Natural 

processes are the dominant force at work within the Refuge. 

Prompted by agency policy and public concerns, all action 

alternatives, including the preferred alternative (Alternative D), 

would continue, for the most part, long-standing refuge management 

practices. Additionally, new objectives designed to improve 

conservation of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health would be implemented. 

Hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would continue to 

dominate public use of the Refuge. Continued compatibility of these 

activities would be ensured through effective use of education and 

management by state and federal regulatory actions. 

Ecosystem management is more a way of thinking than an end 

product. It embodies the concepts of a constantly changing landscape 

in which humans play a part, influence the ecosystem, and have a 

role in decisions affecting the land. It compels the manager to 

examine local, refuge, and regional scales to improve understanding 

of the effects of their conservation actions. It also requires the 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

5-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

manager to consider long-term and cumulative effects of actions over 

an extended period of time. 

Ecosystem goals have not been developed for the ecoregion 

encompassing the Refuge. When they are developed, it will be 

possible to show how the Refuge contributes to meeting those 

ecosystem goals. In the meantime, the Service would continue to 

apply an ecosystem approach to management of the Refuge. 

All alternatives maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge and integrate scientific 

knowledge into its management. Alternatives B, C, and D provide 

for obtaining a higher level of scientific knowledge and 

understanding than does Alternative A. 

5.7 Agreement with ADF&G 

Management Plans 

This Conservation Plan was developed in consultation with the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The Service 

routinely consulted with ADF&G personnel during the planning 

process. ADF&G personnel participated in all planning team 

meetings. The Conservation Plan attempts to achieve a high level of 

consistency with ADF&G management plans and objectives for fish 

and wildlife, as discussed in Chapter 2, section 2.1 (Refuge Goals 

and Objectives), and in Chapter 3, section 3.2 (Biological 

Environment). All alternatives acknowledge ADF&G’s role in 

managing fish and wildlife on national wildlife refuges, consistent 

with the Master Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B). 

Effectiveness of interagency collaboration is exemplified in planning 

processes undertaken by ADF&G and the Refuge in the last three 

years. The Service worked extensively with ADF&G and 

stakeholders to develop the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation 

and Management Plan (Bear Plan) (ADF&G 2002). In turn, ADF&G 

worked extensively with the Service to evaluate and adopt many of 

that plan’s recommendations that pertained to the Refuge. 

Consequently, this Conservation Plan directs the Refuge to continue 

time-proven bear management actions supported by the Bear Plan. 

Additionally, it establishes new objectives and strategies to address 

new bear management needs, as recommended in the Bear Plan 

(Appendix C). 

5.8 References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 240 pp. 
Chapter 6 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 6-1 

6. Implementation and Monitoring 

Implementation of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak 

Refuge, Refuge) Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Conservation 

Plan) will be accomplished, in part, by means of various step-down 

plans (section 6.1). Each step-down plan has its own program focus, 

identifying and directing the implementation of strategies (actions, 

techniques, and tools) designed to achieve programmatic objectives 

outlined in the Conservation Plan (Chapter 2, section 2.1). 

Part of the implementation process also includes identifying 

partnership opportunities that result in implementing strategies and 

that accomplish refuge objectives, as discussed in section 6.2. 

Monitoring the progress of plan implementation is accomplished by 

a variety of methods, including surveys, inventories, and creel 

censuses (section 6.3). Evaluation of monitoring results may lead to 

amendment or revision of the Conservation Plan (section 6.4). 

6.1 Step-Down Plans 

Step-down management plans are plans that deal with specific 

management subjects. They describe management strategies and 

implementation schedules and provide details necessary to 

implement management strategies identified in the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). Step-down plans 

for the Refuge include the following: 

Commercial Fishing Activities. This plan addresses the management 

of facilities used at commercial setnet salmon fishing sites on the 

Refuge. It established limits to the number, size, and types of 

facilities and a season-of-use period from May 15 through 

September 15. It prohibits the development of new facility sites and 

limits the use of these facilities to commercial fishing activities only. 

It also describes procedures for replacing or maintaining existing 

facilities. This plan was written in 1987 and is scheduled to be 

updated in 2007. 

Comprehensive Inventory and Monitoring Plan. This plan will 

direct wildlife and habitat inventory and monitoring actions by 

refuge biologists and cooperators. It will include priorities and 

methods for conducting inventories and monitoring. It also will 

guide mapping of vegetation types and modeling of habitat 

suitability for brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, 

Roosevelt elk, and other species. It will incorporate strategies for 

reconnaissance of invasive plants. It is expected to be completed 

within two years after approval of the Conservation Plan. 

Cultural Resource Guide. The cultural resource guide assists the 

refuge staff in meeting legal requirements to protect and manage the 

cultural resources of the Refuge. It provides a reference to the 

cultural resource guidance provided by law and regulation, the 

Service Manual, and the Cultural Resource Management Handbook. 
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

6-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

It outlines roles and responsibilities, summarizes legislation 

governing management of cultural resources, and contains 

information of potential use to the refuge manager. It describes the 

current state of knowledge of the prehistory and history of the 

region. It includes a list of projects that would fill in gaps in 

knowledge or complete existing work. This guide was completed in 

1999 and is scheduled to be updated in 2009. 

Environmental Education Plan. An environmental education plan 

gives direction to the education and outreach programs conducted by 

refuge staff. Programs are primarily directed at children, but include 

all age groups. Refuge staff are involved with formal and informal 

programs that focus on teaching people about fish and wildlife and 

the ecosystems of which they are a part. Emphasis is on national 

directives of the Service, refuge purposes, and special programs such 

as International Migratory Bird Day, Junior Duck Stamp, National 

Wildlife Refuge Week, and National Fishing Week. Education 

programs are promoted by contacting teachers, visiting classrooms, 

providing environmental education materials, and lending education 

materials. The plan is scheduled to be completed in 2008. 

Fire Management Plan. A fire management plan describes how a 

refuge manages wildland fire suppression, hazard fuel reduction, 

prevention, education, fire use, and other fire related activities. 

Kodiak Refuge currently operates under the Alaska Interagency 

Wildland Fire Management Plan. The AIWFMP is currently being 

revised. A Fire Management Plan for Kodiak Refuge will be 

developed following completion of this revision. 

Fisheries Management Plan. The fisheries management plan 

describes the fishery resources on Kodiak Refuge and provides 

management direction the Service will take to support the 

conservation of refuge fishery resources and habitat. The plan is 

designed to remain consistent with the Service’s Master 

Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game and provides for continued use of fishery resources for 

subsistence, commercial, and recreation purposes. The plan identifies 

concerns and describes objectives and tasks to address these 

concerns. Eleven priority tasks were identified in the plan: six of the 

tasks are ongoing, three have been completed and two were dropped 

because of funding limits or changes in priorities. The plan was 

published in 1987 and is scheduled to be revised in 2007. 

Land Protection Plan. The Kodiak Refuge Land Protection Plan, 

prepared in 1992, focuses on private lands within the refuge 

boundaries with the goal of identifying and conserving high-quality 

habitat on those lands. It guides the Refuge’s land-conservation 

activities and provides a framework for Refuge and private 

landowner cooperation. Land-conservation measures will be pursued 

only with landowners who are willing to work with the Service. The 

plan does not obligate the Refuge or landowners to undertake any of 

the land-conservation measures identified. The Refuge must consider 
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 6-3 

management goals, priorities, and availability of funds when 

approached by private landowners with land-conservation proposals.

The current land protection plan is scheduled to be updated in 2012. 

Mount Glottof Research Natural Area Plan. The Mount Glottof 

Research Natural Area was designated in 1975 to highlight important 

alpine habitat values for bears and to provide a focal point for 

research activity. Studies and research have been conducted in the 

area, but there has been no coordinated approach to management and 

use of the area. Developing a step-down management plan will 

ensure that the unique habitat and wildlife values of this research 

natural area are preserved and appropriate research opportunities are 

identified. This plan is scheduled to be completed in 2010. 

Public Use Cabin Management Plan. The Refuge maintains a 

limited number of cabins for visitors. People may reserve cabins 

through quarterly drawings or on a first-come, first-served basis after 

the drawing has been completed for that quarter. This plan contains a 

description of the cabins, rules for use, application procedures, and 

the cabin reservation system. This plan was written in 1993 and is 

scheduled to be updated in 2012. 

Public Use Management Plan. Completed in 1993, this plan guides 

the management of public use on the Refuge. Public use 

encompasses both recreation and subsistence uses, including hunting, 

trapping, fishing, guiding, camping, photography, viewing scenery, 

hiking, and wildlife viewing. Changes proposed in public use 

management in this revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan will 

necessitate revising the public use plan. The revision is scheduled for 

2009. 

Station Safety Plan, Fire Emergency Evacuation Plan, and Station 

Security Plan. These plans focus on providing a safe and healthful 

environment for employees and visitors. They aim to minimize the 

potential for injury to employees and the public and to prevent 

property damage. The safety plan describes programs needed to train 

personnel to deal with the environment, materials, and machines that 

may pose hazards and has the goal of making safety and 

environmental health integral parts of every task. All plans are 

revised annually. 

Water Resources Study Plan. This plan is guiding a six-year 

inventory and assessment of the water resources of Kodiak Refuge. 

Field work will end in 2007. Results of the study will be used to 

quantify in-stream-flow water rights for the maintenance and 

protection of fish and wildlife habitat. It was prepared in 1998; field 

implementation began in 2002. 

6.2 Partnership Opportunities 

Partnerships with other organizations are among the ways in which 

the Service fulfills its mission: “Working with others to conserve, 

protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for 
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

6-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the continuing benefit of the American people.” Partnership 

opportunities would be consistent throughout all alternatives. 

The Refuge exists within a dynamic ecosystem. Many of the 

resources within the Refuge are of national and international 

importance. The Service recognizes that the public, organizations, 

and other governmental agencies have interests in the Refuge. 

Implementation of many refuge programs requires community 

involvement, support, and assistance. 

The refuge staff looks for opportunities to coordinate activities with 

the following (among others): 

 Koniag, Inc. (the regional Native corporation) 

 Local village corporations 

 Local village councils 

 Kodiak Island Borough 

 City of Kodiak 

 State of Alaska 

 Other federal agencies 

 Universities and museums 

 Nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Alaska Natural History 

Association, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust) 

 Local businesses 

 Kodiak/Aleutian Islands Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council 

Existing and potential partnerships are described in the following 

text. Biologists of Kodiak Refuge and the Alaska Department of Fish 

& Game (ADF&G) routinely collaborate to assess status and trends 

of brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, and Roosevelt 

elk populations. 

A Kodiak Archipelago Vegetation Cover Map, database, and report 

were completed in 2005. This information will be used as the basis 

for evaluating wildlife–habitat relationships and long-term, 

landscape-level monitoring of vegetation resources and human 

development. The project was initiated by Kodiak Refuge and the 

Alaska Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Partners 

who contributed funds necessary to complete the project included 

ADF&G, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, Koniag, Inc., Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park 

Service. 

The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan,

completed in winter 2002, was led by ADF&G and instrumentally 

supported by citizens of the Kodiak vicinity and by the Service. The 

plan recommends refuge leadership and cooperation in a wide range 

of education, management, and research initiatives to benefit bears of 

the Archipelago. Because the Refuge supports many of the new 
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 6-5 

initiatives, it incorporated them as objectives in the Conservation 

Plan. Refer to section 2.6.1 of Chapter 2 and Appendix C for further 

discussion of cooperation related to the Kodiak Archipelago Bear 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

Proposals to initiate Canada goose hunting in Game Management 

Unit 8 (Kodiak Island and vicinity) prompted population and genetic 

assessments. Objectives included determining the size of the winter 

resident goose population and subspecies type of birds using the Old 

Harbor vicinity for breeding and fall migration. Assessment results 

will guide decisions about goose hunting. Partners in the project 

include ADF&G, Alaska Maritime Refuge, Kodiak Refuge, Old 

Harbor citizens, and Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

The Refuge, in cooperation with the Alutiiq Museum and 

Archaeological Repository, supports an active archaeological 

inventory program as well as a highly successful and expanding 

stewardship monitoring program to protect archaeological sites on 

Kodiak Refuge. The contributions of the Alutiiq Museum make these 

projects happen. 

Refuge staff regularly assist with the annual Audubon Christmas 

Bird Count. 

Refuge staff work with U.S. Coast Guard helicopters and crews to 

complete FLIR (forward-looking infrared radar) deer surveys. 

The Refuge coordinates fisheries activities with ADF&G, several 

universities, National Marine Fisheries Service, and local Native 

village corporations. These activities range from management and 

research to gathering baseline data on fishery use on waters within 

the Refuge. 

Wildlife research is expected to increase on the Refuge over the next 

10 years. Public and private partners will be routinely sought where 

mutual interests exist in research topics and objectives. Such 

collaboration would be consistent with the tradition and pattern of 

cooperative research established by the Refuge during the last 15 

years. 

The refuge visitor center provides information and education 

services highlighting natural and cultural resources and recreation 

opportunities on Kodiak Archipelago. It is operated in conjunction 

with the Alaska Natural History Association (ANHA). 

Kodiak Summer Science and Salmon Camp offers week-long 

summer science camps. Camp sessions run throughout the summer 

and give local youth the opportunity to learn about Kodiak’s most 

valuable resource—salmon. This camp is supported by a unique 

blend of public and private partners. A challenge cost-share 

agreement is made among the Service, the Alaska Natural History 

Association, and many private Kodiak contributors. 
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

6-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Environmental education and outreach programs are conducted in 

coordination with the Kodiak School District; village schools, 

councils, and elders; ANHA; Alaska Audubon; other state and 

federal agencies; and local museums. 

6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring helps the refuge staff track the progress of plan 

implementation. Results of monitoring show how objectives are 

being achieved and measure progress towards accomplishing goals. 

Table 6-1 displays proposed inventory and monitoring projects that 

would concern wildlife, fisheries, and their habitats. Table 6-2 

displays proposed monitoring indicators for public use. Proposed 

monitoring will be refined as the wildlife and habitat inventory and 

monitoring, fisheries management, and public use management stepdown plans are prepared or revised. 

6.4 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

Periodic review and change of this comprehensive conservation plan 

will be necessary. As knowledge of refuge resources, users, and uses 

improves, changes in management may be identified. Fish and wildlife 

populations, user groups, adjacent land users, and other management 

considerations change with time, often in unforeseen ways. Challenges 

also may be encountered in trying to implement the plan. 

Revisions are a necessary part of the adaptive management approach 

used by the Service. This means that objectives and strategies to 

reach goals can be adjusted. Most of the resulting changes will finetune the plan. These changes will not require modification of this 

document because minor changes will be addressed in the more 

detailed refuge step-down and annual work plans. Only if a major 

change is required in management of the Refuge will it be necessary 

to revise this Conservation Plan with a new environmental 

document. 

To enable refuge users; adjacent landowners; local, state, and federal 

agencies; and other interested parties to express their views on how 

the Refuge is being managed, the Refuge will periodically hold 

meetings or use other techniques such as comment cards and surveys 

to solicit comments for evaluation purposes. By encouraging 

continuing public input, the Refuge will be better able to serve the 

public, to determine potential problems before they occur, and to 

take immediate action to resolve existing problems. 

Every three to five years, refuge staff will review public comments, 

local and state government recommendations, staff 

recommendations, research studies, and other sources to determine if 

revisions to the plan are necessary. If major changes are proposed, 

public meetings may be held, and new environmental assessments 

and environmental impact statements may be necessary. Full review 

and updating of the conservation plan will occur every 15 years. 
Chapter 6: Impleme

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 6-1. Monitoring indicators, standards, and possible actions for wildlife, fisheries, and ha

Monitoring 

Question 

Measured Action or 

Effect Key Indicator(s) 

Management 

Standard(s) to Be 

Used 

Possible Management 

Actions Triggered if 

Standard(s) Not Met 

Samplin

F

What is the trend in regional bear density? 

Evaluate variation in observation rates (bears per hour) and densities (bears per 1,000 km2) 

among years within each of 5 survey areas 

Statistically significant (P<0.05) change in observation rates or density between years of survey 

Repeat survey of same area following year; change recreational harvest regulations; research potential cause 

Replicated (≥3within 1 of 5 su15 and June 1 

What is the trend in regional bear population composition? 

Evaluate variation in composition (percentage singles, maternal females, cubs by age class) 

Statistically significant (P<0.05) unidirectional change persisting for more than 3 years 

Research potential cause; conduct regional population survey 

Replicated (≥36 concentration use period 

What is the trend in bear use of selected summer concentration areas? 

Evaluate variation in density (bears per km2) 

Statistically significant (P<0.05) unidirectional change persisting for more than 3 years 

Research potential cause; increase precision of estimates by increasing sampling intensity 

Replicated (≥38 concentration Kodiak Island period 

What are the trends in Roosevelt elk composition and distribution? 

Evaluate variation in herd composition (calves per 100 cows, bulls per 100 cows) and distribution 

Progressive unidirectional change among surveys 

Change subsistence and recreational harvest regulations; research cause 

Annually locatof radio-markeAugust through aerial surveys 

What are the trends in mountain goat composition and distribution? 

Evaluate variation in herd composition (kids per 100 adults) and distribution 

Progressive unidirectional change among surveys 

Change recreational harvest regulations; research cause 

Annually locatof herds from mSeptember via of goat summe
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

6-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Monitoring 

Question 

Measured Action or 

Effect Key Indicator(s) 

Management 

Standard(s) to Be 

Used 

Possible Management 

Actions Triggered if 

Standard(s) Not Met 

Samplin

F

What is the abundance and distribution of harlequin ducks in refuge coastal and riparian habitats? 

Location and number of breeding pairs Location and number of broods Location and number of molting harlequins Changes in distribution or numbers within specific drainages or coastal areas 

To have sufficient baseline data to detect >40% decrease in local breeding distribution or numbers over 3 years To have sufficient baseline data to detect >40% decrease in local molting numbers or distribution of flocks over 3 years 

Limit access (if not limited) to known breeding areas Work cooperatively with ADF&G to reduce Game Management Unit 8 harlequin duck bag limits 

Annual spring of major refuge areas Distribution anmile habitat 

How many bald eagles are nesting on the Refuge, and how many young are produced? 

Location and status of refuge bald eagle nests Nest success and production of young 

To have sufficient baseline data to detect >35% decrease in bald eagle nesting effort and/or production of young over 3 years 

Initiate research into Kodiak bald eagle population and nesting ecology 

Annual aerial ssummer produsurveys Refugewide su

Which and how many marine bird and mammal species winter in Kodiak bays? 

Baseline mean species density and frequency of occurrence over survey area 

To have sufficient baseline data to detect >50% decrease in species density or frequency of occurrence over 5 years 

Initiate species-specific intensive surveys and natural history research 

Annual winter transects in 4 s

Which waterfowl species are nesting and producing young on the Refuge? 

Number, species, age, and association of duck broods and adults 

Collect sufficient baseline data to detect >50% reduction in observed waterfowl broods and adults over 3 years 

Initiate intensive wetland waterfowl nesting surveys 

1 square-mile rGround survey Minimum of 3 area 

What are contaminant levels of resident bird species? 

Baseline contaminant (heavy metal or pesticide) levels in resident bird muscle and organ tissues 

Significant levels (parts per million) of contaminants found in resident bird tissues 

Increase sampling and sample areas Investigate potential contamination sources 

Contaminants avian species 
Chapter 6: Impleme

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Monitoring 

Question 

Measured Action or 

Effect Key Indicator(s) 

Management 

Standard(s) to Be 

Used 

Possible Management 

Actions Triggered if 

Standard(s) Not Met 

Samplin

F

What is the trend in sea otter population size and distribution? 

Evaluate variation in population size and distribution 

Progressive unidirectional change among surveys; evaluate relation to trend of other southwestern stock populations 

Research cause Periodic (3–5 y

surveys of entiKodiak Archip

Is amount of aquatic or riparian habitat decreasing with human use or development? 

Water quality and quantity; spawning, rearing and riparian habitat; lake productivity; human development 

Not applicable; baseline data 

Minimize impacts from human development or direct development to less critical spawning, rearing, and riparian habitat 

Monitor human roads and damEstablish a basspawning and rwith water qua

What are the optimum levels of fish populations to maintain productivity? 

Habitat supports optimum spawning levels; population status of resident species; numbers of anadromous fish 

Specific standard to be negotiated with ADF&G 

Recommend changes in fishing regulations to state Board of Fisheries and the Federal Subsistence Board 

Salmon stream populations of Varden, and ra

Are subsistence fishing needs of Refuge communities being met? 

Subsistence fishing locations, fishing pressure, fish population conditions and trends, conflicts 

Specific standards to be determined 

Recommend changes in fishing regulations to state Board of Fisheries and the Federal Subsistence Board; take in-season management actions 

Periodic survey

Does the Refuge have any aquatic nuisance species? 

Number of aquatic nuisance species 

Not applicable; baseline data 

Take steps to eradicate problems; education and prevention 

Periodic survey

Are there invasive plants on Kodiak Refuge? 

Presence of invasive plants 

Presence of invasive plants 

Eradication Opportunistic; 

other field wor
Chapter 6: Implementation and Monitoring 

6-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Table 6-2. Monitoring indicators, standards, and possible actions for public use activities 

Measured Action/Effect 

Key Indicator(s) 

Management Standard(s) 

to Be Used 

Monitoring Question Possible Management 

Actions Triggered if 

Standard(s) Not Met 

Bear incidents Defense-of-life-or-property (DLP) kills Change in distribution or numbers of bears in specific stream reaches, sedge meadows, etc. 

Increase in number of incidents at specific locations Increase in one season or over several seasons Decrease in local distribution or numbers correlated to increase in public use 

Is recreational use of sensitive wildlife areas affecting brown bears?

Increase visitor education efforts; close specific areas to camping or visitation during critical bear use periods; additional regulation of visitors viewing bears; work cooperatively with ADF&G 

RcoRcoDnuolo

Indicators of viewing experiences and outcomes will be selected based on final design of the viewing program(s). Indicators may include visitors' perceptions of crowding, safety, viewing accessibility and availability, and other setting conditions; and changes in visitors’ knowledge or appreciation with respect to brown bears 

To be determined Examples: minimum thresholds for proportion of visitors who report feeling uncrowded and safe (e.g., 90% of visitors feel uncrowded, 100% of visitors feel safe) Positive change in pre- and post-visit evaluations of visitors’ knowledge of brown bears 

Are structured bear-viewing programs and/or other bearviewing opportunities meeting their stated purposes? 

Reevaluation of group size limits and spatial or temporal distribution of visitor use Increased and improved visitor education and interpretation 

Adipfoingrsuap

Soil and vegetation condition Visible or measurable damage 

to ground cover over more than some percentage of site; >1 m2 of bare ground or 

compacted (puddled) soils; other(s) to be developed 

Are dispersed campsites affecting soils and vegetation? 

Increased visitor education efforts; designated or hardened campsites 

Crecofrd

Number of visitors, number of parties, length of stay, sites visited, activities occurring on the Refuge 

Not applicable; baseline data What is the current level of 

visitor use of key areas of the Refuge and what are the trends? 

This monitoring is to collect baseline information; would trigger visitor use study at specific sites as needed 

Greco
Chapter 6: Impleme

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Measured Action/Effect 

Key Indicator(s) 

Management Standard(s) 

to Be Used 

Monitoring Question Possible Management 

Actions Triggered if 

Standard(s) Not Met 

Recreational fishing locations, fishing pressure, fish population conditions and trends, conflicts 

To be developed (see subsequent text for one component) 

What is the current amount and distribution of recreational fishing activities on the Refuge, and what are the effects of this use? 

Recommend changes in fishing regulations to state Board of Fisheries; limit recreational fishing access to key sites where there are problems; allocate recreational fishing access between guided and unguided visitors 

Grecrsu

Visitor perceptions of key quality elements (e.g., safety, crowding, harvest opportunities) and other resource and social conditions 

Specific standards to be determined; in general, a negative trend in visitors’ evaluations will trigger management actions. 

Is recreation quality being maintained at key recreational fishing sites? 

Develop site objectives; work with users and visitor services industry to voluntarily meet objectives; work with State of Alaska to regulate access (only if objectives cannot be met through other methods) 

Pvi

Proportion of total annual visitor nights accounted for by each cabin 

Proportional distribution of use among all cabins (e.g., with current system of seven cabins, no cabin receives less than 10% or more than 20% of use) 

Is the public use cabin system being managed efficiently? 

Consider relocating existing cabins or acquiring or building new cabins 

Aanre

Compliance with special conditions on use permits 

100% compliance Are guides following 

procedures outlined in special use permits? 

Modifications to procedures; standard disciplinary actions that can be taken under existing regulations 

Fhm
Chapter 7 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7-1 

7. Consultation and Coordination with Others 

7.1 Consistency with the 

Alaska Coastal 

Management Program 

Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 

amended (PL 92-583), states that “each Federal agency conducting 

or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall 

conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the 

maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved State coastal 

management programs.” 

The Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977, as amended, and the 

Alaska Coastal Management Program set forth general policies to be 

used for the review of projects. As this revised Kodiak Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, Conservation Plan) was being prepared, the State of Alaska was 

updating the Alaska Coastal Management Program to comply with 

recent state legislation. The new standards will not apply to 

consistency reviews until they are approved by the federal Office of 

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Therefore, this consistency 

evaluation uses the standards existing as of May 10, 2004. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) finds the Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan to be 

fully consistent with policies of the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program, and the Kodiak Island Coastal Management Program as 

they existed on May 10, 2004. 

The Alaska Coastal Management Program identifies 12 primary 

categories that are to be used in consistency evaluations. Following 

are the categories applicable to this plan: 

 Coastal development 

 Recreation 

 Subsistence 

 Habitats 

 Air, land, and water quality 

Relevant Alaska Coastal Management Program standards are 

presented in the following text, with comments about consistency 

with these standards followed by similar discussion of relevant 

policies from other Coastal Management plans or programs. 

7.1.1 Alaska Coastal Management Program Policies 

(Condensed) 

(Headings reference those sections of the program that pertain to the 

Conservation Plan.) 
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

7-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Coastal Development (6 AAC 80.040)

In planning for and developing coastal areas, priority is given to (1) 

water-dependent uses and activities, (2) water-related uses and 

activities, and (3) nonwater-related or -dependent uses or activities. 

The Conservation Plan proposes no developments in the coastal zone. 

Recreation (6 AAC 80.060)

In designating areas for recreation use, priority is given to areas that 

(1) receive significant use by persons engaging in recreational 

pursuits or is a major tourist destination, or (2) has potential for high 

quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural 

features. 

The Conservation Plan addresses areas that have high-quality 

recreation opportunities. Access is provided to the public for 

recreation use of the Refuges under all alternatives. 

Subsistence (6 AAC 80.120)

Opportunities for subsistence use of coastal areas and resources shall 

be recognized and ensured. Before a potentially conflicting use or 

activity may be authorized in subsistence zones, a study of the 

possible adverse impacts on subsistence use must be prepared and 

safeguards provided to ensure subsistence use. 

The Conservation Plan addresses subsistence uses and finds that it 

will ensure opportunities for subsistence use of Refuge resources. 

Habitats (6 AAC 80.130)

Habitats must be managed to maintain or enhance the biological, 

physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat that would 

contribute to its capacity to support living resources. 

The Conservation Plan addresses habitats for fish and wildlife and 

provides their continued protection, maintenance, and/or 

enhancement. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140)

Regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation pertaining to the protection of air, land, 

and water quality are components of the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program. 

The Conservation Plan would not affect land or air quality. Soil and 

vegetation monitoring is included. Should significant problems be 

detected, corrective actions will occur. 

7.1.2 Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management 

Program 

In 1984, the State of Alaska approved the Kodiak Island Borough’s 

coastal management program. Chapter 5 of the concept-approved 

draft sets forth specific policies on activities and uses of coastal land 
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7-3 

and water resources. These policies formed the basis for the 

Service’s consistency determination. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is a general land use plan that 

provides broad policy guidance for managing the Refuge. The 

following consistency determination for the Kodiak Refuge 

management alternatives was based on the management directions 

for each alternative that relate to coastal land and water uses and the 

effects on environment of each alternative. Specific management 

actions may require more detailed environmental assessments, and 

site-specific coastal zone consistency determinations would be 

prepared at that time. 

Industrial Development

Several policies apply to the siting and design of industrial 

developments in the coastal zone. These policies include minimizing 

disturbance to natural features, protecting the natural setting and 

views, providing for public access, disposing of dredge and 

excavation material, designing facilities in or over water to prevent 

adverse impacts, establishing buffer zones to minimize conflicts, 

locating accessory development away from the shoreline where 

possible, and protecting wetlands. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. In general, industrial 

developments are not provided for on national wildlife refuges 

because they are not compatible with refuge purposes or consistent 

with refuge management objectives. Private lands provide sites for 

these developments. 

Commercial Development

The same policies described for industrial development (see 

preceding) also apply to commercial development. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. In general, 

commercial developments are not provided for on national wildlife 

refuges because they are not compatible with refuge purposes or 

consistent with refuge management objectives. The only commercial 

developments permitted on Refuge lands would be support facilities 

for commercial fishermen and for guides and outfitters. The Service 

would attach stipulations in the permits it grants to the operators to 

ensure that new facilities are sited, designed, and operated to protect 

fish and wildlife resources and environmental quality. 

Residential Development

Several policies apply to the siting and design of residential 

developments in the coastal zone. These policies include 

construction of suitable methods for treatment of sewage to avoid 

pollution of water, retaining open space to the extent possible, 

providing for access, and avoiding development in hazardous areas 

such as floodplains, avalanche zones, or other unstable sites.
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

7-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. Residential 

developments are not provided for on national wildlife refuges 

because they are not compatible with refuge purposes or consistent 

with refuge management objectives. 

Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Setting

Policies regarding recreation facilities include providing for a 

balanced choice of recreation experiences, locating only waterdependent recreation facilities near the shoreline, siting and 

designing facilities to minimize conflicts with other uses and 

activities, protecting scenic views, and coordinating plans and 

activities with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development 

Department. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. All of the undeveloped shoreline areas in the Refuge are 

needed for conservation of fish and wildlife in their natural diversity. 

These areas may be used for recreation purposes in all of the 

alternatives if compatible with Refuge purposes and consistent with 

Refuge management objectives. The Service would site and design 

all new facilities to protect Refuge resources and to minimize 

conflicts with other uses. The Service would coordinate construction 

of new facilities with the borough. 

Energy Facilities

The coastal management plan has 13 policies regarding energy 

facilities; these cover compatibility, siting, expansion, use of existing 

facilities, facility consolidation, habitat alteration, navigational 

hazards, oil spill containment, emissions, effluents, resource 

protection, commercial fishing, and oil spill contingency plans. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. 

Transportation and Utility Routes

Policies encourage siting transportation and utility routes away from 

shorelines, minimizing alteration to water courses and wetlands, and 

avoiding crossing anadromous streams. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. No transportation or utility systems are proposed in the 

alternatives (although, under the provisions of Title XI of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]), they could be 

built across the Refuge under all of the alternatives). 

Fisheries and Seafood Processing

The coastal management plan supports local development of 

hatcheries and aquaculture programs and fisheries enhancement 

programs to maintain or restore anadromous streams and lakes in the 

coastal zone. 
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7-5 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. Under all of the 

alternatives, the Service may permit a wide range of fishery 

development projects, including the installation of permanent 

facilities, provided the projects are compatible with Refuge purposes 

and consistent with Refuge management objectives. 

Timber and Timber Processing

The coastal management plan states that timber harvesting be 

managed to ensure sustained yield and to minimize damage to 

habitat. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. Timber harvesting would not be permitted in the Refuge 

in any of the alternatives because of the potential for adversely 

affecting Refuge fish and wildlife populations. 

Agriculture

Plan Alternatives: This policy is not applicable; Refuge land is not 

suitable for agriculture. 

Mining and Mineral Processing

Extraction of gravel and other materials is to be regulated to 

minimize impacts to fish and wildlife. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. Sand and gravel extraction could be permitted on Refuge 

lands designated Intensive Management or Moderate Management. 

Because these activities would be required to be compatible with 

Refuge purposes, they would be designed and carried out to protect 

fish and wildlife habitat from adverse effects. 

Subsistence

Subsistence is recognized as a primary resource use. The coastal 

management plan states that subsistence use shall be protected when 

coastal development occurs and that habitats shall be managed to 

ensure subsistence use continues as a primary use. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. ANILCA states that subsistence use is one of the primary 

purposes for which Kodiak Refuge was established and shall be 

managed. All of the alternatives maintain subsistence use 

opportunities and habitats for important subsistence species. (See 

also the Section 810[a] evaluations included in section 4.5 of Chapter 

4 of this document.) 

Geophysical Hazards

Eight policies are included on this topic; they cover use of potentially 

hazardous lands, governmental coordination, coastal erosion, seismic 

events, coastal or seiche flooding, landslides and mass wasting 

hazards, avalanche hazards, and riverine flooding. 
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

7-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. The Service would take into account the aforementioned 

policies in locating new facilities on Refuge lands. The Service 

would also take the listed hazards into account when it grants permits 

for new commercial developments on Refuge lands. 

Coastal Access

The coastal management plan states that new development shall 

provide access to shorelines when possible, developed access shall 

be provided when possible, and marine and air access for hunting 

and fishing shall be provided to the extent feasible and prudent. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. Access could be 

limited in some areas if resource conflicts occur.

Resource Enhancement and Protection

The coastal management plan states that the maintenance and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources are priorities of the 

borough; that sensitive areas must be protected; that developments 

must be designed, located, and built to preserve to the extent feasible 

and prudent natural features; and that wetland and upland habitats 

must be managed to maintain natural hydrologic processes. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable. ANILCA states that 

conservation of fish and wildlife habitats is one of the primary 

purposes for which the refuge was established and shall be managed. 

All of the alternatives would protect sensitive fish and wildlife 

habitats and include stipulations for new developments to preserve 

natural features and to maintain natural hydrologic processes in the 

Refuge. Enhancement programs on Kodiak Refuge generally would 

not be consistent with the intent of ANILCA. As noted earlier, 

however, all of the alternatives may permit fisheries enhancement if 

compatible with Refuge purposes and consistent with Refuge goals 

and objectives. 

Air and Water Quality

Policies are included on use of state-of-the-art technology, discharge 

of wastewater, siting of industrial facilities, and minimizing adverse 

impacts of dredge and fill activities. 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. In all of the alternatives, all Refuge facilities and 

commercial support facilities under permit will comply with state 

and federal air- and water-quality regulations. 

Archaeological and Historical Resources

The coastal management plan states that prehistoric archaeological 

sites not already protected be identified and preserved to the extent 

feasible and prudent and that the coastal management program’s 

cultural resource distribution map be used as a guide to evaluate the 

siting of proposed developments. 
Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7-7 

Plan Alternatives: Alternatives in this Conservation Plan are 

consistent. Under all of the alternatives, the Service will identify 

significant historic and cultural resources on the Refuge and protect 

them, as required under federal law. 

7.2 Section 7 Compliance 

(Endangered Species Act) 

The planned actions found in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan are unlikely to adversely affect 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act or designated critical 

habitat. Therefore, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service find the plan to be fully consistent with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 87 Stat. 

884), as amended (USDC NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

2003; USFWS, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office 2003). 

7.3 References Cited 

USDC NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Letter 

regarding U.S. Endangered Species Act consultation. 

Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. May 5, 2003. 1 

page. 

USFWS, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 2003. IntraService Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. July 9, 

2003. 4 pages. 
Appendix A 

Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination
Appendix A 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-1 

1. Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

1.1 Legal Guidance 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) manages national 

wildlife refuges pursuant to various legal and administrative 

requirements. Management of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

(Kodiak Refuge, Refuge) is dictated, in large part, by the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), which 

redesignated the Refuge and identified the purposes for which it was 

established. However, operation and management of Kodiak Refuge 

is also influenced by a wide array of other laws, treaties, and 

executive orders and the regulations and policies developed to 

implement them. Among the most important are the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act; the Refuge 

Recreation Act; the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA); 

and the Endangered Species Act. A brief description of these and 

other pertinent legal documents that influence management of 

Kodiak Refuge is found in the following subsections. 

1.1.1 International Treaties 

Several treaties affect how the Service manages Kodiak Refuge. 

Among these are migratory bird treaties with Canada, Mexico, 

Japan, and Russia and the Convention on Nature Protection and 

Wildlife Conservation in the Western Hemisphere. These treaties 

differ in emphasis and species of primary concern, but collectively 

provide clear mandates for identifying and protecting important 

habitats and ecosystems and for protecting and managing individual 

species. 

Treaties for migratory bird protection include management 

provisions such as (1) prohibiting disturbance of nesting colonies; (2) 

allowing the Secretary of the Interior to establish seasons for the 

taking of birds and the collection of their eggs by “indigenous 

inhabitants” of Alaska for their own nutritional and other essential 

needs; (3) directing each nation to undertake, to the maximum extent 

possible, measures necessary to protect and enhance migratory bird 

environments and to prevent and abate pollution or detrimental 

alteration of their habitats; and (4) providing that protective measures 

under the treaty may be applied to species and subspecies not listed 

in the specific convention, but which belong to one of the families 

containing listed species. Of the migratory bird species of concern in 

the treaties, those that use Kodiak Refuge include loons, swans, 

geese, ducks, hawks, eagles, harriers, ospreys, falcons, cranes, 

plovers, sandpipers, jaegers, gulls, terns, owls, and passerines. 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

A-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.1.2 National Guidance 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 140hh-3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784 

ANILCA—in addition to amending the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, the Alaska Statehood Act, and the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, and modifying portions of the Wilderness Act as it 

applies to Alaska lands—expanded the federal conservation system 

in Alaska (including national parks, refuges, forests, Wilderness 

areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers). Specifically, Title III of 

ANILCA established new refuges and added to and redesignated 

existing refuges, identified the purposes of each refuge, and provided 

administrative guidance for management of refuges in Alaska, 

including requiring the preparation, and periodic updating, of a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. 

In addition, ANILCA provided comprehensive management 

guidance for all federal public lands in Alaska, including provisions 

regarding wilderness; subsistence; transportation and utility 

corridors; oil and gas leasing; mining; public access; and hunting, 

fishing, and trapping. No Wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers were 

designated on Kodiak Refuge by ANILCA. Section 1317 required 

that all refuge lands not designated as Wilderness be reviewed for 

their suitability for Wilderness designation, in accordance with the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. The 1987 Kodiak Refuge 

Conservation Plan recommended, under Section 1317 of ANILCA, 

1.08 million acres for Wilderness designation. That recommendation 

remains in effect. Section 1317(c) provides that a recommendation or 

proposal for Wilderness designation does not affect the normal 

administration and management of the affected areas of the refuge. 

Title VIII of ANILCA authorizes the State of Alaska to regulate 

subsistence uses on Federal public lands if several requirements are 

met. The State of Alaska managed statewide subsistence harvests 

until late 1989, at which time the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that 

the rural residency preference required by Federal law violated the 

Alaska Constitution. Shortly thereafter, the Federal government 

established the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to manage 

hunting fishing, and trapping on Federal public lands (including 

nonnavigable waters on these lands). On October 1, 1999, 

management authority of the Board was extended to include 

navigable waters within and adjacent to exterior boundaries of 

Federal conservation units, in which the United States has an interest 

by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine. 

The Board establishes regulations for the harvest, on Federal public 

lands in Alaska by qualified rural residents, of fish and wildlife for 

subsistence purposes. The Federal process involves substantial 

public input; individuals and organizations submit proposals for 

regulations to the Board and are reviewed by the Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Councils (RACs)―e.g., the Kodiak/Aleutians 

Islands RAC. The RACs, which are composed of local citizens, 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-3 

make recommendations of the proposals to the Board. The Federal 

subsistence staff also advises the Board on regulation proposals, 

providing data and analysis from local Federal managers as well as 

from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

The state’s recreational, commercial, personal use, and subsistence 

regulations continue to apply on all Federal lands unless superseded 

by Federal subsistence regulations. However, the Board may 

establish Federal regulations to proved for use only by eligible rural 

residents inorder to protect the ANILCA Title VIII preference for 

local rural users or to protect a wildlife population of fishery. 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 as amended, 43 

U.S.C. 1601-1624

The purpose of this act was to provide for “. . . settlement of all 

claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal 

land claims.” It provided for grants of land and money and the 

establishment of Native corporations to maintain the economic 

affairs of Native organizations. In exchange, all aboriginal titles and 

claims, including any fishing and hunting rights, were extinguished. 

Section 12(a) allowed village corporations to select lands, with 

several stipulations, in national wildlife refuges. Section 22(g), 

however, stated that these lands were to “. . . remain subject to the 

laws and regulations governing use and development of such 

refuge.” Other refuge lands were selected under Section 14(h)(1), 

which allowed regional corporations to select cemetery sites and 

historical places. Section 17(b) provided for public easement across 

Native lands for access to federal lands. Section 17(d)(2)(A) 

provided the basis for the enactment of ANILCA. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee

This act establishes a unifying mission for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System), a mission that, first and foremost, focuses 

on the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. It requires the 

preparation of a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of 

the System. Furthermore, it reinforces and expands the 

“compatibility standard” of the Refuge Recreation Act, which 

requires that public uses must be determined to be compatible with 

refuge and agency missions and purposes before they can be allowed 

and establishes a process for determining compatibility. The act also 

identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses, clarifies the 

authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept donations of 

money for land acquisition, and places restrictions on the transfer, 

exchange, or other disposal of lands with the System. 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

A-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

460k-460k-4

This act requires that any recreation use on areas of the System be 

“compatible” with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was 

acquired or established. It also requires that sufficient funding be 

available for the development, operation, and maintenance of 

recreation uses that are not directly related to the area’s primary 

purpose(s). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4321-4347 (NEPA)

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council 

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508) require federal 

agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach to decision-making; to identify 

and analyze the environmental effects of their actions; to describe 

appropriate alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the 

affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in 

the planning and decision-making process. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544

The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

critical habitats by federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of state programs. Although not specifically 

addressing the System, it does directly affect management activities 

on national wildlife refuges. It directs federal agencies to take actions 

that would further the purposes of the act and to ensure that actions 

they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered 

species or their critical habitat (Section 7). 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136

This act (P.L. 88-577) defined the wilderness resource and 

established the National Wilderness Preservation System. It provides 

the framework for designation by Congress of new units to the 

System and prescribes for their management. The Wilderness review 

required by Section 1317 of ANILCA and included in the 1987 

Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan was undertaken following the 

framework and guidance provided by the Wilderness Act. The 

recommendation for Wilderness designation included in the record 

of decision (ROD) for the 1987 conservation plan is a preliminary 

administrative determination that will receive further review and 

possible modification prior to being forwarded to Congress for final 

action on Wilderness designation. No Wilderness has been 

designated on Kodiak Refuge. 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-5 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 16 USC 1271-1287

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and 

prescribes the methods and standards through which additional rivers 

may be identified and added to the system. Section 5(d)(1) requires 

that in all planning by federal agencies—for the use and 

development of water and related land resources—consideration be 

given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. Rivers are 

added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System based on their 

free-flowing character and their outstanding scenic, recreation, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, ecological, or other 

values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and to protect 

these outstandingly remarkable values for present and future 

generations. For Wild and Scenic Rivers in Alaska, ANILCA also 

provided direction for management of designated rivers. No Wild 

and Scenic Rivers have been designated on Kodiak Refuge. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended 

by The Clean Water Act of 1977, (33 USC s/s 1251 et seq.)

This act regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the 

United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, establishes 

operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, and limits 

the discharge of pollutants or toxins into water and makes it unlawful 

for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into 

navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. 

Other Laws

Laws that affect mineral leasing, recreation use, commercial fishing, 

preservation and protection of cultural and historic resources, and 

other activities on federal lands are also considered in the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. 

1.2 Planning Coordination 

Nature is not constrained by government boundaries that are used to 

determine ownership or management of specific areas of land. 

Without physical barriers, and with available habitat, fish and 

wildlife will freely roam through lands and waters regardless of 

ownership or management. To ensure the conservation of the many 

species that migrate across legal and political boundaries, a number 

of efforts—at scales ranging from local community and regional 

plans to national and international conservation programs—have 

been designed to monitor and protect these species. These plans were 

reviewed during the revision of the Kodiak Refuge Conservation 

Plan to ensure that the revised management direction is consistent 

with these national conservation plans. The following list is not 

intended to be comprehensive, but demonstrates the range of 

documents reviewed. When applicable, specific information from 

these plans has been incorporated into this document. 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

A-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

This conservation plan seeks to restore waterfowl populations in 

Canada, the United States, and Mexico to the levels recorded in the 

1970s. The international partnership has worked to identify priority 

habitats for waterfowl and has established goals and objectives for 

the waterfowl populations and habitats (USFWS 1998). Estuaries, 

lagoons, bays, and nearshore waters on and adjacent to the Refuge 

provide wintering habitat for an estimated 12,000 dabbling ducks 

and 150,000 sea ducks. Breeding waterfowl use of the Refuge is 

comparatively low because the area supports limited wetland 

breeding habitat. 

Partners in Flight

Partners in Flight is a cooperative effort involving partnerships 

among federal, state, and local government agencies; philanthropic 

foundations; professional organizations; conservation groups; 

industry; the academic community; and private individuals. Partners 

in Flight was created in 1990 in response to growing concerns about 

declines in the populations of many land bird species and in order to 

emphasize the conservation of birds not covered by existing 

conservation initiatives. Bird conservation plans, including the 

Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions

(Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999), are developed in 

each region to identify species and habitats most in need of 

conservation, to establish objectives and strategies to provide needed 

conservation activities, and to implement and monitor progress on 

the plans. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2000)

This conservation plan seeks to stabilize populations of all shorebirds 

that are in decline because of factors affecting habitat in the United 

States. At a regional level, the plan’s goal is to ensure that shorebird 

habitat is available in adequate quantity and quality to support 

shorebird populations in each region. Ultimately, the goal of the 

Conservation Plan is to restore and maintain shorebird populations 

throughout the western hemisphere through an international 

partnership. 

1.2.1 Regional Management Plans 

In addition to the national conservation plans, this Comprehensive 

Conservation Pan must consider the conservation plans and 

management goals of neighboring lands of the region. Regional 

plans, as well as goals and objectives from other programs, were 

reviewed to understand how the Kodiak Refuge can contribute to the 

goals for conservation within the state or local region. This list is not 

intended to be comprehensive, but demonstrates some of the major 

regional plans that were reviewed during the development of this 

draft. When applicable, specific information from these plans has 

been incorporated into the plan. 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-7 

Kodiak Area Plan for State Lands (Final) (DNR 2004)

This State of Alaska plan determines management intent, land-use 

designations, and management guidelines that apply to all state lands 

in the Kodiak Archipelago. The plan provides goals and specific 

guidelines that apply to state land- and water-management decisions. 

Detailed land-use designations describe intended uses for state lands 

and waters. The Final Kodiak Area Plan was adopted by the 

Commissioner of Alaska Department of Natural Resources on 

December 20, 2004. The Service worked closely with DNR staff on 

relevant portions of this plan and provided detailed comments on the 

draft, especially about management of state lands on the Shearwater 

Peninsula, which is covered under the cooperative management 

agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (see Appendix 

D). 

Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan 

(Kodiak Island Borough 1983)

This plan describes goals and objectives for resources within the 

coastal zone (which includes all lands within the Refuge boundaries). 

The focus of the plan is to maintain the functions and values of 

coastal resources, including its socio-economic values. The 

objectives of the plan were reviewed to look for opportunities to 

make progress on mutual goals. A full review of the consistency of 

the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan with the Coastal Zone 

Management Plan can be found in Chapter 7. 

A Conservation Plan for Alaska Shorebirds (Alaska Shorebird 

Working Group 2000)

This plan identifies shorebird species of concern in Alaska and 

provides goals and objectives for shorebird conservation throughout 

the state. Although nine shorebird species are known to nest on 

Kodiak Refuge, and at least 20 others have been found on the 

Refuge, habitat is limited and numbers are minimal. 

Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions 

(Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999)

This plan, developed through the Partners in Flight national 

initiative, identifies by region those species and habitats most in need 

of conservation and establishes objectives and strategies to provide 

needed conservation activities and for monitoring progress in 

implementing the plan. Kodiak Refuge contributes to this plan 

through a variety of monitoring and inventory studies of land birds 

on the Refuge. 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan (USFWS 

1989)

This plan directed the Service to develop comprehensive 

management plans for four species of geese nesting in western 

Alaska: cackling Canada geese, brant, white-fronted geese, and 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

A-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

emperor geese. A small population of emperor geese winter on and 

near Kodiak Refuge. 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

The mission of the Alaska Natural Heritage Program is “to document 

the distribution and abundance of ecologically significant plant and 

animal species, ecological communities, and natural features and to 

assist in maintaining an ecologically healthy environment, while 

promoting the development of a sustainable economy in Alaska” 

(Source: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/enri/aknhp_web, 

March 26, 2004). The program has developed a biological 

conservation database that provides information on species 

distribution, trends, and habitats for species in need for more than 

1,300 plants and animal species in Alaska. These data were used to 

assess the status of species on Kodiak Refuge. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

The Service shares management responsibility for fish and wildlife 

on refuge lands with the ADF&G as identified in the Master 

Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B). In accordance with 

this policy directive, ADF&G has primary responsibility for 

managing fish and resident wildlife populations. Part of this 

management includes setting objectives for populations and harvest 

within management areas, called game management units (GMUs). 

Kodiak Refuge is within GMU 8. During the development of this 

Conservation Plan, the state’s management objectives for fish and 

wildlife were important considerations for establishing and 

evaluating management direction on the Refuge. Information on key 

management objectives that address fish and wildlife populations 

found on the Refuge can be found in Chapter 3. 

Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan 

(ADF&G 2002)

In response to growing public concern over development in and 

around bear habitat, an increasing demand for diverse recreation 

opportunities, and the need to minimize bear-human interactions, 

ADF&G undertook a public planning process to develop a bear 

management plan for the Archipelago. Because the Service shares 

management responsibility of the Kodiak brown bear with ADF&G 

and because the Refuge includes a large part of the Archipelago, the 

Service pooled its resources with ADF&G to work with the public in 

developing the state plan. The plan was developed by an advisory 

committee of members of the public selected by an 

intergovernmental planning group that included ADF&G, the 

Service, and other federal, state, and local government agencies. The 

plan addresses human uses of the Archipelago relating to bears, 

bear–human interactions, potential habitat degradation, the impact of 

private land ownership in bear habitat, and other bear-management 

issues. It includes nearly 300 recommendations that reflect the 

public’s desires and concerns related to bear conservation and 
Appendix A: Legal Guidance and Planning Coordination 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-9 

management. Recommendations from the plan that affect refuge 

management have been integrated into this Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan as part of the revision process. See Appendix C 

for the Service’s evaluation of these recommendations.

1.3 References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 240 pp. 

Alaska Shorebird Working Group. 2000. “A conservation plan for 

Alaska shorebirds.” Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group. 1999. “Landbird 

conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions.” 

Version 1.0; unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington, eds. 2000. The U.S. 

shorebird conservation plan. Manomet, Massachusetts: 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 

DNR. 2004. “Kodiak Area Plan for State Lands.” At 

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/planning/areaplans/kodiak/in

dex/cfm 

Kodiak Island Borough. 1983. “Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Zone 

Management Plan.” Kodiak, Alaska: Kodiak Island 

Borough, Community Development Department. 

USFWS. 1989. “Comprehensive management plans for Arctic 

nesting geese in Alaska.” Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1998. “Expanding the Vision: 1998 Update, North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan.” Accessed June 16, 

2003. At 

http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm on 

the World Wide Web, produced by U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Semarnat Mexico; 

Environment Canada. 
Appendix B 

Coordination with the State of Alaska
Appendix B 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-1 

1. Coordination with the State of Alaska, Including the Master 

Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish 

and Game 

Consistent with the principles of ecosystem management and the 

laws and policies described in Appendix A, effective management of 

the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) must be done in close 

coordination with the State of Alaska. This appendix is not intended 

to be a comprehensive list of state agencies, but rather describes the 

primary state agencies that share concern and responsibilities for 

fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. 

1.1 Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has the 

primary responsibility for managing fish and resident wildlife 

populations. On refuge lands, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(Service) and ADF&G share a mutual concern for all fish and 

wildlife resources and their habitats, and both are engaged in 

extensive fish and wildlife conservation, management, and protection 

programs. In 1982, the Service and ADF&G signed a Master 

Memorandum of Understanding (dated March 13, 1982) that defines 

the cooperative management roles of each agency. This 

memorandum sets the framework for cooperation between the two 

agencies. 

Through the direction of the Boards of Fisheries and Game, the State 

of Alaska establishes fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations 

throughout the state. These regulations apply to federal public lands 

unless superseded by federal subsistence regulations. The state is 

divided into 26 game management units (GMUs); most of these are 

further divided into subunits. State management objectives are 

developed for wildlife populations within the GMUs. All Kodiak 

Refuge lands lie within GMU 8. Management objectives for wildlife 

and fish populations on the Refuge are discussed in Chapter 3. 

The state process for developing regulations involves substantial 

public input to the Alaska Boards of Fisheries and Game concerning 

changes in regulations and allocations. Input may be directly to the 

boards through testimony and proposals or indirectly through 

participation in local fish and game advisory committees. For the 

areas including the Refuge, these include Kodiak Fish and Game 

Advisory Committee. The advisory committees assist the boards in 

assessing local fish and wildlife issues and proposed regulations. 

Biological staff from ADF&G also provides data and analysis of 

proposals to the boards. Regulations may be changed by the boards 

at regular meetings, by emergency regulation, or by emergency order 

(Schwarz 1995). 
Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska 

B-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Although many biologists within ADF&G have law enforcement 

authority, most enforcement of fishing and hunting regulations is 

carried out by Refuge law enforcement officers and officers of the 

Alaska Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Wildlife 

Enforcement. 

ADF&G’s Division of Wildlife Conservation works to conserve and 

enhance Alaska’s wildlife and to provide for a wide range of uses for 

the greatest benefit of current and future generations of the people 

through management of wildlife populations and habitat, research, 

information transfer, regulatory activities, and public service. 

Wildlife Conservation is responsible for overseeing development of 

management plans for a variety of wildlife populations throughout 

the state; the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan (ADF&G 2002) is one such plan. 

ADF&G’s Division of Commercial Fisheries manages, protects, 

rehabilitates, enhances, and develops fisheries and aquatic plant 

resources in the interest of the economy and general well-being of 

the state, consistent with the sustained-yield principle and subject to 

allocations established through public regulatory processes. It is 

responsible for management of the state’s commercial, subsistence, 

and personal-use fisheries. 

ADF&G’s Division of Sport Fish is responsible for the state’s 

recreational fishery resource: the conservation of self-perpetuating 

populations of fish; management of sport fisheries in both salt and 

fresh water; and hatchery production and release of fish for 

recreational fishing. The goals of the division are to conserve 

naturally reproducing populations of sport fish species, provide a 

diverse mix of recreational fishing opportunities, and optimize the 

social and economic benefits of Alaska’s recreational fisheries. 

ADF&G’s Division of Subsistence is the research branch of the 

department responsible for providing comprehensive information on 

the customary and traditional use of wild resources. Information is 

provided to meet management goals, aid in regulation development, 

facilitate collaborative agreements, assess environmental impacts, 

and describe the unique role of wild resources in Alaska. 

1.2 Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its 

divisions also key management partners, coordinating with the 

Service and other federal and state agencies in managing the public 

lands (federal and state) in Alaska. DNR manages all state-owned 

land, water, and surface and subsurface resources except for fish and 

game. DNR’s Division of Mining, Land, and Water manages the 

state’s water and land interests within national wildlife refuges. 

These interests will become increasingly significant in the next 10 to 

15 years, especially in regard to water rights, navigable waters, 

ownership of submerged lands, and rights-of-way over Refuge lands. 
Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-3 

The division is responsible for development of plans for management 

of state lands; this includes the Kodiak Area Plan for State Lands 

(DNR 2004) that was adopted by the Commissioner of DNR on 

December 20, 2004. Coordination with adjacent landowners, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service, was an important part of 

developing the Kodiak Area Plan. The plan establishes land use 

designations, management intent, and management guidelines for 

state uplands and tidelands within the Kodiak Borough. 

2. References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 240 pp. 

DNR. 2004. “Kodiak Area Plan for State Lands.” At 

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/planning/areaplans/kodiak/in

dex/cfm 

Schwarz, L. 1995. “1994 area management report for the recreational 

fisheries of the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian 

Islands regulatory areas.” Fishery Management Report. No. 

95-3. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game. 
Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska 

B-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Master Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Juneau, Alaska 

and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

Anchorage, Alaska 

This Master Memorandum of Understanding between the State of 

Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter referred to as the 

Department, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hereinafter 

referred to as the Service, reflects the general policy guidelines 

within which the two agencies agree to operate. 

WHEREAS, the Department, under the Constitution, laws and 

regulations of the State of Alaska (Appendix I), is responsible for the 

management, protection , maintenance, enhancement, rehabilitation, 

and extension of the fish and wildlife resources of the State on the 

sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial 

uses; and 

WHEREAS, the Service, by authority of the Constitution, laws of 

Congress and regulations of the U.S. Department of Interior 

[Appendix II] has a mandated management responsibility for certain 

species or classes of wildlife and is responsible for the management 

of Service lands in Alaska, and the conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources on these lands; and 

WHEREAS, the Department and the Service share a mutual concern 

for fish and wildlife resources and their habitats and both are 

engaged in extensive fish and wildlife conservation, management, 

and protection programs and desire to develop and maintain a 

cooperative relation ship which will be in the best interests of both 

parties, the concerned fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, 

and produce the greatest public benefit; and 

WHEREAS, it has been recognized in the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act and subsequent implementing Federal 

regulations that the resources and use of Service lands in Alaska are 

substantially different than those of other states; and 

WHEREAS, the Department and the Service recognize the 

increasing need to coordinate resource planning and policy 

development; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 
Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-5 

THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AGREES: 

1. To recognize the Service as the agency with the 

responsibility to manage migratory birds, endangered 

species, and other species mandated by Federal law, and on 

Service lands in Alaska to conserve fish and wildlife and 

their habitats and regulate human use. 

2. To manage fish and resident wildlife populations in their 

natural species diversity on Service lands. 

3. To consult with the Regional Director in a timely manner 

and comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations 

before embarking on enhancement or construction activities 

on Service lands. 

THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AGREES: 

1. To recognize the Department as the agency with the primary 

responsibility to manage fish and resident wildlife within the 

State of Alaska. 

2. To recognize the right of the Department to enter onto 

Service lands at any time to conduct routine management 

activities which do not involve construction, disturbance to 

the land, or alterations of ecosystems. 

3. To cooperate with the Department in planning for 

enhancement or development activities on Service lands 

which require permits, environmental assessments, 

compatibility assessments, or similar regulatory documents 

by responding to the Department in a timely manner with 

requirements, time tables, and any other necessary input. 

4. To manage the fish and wildlife habitat on Service lands so 

as to insure conservation of fish and wildlife, populations 

and their habitats in their natural diversity. 

5. To consider carefully the impact of any proposed treaties or 

international agreements relating to fish and wildlife 

resources on the State of Alaska which could diminish the 

jurisdictional authority of’ the State and to consult freely 

with the State when these treaties or agreements have a 

primary impact on the State. 

6. To review present U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies 

and any future proposed changes in those policies in 

consultation with the Department to determine if modified or 

special policies are needed for Alaska. 

7. To adopt refuge management plans whose provisions—

including provision for animal damage control—are in 

substantial agreement with the Department’s fish and 

wildlife management plans, unless such plans are determined 

formally to be incompatible with the purposes for which the 

respective refuges were established. 

8. To utilize the State’s regulatory process to maximum in 

extent allowed by Federal law in developing new or 
Appendix B: Coordination with the State of Alaska 

B-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

modifying existing Federal regulations or proposing changes 

in existing State regulations governing or affecting the 

taking of fish and wildlife on Service lands in Alaska. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MUTUALLY AGREE: 

1. To coordinate planning for management of fish and wildlife 

resources on Service lands so that conflicts arising from 

differing legal mandates, objectives, and policies either do 

not arise or are minimized. 

2. To consult with each other when developing policy and 

legislation which affects the attainment of wildlife resource 

management goals and objectives, or management plans. 

3. To recognize that the taking of fish and wildlife by hunting, 

trapping, or fishing on Service lands in Alaska is authorized 

in accordance with applicable State and Federal law unless 

State regulations are found to be incompatible with 

documented Refuge goals, objectives, or management plans. 

4. To develop such supplemental memoranda of understanding 

between the Commissioner and the Regional Director as 

may be required to implement the policies contained herein. 

5. That this Master Memorandum of Understanding shall 

become effective when signed by the Commissioner of the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska 

Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

shall continue in force until terminated by either party by 

providing notice in writing 120 days in advance of the 

intended date of termination. 

6. That amendments to this Master Memorandum of 

Understanding may he proposed by either party and shall 

become effective upon approval by both parties. 

STATE OF ALASKA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Department of Fish and Game Fish and Wildlife Service 

/signed/ Ronald 0. Skoog /signed/ Keith M. Schreiner

 Commissioner Regional Director, Alaska 

March 13, 1982 March 13, 1982

 Date Date 
Appendix C 

Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation 

and Management Plan Recommendations
Appendix C 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

 Chapter 3: Kodiak Bear Habitat  Introduced Species 

1 Identify funding sources to study effects of introduced species 

on bear habitat. 

The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) wouobjectives (under Goals 2 and 3) related to managemintroduced species. Proposals would be submitted to support for this work. Cooperative funding also wouindividual projects are initiated. 

2 Conduct research to determine if a problem exists with 

introduced species depleting bears’ food resources or otherwise damaging bear habitat. When evaluating the results of research on introduced species, social issues (e.g., subsistence hunting) should be considered. Research should be subject to peer review. 

The Refuge has established several new objectives (geared to assess effects of introduced species on beaFish & Wildlife Service (Service) would ensure that to high scientific standards. 

3 Federal and state governments should work with villages and 

other landowners to maintain the species that currently exist on the Kodiak archipelago. 

Consistent with Service policy, Refuge purposes, anService would work with stakeholders to minimize iresources, while continuing to provide opportunities native species. 

4 Guard against the introduction of additional non-native species 

that could prove harmful to bears and their habitat. 

The Service would cooperate with state and other enintroduction of new diseases, plants, and animals, as Objectives 1.4, 1.5, and 6.1. 

 Salmon as a Part of Bear Habitat 

5 Endorse the Kodiak Area Salmon Management plans that 

regulate commercial fishing on and around the archipelago. 

Refuge Fisheries Management Plan and Conservatiogeared to conserve native salmon populations and hathe Kodiak Area Salmon Management Plan. 

6 Continue to collect salmon escapement data to ensure the 

sustainability of salmon stocks. 

Refuge would continue to collaborate with Alaska DGame (ADF&G) in collection of escapement data, aObjective 7.1. 

7 Support operation of essential weirs islandwide and acquire 

weir sites where appropriate. 

The Service would continue to support ADF&G’s opweirs on the Refuge. Acquisition of weir sites is not responsibility. 

8 Ensure that easements for access to weir sites be restricted to 

use by essential personnel. 

The Service leases weir sites to ADF&G. It is that agto establish public access policy at weir sites. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

9 Continue to design all salmon enhancement and rehabilitation 

projects to minimize disturbance of bears and to avoid unnecessary damage to their wild habitats. 

Designing enhancement projects is an ADF&G resprestoration projects may be designed by the Refuge. bears of new projects would be evaluated by the Refimplementation stages. 

10 Recognize that the protection of riverine and coastal habitats 

for bears will help sustain the annual Kodiak salmon commercial harvest, which generates an average ex-vessel value of $35 million and provides as many as 5,000 associated jobs. 

Implementation of this plan would ensure continued habitat for bears and salmon. Therefore, benefits to ofisheries would be maintained. 

 Regarding Afognak Island 

11 Establish an education plan and explore economic incentives 

aimed at encouraging public and private landowners to consider the effects of motorized access to bears. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

12 Establish an education plan and explore economic incentives 

aimed at encouraging private landowners to continue landmanagement programs that are consistent with wildlife conservation. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

13 Teach outdoor recreationists to be bear-aware. This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

12.8, 15.4, and 15.6. 

14 Urge ADF&G, sports enthusiasts, and wildlife conservation 

groups to cooperate with private landowners to help make their forest practices as compatible as possible with conservation of bears (e.g., continued adherence to the Forest Practices Act and continued use of responsible garbage-management practices). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

15 Respect private property rights, while recognizing private 

landowner’s responsibilities to adhere to applicable laws in the conservation of bears and their habitats. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Human Activities in Bear Habitat 

16 Maintain or enhance the current high-quality bear habitat on 

the Kodiak Archipelago by protecting riparian areas, including water quality and salmon resources; protecting healthy and contiguous upland areas; and continuing the type of human uses of the area that fosters coexistence. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goals 6, 7, 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

17 Strongly encourage education of outdoor recreationists about 

bear behavior, impacts to bear habitat, bear-human interactions (e.g., resulting from improperly handled food and trash), field safety practices, and use of bear-resistant containers and electric fences, etc. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12 and 11.2. 

18 Distribute to refuge users educational materials on building 

safe campfires. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

 Land Use, Land Acquisition, and Planning 

19 Continue acquiring small parcels of high-priority bear and 

salmon habitat from informed, willing sellers. 

This recommendation is consistent with Service policontinue to implement its land-acquisition plan, whiimportant habitat from willing sellers of private parcRefuge boundary. 

20 Consider bear habitat when evaluating lands for acquisition. Bear habitat value is a prime factor considered by th

acquisition program. 

21 In any land transfer, recognize subsistence activity, consistent 

with state and federal laws. 

Maintenance of traditional subsistence use is a purpoTherefore, subsistence uses would continue on newlsubject to federal and state subsistence regulations. 

22 When their lands are affected, involve village representatives 

and individuals associated with remote camps in landacquisition planning. 

The Service would continue to involve stakeholders planning and transactions. 

23 Consider bear habitat when conducting land disposals on state 

land. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

24 Pursue the acquisition of high-priority bear and salmon habitat 

on Afognak and Shuyak islands to complete the planned state park units there. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. within the Refuge on Afognak Island. 

25 Through land-use planning, maintain contiguous bear and 

salmon habitat (i.e., avoid patchwork development). 

Kodiak Refuge purposes dictate maintenance of beaLand-use planning is a tool the Service uses to desigactions geared to achieve refuge purposes. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

26 Retain state and federal agency access to salmon populations to 

allow monitoring of stock status. Retain historical salmon rehabilitation and enhancement options identified in Kodiak’s comprehensive salmon plan (i.e., lake fertilization, stocking of barren lakes, hydroacoustic surveys of smolt and presmolt populations, use of barrier nets in terminal harvest areas, monitoring of weir sites and fish passes, lake monitoring through limnology assessment, smolt enumeration through mark and recapture, and conducting egg-takes for out-stocking programs). 

Kodiak Refuge purposes require conservation of salhabitats in their natural diversity. Access to salmon pRefuge boundaries for monitoring of stock status wiallowed. The Service will continue to allow historicaenhancement options on the Refuge, where appropri

27 Encourage private landowners (e.g., via the use of conservation 

easements, economic incentives, and education) to consider bear habitat when making land-management decisions. 

The Service would continue to use a variety of approstewardship of bear habitat by private landowners in 

28 Encourage a high level of cooperation among various 

landowners to achieve ecosystem management objectives for bears. 

The Conservation Plan would establish several new 3.5, 6.1, 10.2, 15.4, 15.5, and 15.6) which explicitly collaboration on bear conservation actions. 

29 Urge all parties to work cooperatively to ensure successful 

implementation of the conservation easement agreement on the Karluk and Sturgeon rivers watersheds. 

The Service intends to successfully implement the emaintaining productive relationships with Koniag, In

Alaska (Objective 10.2). 

30 Urge ADF&G, in cooperation with USFWS, to identify key 

habitat linkages to ensure free movement of bears throughout their natural ranges and to avoid habitat fragmentation. 

The Service would gain new understanding of bear hthrough implementation of Objectives 2.4 and 2.6. 

31 Encourage Bureau of Land Management, USFWS, the public, 

and landowners to together review controversial 17(b) easements and corridors, renegotiate terms and conditions if proved necessary to prevent resource damage, and consider relocating or relinquishing easements that adversely impact important bear habitat. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) strongly recommends discouraging off-road vehicle (ORV) use on easements not currently used by ORVs. 

The Service intends to manage 17(b) site and trail eathe Service through implementation of Objective 10in accomplishing this recommendation. 

 Minimize Habitat Degradation 

32 Urge ADF&G, in close cooperation with USFWS, to identify 

and monitor threats to bears and their habitats and take effective actions to alleviate these threats. 

The Service would work with ADF&G to identify anindicated in the Refuge’s newly established bear obj
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

33 Encourage appropriate agencies to mitigate damage to bear 

habitat. 

Once damage is identified, the Service would apply mechanisms and solutions as required by federal law 

34 Urge ADF&G, in close cooperation with USFWS, Kodiak 

Island Borough, and private landowners, to identify and map all important brown-bear habitats in the archipelago and design action strategies to protect them. 

As indicated in bear Objectives 2.4, 2.5, and 2.8, the continue to spearhead inventory and research actionimportant bear habitat of the Refuge. 

 Shearwater Peninsula 

35 State lands should continue to be managed consistent with 

terms of the 1981 Terror Lake Agreement. 

The Refuge will continue to work with the state to ePeninsula lands are managed consistent with the CooAgreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Projec

36 Alaska Department of Natural Resources should work with 

ADF&G and USFWS to identify important bear habitat within the Shearwater Peninsula that should be classified as wildlife habitat and protected from land disposal. 

The Service looks forward to participating in this Staction. 

37 Support fair and timely consummation of the proposed Old 

Harbor Village Corporation land exchange of Sitkalidak Island for lands on Kiliuda Bay on the Shearwater Peninsula. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Bear-Use Areas (i.e., bear concentration areas) 

38 USFWS should work with ADF&G and the Kodiak Unified 

Bear Subcommittee (KUBS) when reexamining refuge areas that are closed or proposed to be closed to the public and commercial operators. 

In coordination with ADF&G, we have begun the prkey bear concentration areas in order to identify whisubject to site-specific voluntary guidelines, possibly use limits and/or day use only restrictions; conditionpermits for commercial activities would mirror new regulations. This evaluation will be ongoing as guidand monitoring of use occurs. Public input, includinKUBS, would be sought during this process. For adddescription of Alternative D, the Preferred Alternativ
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

39 On USFWS land, restrict back-country use (e.g., require 

permits) before resorting to total closure to use (USFWS must be equipped to do so). 

The Preferred Alternative recommends that general safe and conscientious viewing of bears be developeto all refuge users; that voluntary site-specific guideincluding seasonal use limits and/or day use restrictiuse of certain bear concentration areas; and that reguuse be implemented only if voluntary guidelines profor a permit system was not identified, but could be future. One denning area is recommended for closurFor additional details, see the description of Alternat

Alternative, in Chapter 2. 

40 Continue to seek enhanced funding for identification and study 

of important and critical bear habitat. 

The Refuge would implement new objectives (e.g., 2further understanding of bear habitat. Proposals wouincrease Service support for this work. The Service wadditional funding support from cooperators once ininitiated. 

41 Manage critical bear habitat to prevent adverse impacts. The Service would prevent and minimize impacts in 

areas through implementation of the Preferred Altern

42 Consider restricting human use on important streams if there 

are documented adverse impacts on salmon stocks, bears, or both. 

See discussion for Recommendation 38. The RefugeADF&G and KUBS, would determine site-specific nand restrictions if the Service adopts the Preferred A

Conservation Plan. 

43 Mandate an open public process prior to restrictions and ensure 

that nothing in these recommendations will conflict with federal and state subsistence laws. 

The Service is required by law to involve the public actions on Kodiak Refuge. Further, the Conservation for increased coordination and public involvement (

 Motorized Access 

44 Create baseline information regarding ORV use throughout the 

archipelago in order to evaluate areas of problems. 

We would document baseline data for the Refuge by Objective 10.8. 

45 The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) strongly 

recommends discouraging ORV use on easements not currently 

used by ORVs. 

Site and trail easements identified under Section 17(be managed as indicated in Objective 10.7. The Refuconservation easements where snowmachines, consimeans of access, would be allowed. ORVs are alloweasements, but not on refuge lands. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

46 Limit ORV use in important bear habitat areas (i.e., restrict 

recreational use of ORVs to designated-use areas [e.g., corridors] near villages). 

The Service has legal authority (50 CFR 27.31 and 3use of refuge lands. Use of ORVs is not allowed on Under the Preferred Alternative, snowmachine uses throughout the Refuge except for one key bear denn

47 Develop statewide legislation to require the licensing and 

registration of ORVs. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

48 Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) coordinate efforts among 

ADF&G, USFWS, private landowners, ORV users, and other interested parties to initiate an ORV planning process. 

A stakeholder planning process was initiated in 2002participate in future planning efforts. 

49 Commend private property owner’ existing policies restricting 

motorized public access and encourage continuation of these policies. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

50 Formally recognize the Kodiak Snow Bruins for its policies 

regarding responsible snowmachine use. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

51 To minimize snowmachine impact on bears, additional 

research is needed to provide the facts necessary to identify highly sensitive areas of brown-bear habitat (e.g., denning areas). 

The Service expects to study, in cooperation with AD

distribution of bears on Afognak Island (Objective 2research would be evaluated when the Refuge updatinventory and monitoring plan two years after approConservation Plan (Objective 1.1). 

52 Develop snowmachine limitations (e.g., closures) for sensitive 

denning areas. 

Consistent with this recommendation, the Service’s calls for seasonally closing one bear-denning area to 

53 Develop an education and enforcement plan for responsible use 

of ORVs to minimize negative impacts on bear habitat. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goals 10 anwould address this recommendation though collectivObjectives 10.2, 10.3, and 10.8. 

54 The CAC objects to ORV manufacturers and retailers whose 

advertising (commercials) encourage unethical and damaging use of ORVs on public lands. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

55 Seek the cooperation of ORV user groups to encourage more 

responsible use of ORVs while in bear habitat. 

The Service will work with ORV user groups to ensORVs where allowed on 17(b) easements. 

56 Prohibit air boats and personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) in 

important bear habitat. 

This is current Service policy. 

 Road Building in Bear Habitat 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

57 Explore alternatives to building new roads in important bear 

habitat areas. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

58 Support closure (i.e., decommissioning) of obsolete logging 

roads on public and privately owned lands. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

59 Continue existing practices to limit motorized public access to 

logging roads. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Chapter 4: Harvest Issues  Management of Bear-Harvesting Activities 

60 Endorse ADF&G’s current bear-management objectives, as 

modified by recommendations made by the CAC in this management plan. 

The Service endorses ADF&G’s bear-management o

incorporated many of the CAC’s recommendations iPlan as objectives. 

61 Continue to prohibit the baiting of bears throughout the Kodiak 

archipelago. 

State regulations prohibit bear baiting on and off the 

62 Manage bear populations on carrying capacity and density as 

well as on harvest objectives. 

From the outset, the Service has worked closely with and implement state-of-the-art methods to evaluate pmonitor population trends. The Service’s continued addressed in Objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. 

63 Recommend that ADF&G refine population estimates in order 

to maintain a bear population that can sustain a 6 percent annual sport harvest. 

We address collaboration on refinement of populatioestimates in bear Objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. 

64 Develop a co-management agreement with villages to reduce 

defense of life or property [bear] mortalities (DLPs) in and around villages and to provide economic incentives to conserve bears; this would include expansion of bear-safety practices, solid-waste management, encouraging Natives to become registered big-game guides, and consideration of bear-hunting permits in areas adjacent to villages. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

65 ADF&G, USFWS, and other appropriate groups should 

develop informational and educational materials to help minimize bear-human conflicts and thereby improve hunter image. These materials should be developed for multimedia use and include the following subjects (also see chapter 8, “Education” in the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan [KABCMP]): 

 trip planning and physical condition;  meat handling and storage skills;  bear behavior and safety, and;  a safety-in-bear-country video for wide distribution and 

use. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goals 10 anObjectives 10.3, 11.2, 12.2, and 12.8. 

 Village Subsistence Use of Kodiak Bears 

66 Continue to provide opportunities for subsistence uses of bears 

by local residents, consistent with conservation provisions essential to sustain the resource. 

The Service would continue to provide opportunities Refuge lands as directed by Refuge purposes. 

 Sport Hunting of Kodiak Bears 

67 Maintain the tradition of bear hunting, consistent with the 

conservation management and regulatory regime that avoid overharvest of the resource. 

Bear hunting is a legitimate, compatible public use oManagement of bear hunting on the Refuge is carefuADF&G, in cooperation with the Refuge. 

68 Maintain the tradition of bear hunting, consistent with the 

highest ethical standards of safety and fair chase. 

Bear hunters are required to adhere to state law on thRefuge leaflets discourage unethical practices. 

69 Ensure that all hunters are provided with the Boone & Crockett 

Fair-chase statement and that it is printed on all ADF&G and USFWS materials relating to hunting, as appropriate. 

This statement would be included on future hunting the Refuge. 

70 If reductions in harvest are necessary, consider ways of 

reducing the female harvest prior to reducing permit numbers (i.e., skull-sex minimums in southwestern Kodiak). 

As indicated in Objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6, the continue to work closely with ADF&G to collect essused to support harvest management decisions. 

71 To better achieve wildlife-acceptance capacity (see section 5.3 

in KABCMP) along the Kodiak road system, increase bear harvest by extending the spring bear-hunting season to May 31. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Guiding 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

72 Strongly support the restrictive guide system currently in use 

on federal lands of the Kodiak archipelago and encourage reinstatement of this system on other lands. 

The guide system currently in effect would continue Alternative; implementation would continue as descunless changed through the regulatory process, whicnotification and provides for public input. 

73 Support the Alaska Board of Game resolution 98.127, 1998 

(see Appendix R in KABCMP), requesting reinstatement of the Big-Game Commercial Services board. 

Re-establishment of regulatory authority over big-gaand transporters by the State of Alaska would be sup

74 Guides/outfitters and transporters should make bear-safety 

educational materials available to elk hunters. 

Objective 11.2 address this issue. 

 Other Resource-Extraction Activities—Sport Hunting 

75 Urge ADF&G to continue to track the number of bears killed 

by deer, elk, and goat hunters to minimize such bear mortality and make a serious effort to mitigate this problem through education of big-game hunters on how to avoid dangerous situations involving bears. 

The Refuge strongly supports ADF&G’s systematic human-caused bear mortality. The Service would aueffort by implementing Objective 2.1. 

76 Require mandatory hunter education, which should include 

bear-safety instruction, before entering the field in GMU 8. 

This would apply to refuge lands if adopted by the s

77 Encourage hunters to quickly remove kill meat to a safe 

distance from the kill site. 

We would continue to provide subsistence hunters wRefuge leaflets describing specific measures they caconflicts. ADF&G is responsible for disseminating ihunters. 

78 Using the ADF&G Web site and brochures, educate hunters 

about terrain issues. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

79 Urge ADF&G to develop other educational tools (e.g., videos 

using local people) to educate hunters about hunting in bear country. 

This Refuge would use these tools in its educational become available from the state. 

80 Submit an article about hunting on Kodiak (written by Hank 

Pennington) to a sporting magazine. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

81 Place educational materials in places (and with people) where 

they can be readily accessed (e.g., Web site, airport, magazines, tourism offices, USCG base, villages, guide/outfitters, public libraries, schools, museums, ferries, tribal council offices, Fish and Wildlife Protection offices, Alaska State Park offices and state parks staff, public radio, and television). 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

82 Recommend strongly that elk hunters hunt in groups or teams. The Service would continue to provide subsistence e

ADF&G and Refuge leaflets describing specific mea

to avoid bear conflicts. ADF&G is responsible for dinformation to sport hunters. 

83 Limit the harvest of deer to the number of animals the hunter 

can handle. 

The Service would continue to provide subsistence dADF&G and Refuge leaflets describing measures th

bear conflicts. ADF&G is responsible for disseminasport hunters. 

84 Encourage hunters to promptly gut the harvested animal and 

move it to a safe, visible location. 

The Service would continue to provide subsistence hand Refuge leaflets describing specific measures thebear conflicts. ADF&G is responsible for disseminasport hunters. 

85 Encourage hunters to store meat responsibly so it won’t attract 

bears (e.g., high in trees, within electric fences); use of minielectric fences is advised. 

The Service would continue to provide subsistence hand Refuge leaflets describing specific measures thebear conflicts. ADF&G is responsible for disseminasport hunters. 

86 Encourage hunters to be aware of carcasses or gut piles from 

animals harvested by others. 

the Service would continue to provide subsistence h

and Refuge leaflets describing specific measures thebear conflicts. ADF&G is responsible for disseminasport hunters. 

87 Urge ADF&G, USFWS, and other appropriate groups to 

develop educational materials to eliminate conflicts between deer hunters and bears (e.g., how to handle meat, safety, location, bear posture). 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

 Other Resource-Extraction Activities—Commercial 

Fishing 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

88 Salmon escapement goals should continue to allow for natural 

predation by bears and other wildlife. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 7Service would continue to support existing ADF&G acknowledges and accepts bear predation on salmon

89 Continue evaluating species-specific salmon escapement levels 

against drainage-specific bear use of salmon; investigations should emphasize an ecosystem overview (e.g., salmon biological escapement goal [BEG] rather than bear densities). 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 7escapement estimates for Dog Salmon River specificuse of salmon. The Service would work with ADF&apply this same model to planning escapement leveldrainages. 

90 Continue monitoring salmon escapement trend data and 

subsequent species-specific productivity; evaluate salmon harvest strategies for all human user groups. 

The Service would continue to routinely evaluate saproductivity, and harvest strategies potentially affecsalmonid stocks that use the Refuge (see Goal 7). 

 Other Resource-Extraction Activities—Sport Fishing 

91 Urge ADF&G to evaluate whether increased human activity 

will lead to increased negative bear-human encounters in areas of especially high bear use. 

The Service would continue, in cooperation with ADbear-human interactions at bear concentration areas public, as directed by Refuge Objective 2.4. 

92 Identify areas where hardened fishing campsites would 

minimize bear-human conflicts. 

The Service would continue to monitor public use in used by the public for recreational activities to evaluarea management is needed (see Objective 10.1). Th

and the conservation easement agreement with Koniimprovement of camping areas where deemed appro

93 Encourage KUBS, ADF&G, and USFWS to work together to 

identify areas where there may need to be restrictions on camping and other activities because of the potential displacement of bears. 

In coordination with ADF&G, the Service has begun examining bear concentration areas to determine whsubject to site-specific guidelines and, potentially, reThis evaluation will continue over time. Public inpucoordination with KUBS, will be sought during this 

94 Designate food-storage areas, especially at Bare Creek. Since 2000, the Service has provided the public with 

food and waste storage facility near the confluence oAyakulik River. This action, or its replacement, wouthe Preferred Alternative. 

95 Continue use of electric fences or other practical means of 

excluding bears from anglers’ food caches on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) and in other areas and jurisdictions of the Kodiak archipelago. 

The Refuge will continue to provide air-taxi operatostorage containers and to provide the fortified storagCreek. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

96 Develop an educational program for anglers in cooperation 

with professional organizations, agencies, and sportsmen’s groups to include information about proper food and fish storage and cleaning of fish. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

97 Encourage the use of bear-resistant food containers and require 

their use in areas of high bear concentrations (e.g., along prime sport fishing streams). 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1Refuge will continue to provide air-taxi operators w

containers. This could be included in site-specific vocould be incorporated into potential regulatory actiothe Preferred Alternative. 

98 In certain bear-feeding areas, there is a predictable, seasonal 

increase in potential bear-human conflicts related to sport fishing activities. The CAC recognizes that ADF&G Division of Sport Fish biologists are not authorized to write emergency orders to manage a sport fishery to address bear conservation. The CAC recommends that ADF&G Divisions of Sport Fish and of Wildlife Conservation cooperatively prepare an integrated management plan for approval by the combined Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, with the prime purpose of the management plan being to reduce bear-human conflicts associated with sport fishing. This plan should determine the carrying capacity for anglers and guide operations at favored fishing sites and the setting of limits necessary to maintain a high-quality wilderness sport fishing experience. 

The Refuge would support such a plan and would prits preparation, if requested. 

 Other Resource-Extraction Activities—Harvest of 

Plants and Berries 

99 Develop methods to objectively document annual abundance 

and availability to bears of vegetation in representative habitats on the Kodiak archipelago. 

The Service would implement Objectives 2.8 and 3.

address this recommendation. 

100 Research the impact on bears of commercial use of 

salmonberries and blueberries. 

Although gathering of resources—such as berries, mantlers—for commercial purposes may be authorized importance of berries as a food source for bears woubefore authorizing such use. Objectives 2.8 and 3.6 a

berries and berry-producing shrubs as a food source deer on the Refuge. 

 Regulations and Enforcement 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

101 Ensure a level of cooperative state and federal law enforcement 

deemed essential to achieve compliance with conservation laws, rules, and regulations; preventive education should be the first priority in this regard. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives and 15.5. 

102 Provide better funding and staffing of the state Division of Fish 

and Wildlife Protection [now Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement] to achieve the optimum level of law enforcement presence on the Kodiak archipelago. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

103 Urge state and federal wildlife protection and enforcement 

agencies to take appropriate actions under existing law to prevent trade in Kodiak bear parts. 

Service law enforcement officers (Refuge staff, specinspectors) would continue working with state officefederal and state laws (e.g., Lacey Act, National Wilprohibit commerce in bear parts. 

104 Identify appropriate elders and leaders to work with village 

public safety officers (VPSOs) to help educate residents about conservation laws, rules, and regulations. 

The Refuge would facilitate this effort by directing itechnician to provide VPSOs with information on lapertain to the Refuge. Such action is consistent with 

105 To foster cooperation, request that the Alaska Department of 

Public Safety, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection [now Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement], and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conduct annual outreach programs, explaining regulations and enforcement issues (including DLPs) in communities throughout the Kodiak archipelago. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

106 ADF&G and USFWS work with the USCG to identify those 

areas and seasons in which bears and hunters are particularly vulnerable to harassment by overflying and to encourage reinforcing USCG policy minimizing low overflight in these areas. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. Thwas implemented on April 30, 2002, when the RefugUSCG signed a memorandum of agreement. This agRefuge and ADF&G to increase communication witofficers and staff and to provide them with informatiprevent displacement of wildlife and interference wiactivities. 

107 Continue education cooperation among the agencies annually, 

or more often as required, to alert new air crews to these concerns and policies and to continue good relations within the communities. 

This recommendation was implemented. See respon105. 

108 Encourage USFWS to make enforcement of ORV regulations a 

priority on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

109 Cross-deputize Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection [now 

Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement] officers and Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge officers to provide authority for enforcing pertinent state and federal sport fish, wildlife, and refuge laws. 

Presently, one Refuge officer is cross-deputized. Thcross-deputize all Refuge officers. 

 Chapter 5: Redefining Kodiak Bear-Management Strategy  Redefining Kodiak Bear-Management Strategy 

110 ADF&G manage bear populations based on carrying capacity 

and density as well as on harvest objectives. 

The Refuge has worked closely with ADF&G to devstate-of-the-art methods to evaluate population statupopulation trend. The Service’s continued support is in Refuge Objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. 

111 ADF&G reduce the bear population on northeastern Kodiak 

Island (i.e., along the road system; area 30 of management subunit #2 in Figure 5-1 of KABCMP) by 10-20 percent below the current estimated level through liberalized sport hunting seasons in the spring and issuance of appropriate depredation permits. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

112 Urge ADF&G and USFWS to dedicate funds to survey 

Afognak Island and the Kodiak road system (management subunit #1 and area 30 of management subunit #2) as soon as possible to determine accurate bear populations. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.6 to spec

Afognak bear research. Presently, the Refuge and Acooperative funding to support this research. The Sethe need, role, and priority of research of road system inventory and monitoring plan scheduled for complecompletion of the revised Conservation Plan (Objec

113 Encourage ADF&G, USFWS, and village tribal councils to 

work together to gather data on bear populations and carrying capacity for management purposes. 

The Service would implement Objectives 2.2 and 2.recommendation. 

 Chapter 6: Bear-Human Interactions  Habituation and Food-Conditioning of Kodiak Bears 

114 To understand human habituation and its effects on bears, the 

CAC recommends that ADF&G and USFWS conduct longterm research into the effects of sport fishing and bear viewing on Kodiak bears. 

The Service would continue, in cooperation with ADbear-human interactions at bear concentration areas public, as directed by Objective 2.4. 

115 Enforce regulations prohibiting the feeding of food, garbage, or 

fish to bears. 

If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, the Sits capability to enforce pertinent federal and state reincreasing law enforcement staff. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

116 Provide education to prevent food conditioning of bears by 

humans. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12 and and 15.4. 

 Defense of Life or Property Kills 

117 Continue to follow state regulations regarding bears killed in 

DLP. 

If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, the Sits capability to enforce pertinent federal and state reincreasing law enforcement staff. 

118 The Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee should 

propose a change in state hunting regulations to establish and authorize use of depredation permits. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

119 ADF&G should develop strict criteria for issuance of 

depredation permits for problem bears. These permits should be issued only after reasonable, nonlethal methods to deal with problem bears have been exhausted. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

120 Conduct research and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness 

of depredation permits. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

121 Encourage village residents, VPSOs, and appropriate agencies 

to work together to develop information and education materials and strategies to reduce bear-human conflicts in the villages. 

The Refuge and ADF&G share interests in this recopart, the Refuge would implement Objectives 12.2, improve harmony between bears and residents of vil

122 State troopers and USFWS should provide information to rural 

residents about the laws, rights, and duties regarding DLPs. 

The Service would address this recommendation whObjectives 10.3 and 12.2, and 15.4. 

123 Through a co-management agreement with the state, use 

village committees and VPSOs to take responsibility for working on DLP issues in villages, including solid-waste management issues; this should include a significant educational component (e.g., school, videos, and employing elders). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Solid-Waste Management and Storage of Human 

and Pet Food 

124 Encourage the KIB and individual communities to develop 

community-specific waste-management plans that include implementation and funding strategies. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

125 Encourage village governments to seek federal, state, and local 

funding such that village landfills can meet federal standards and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations and such that those regulations can be enforced at solid-waste disposal sites, thereby reducing their attractiveness to bears. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

126 Request the State of Alaska to increase funding for the 

Revenue Sharing/Safe Communities programs, which would provide additional funding to small city governments. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

127 Encourage cities to utilize additional funding for employment 

of electric fencing, incineration, and bulldozers for regular and frequent covering of garbage at landfills. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

128 Enforce DEC regulations at dump sites, thereby reducing their 

attractiveness to bears. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

129 Enforce existing landfill regulations from the federal 

government and for DEC. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

130 Distribute the ADF&G Policy on Solid Waste Management 

and Bears in Alaska to agencies and communities and ensure that it is adhered to. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

131 Encourage owners of remote cabins and lodges to use properly 

managed public landfills whenever possible; when private solid-waste disposal sites are necessary, encourage landowners to work with wildlife managers to devise appropriate ways to minimize bear encounters. 

The Service would continue to apply the special use encourage appropriate solid waste management by R

132 Prohibit, by borough or other local ordinance, bear viewing at 

solid-waste disposal sites. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

133 Clear areas adjacent to landfills of trees, brush, and tall grass 

that can serve as cover for bears (e.g., the distance to be cleared 

depends on the terrain and habitat of the area and should be determined with assistance of wildlife managers). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

134 Cover landfills often and thoroughly, keeping the active area of 

waste deposition minimal (e.g., at sites where bears are frequent visitors, increased covering and/or compaction of garbage will reduce the area in which bears can search for food; as that active area of garbage gets smaller, competition 

among bears increases, and subdominant bears opt to find other food sources). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

135 Encourage recycling programs to reduce the amount of waste 

deposited in landfills. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

136 If possible, use incineration to reduce space necessary for 

landfills and to reduce odors and food sources. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

137 Install electric fencing around a landfill after the site has been 

cleared and bear numbers have declined through reduction of active areas. (Electric fences should be well-designed to suit the needs of individual sites and maintained by qualified personnel. Periodic inspections should be scheduled to look for damaged portions of the fences, to remove debris from the fences, and to look for places where bears have tried to burrow under the fences. The fences should remain electrified at all times except during maintenance.) 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

138 Install safe, effective, and easy-to-operate gates (e.g., selfclosing, if possible) at each landfill and make specific 

individuals responsible for ensuring that gates remain closed. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

139 Prior to erecting an electric fence, and immediately after it is 

up and running, inform residents of the program and the fact that some bears will be displaced. (Note that an increase in bear-human encounters can be expected for the first couple of 

years the fence is operating.) 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

140 Encourage wildlife managers, residents, and civil officials to 

work together to devise improvements to keep bears out if they continue to gain access to properly designed landfills. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Solid-Waste Management and Storage of Human and 

Pet Food—Larsen Bay Solid-Waste Disposal Site 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

141 Remediate the Larsen Bay solid-waste site situation in a stairstep approach: 

 Clear the area around the waste site of alders and brush to 

create a barren zone to make the bears uncomfortable. 

 Quickly bury the garbage.  Construct an electric fence around the site, restricting 

bear access to the site. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

142 Seek funding for the necessary measures to reduce foodconditioning and habituation by humans of bears at the Larsen 

Bay solid-waste disposal site. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

143 The CAC recognizes the Larsen Bay waste site is a highpriority area for remediation and should be addressed as 

quickly as possible. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

144 Prohibit, by borough or other local ordinance, bear viewing at 

solid-waste disposal sites. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Solid-Waste Management and Storage of Human and 

Pet Food—Food Storage and Solid-Waste 

Management 

145 Strictly enforce regulations prohibiting feeding of bears. If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, the S

its capability to enforce pertinent federal and state rincreasing law enforcement staff. 

146 Develop better regulations and enforcement regarding food, 

garbage, and fish-handling in bear areas. 

The Service would improve its capability to reduce bvia education and regulation approaches by impleme10.2, and 10.3. 

147 Vigorously enforce littering laws and laws that prohibit feeding 

bears. Encourage residents to work within their neighborhoods to identify and correct potential problem areas. 

The Service would increase our capability to enforce prohibit feeding of bears through implementation of 

148 Encourage residents to keep garbage in enclosed areas and to 

empty garbage often during the summer months. Plastic trash bags should be used to line garbage cans, and cans should be washed periodically. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

149 Encourage residents to store pet and domestic livestock food 

indoors. (If pets are fed outdoors, care should be taken to only provide the amount of food that can be eaten within an hour). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

150 Encourage residents to house pets and domestic livestock in 

bear-resistant enclosures when not attended. (Electric fencing has been proved as an effective and inexpensive tool for separating bears and livestock). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

151 Remove trees, brush, and grass that can serve as cover for 

bears near residences, bus stops, playgrounds, garbage-storage areas, and pet or livestock pens. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

152 Ensure that residents have access to information on how to use 

noise-makers and lighting to chase bears from their yards; rubber bullets, bean-bag shells, and pepper spray are also effective, but should only be used by trained operators (prior to using any deterrents, all potential food sources should be removed from the area). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

153 Use bear-resistant dumpsters (e.g., all metal, designed in a 

manner that is compatible with existing collection equipment, relatively easy to use by most people, and preferably with selfclosing lids) wherever there is dumpster service on Kodiak Island; close coordination with waste-management contractors is essential. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

154 Locate dumpsters as far as possible from school bus stops and 

other places where children congregate; do not place dumpsters near natural food sources (such as salmon streams) or domestic livestock; brush-clearing and lighting near dumpsters are desirable. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

155 Establish appropriate collection schedules to ensure that 

dumpsters do not become overly full. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

156 Encourage KIB to monitor waste-collection schedules and take 

appropriate action, as needed. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

157 If there are persistent bear problems in an area, temporarily 

remove the dumpster; if it is removed, a sign should be placed at the site to inform residents of when it was removed, why it was removed, where it was taken, and when it is expected to be returned. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

158 In villages, assign specific individuals to provide collection 

services (e.g., emptying dumpsters, if appropriate); these individuals should receive adequate compensation for their duties and should be held accountable for their performance. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

159 Encourage everyone using remote areas to remove all solid 

waste from the area (i.e., pack it in and pack it out). 

Consistent with Goals 10, 11, 12, and 15, the Serviceducation and outreach efforts to further encourage apractices for disposal of solid waste. 

160 As soon as possible, seek funding from local, state, and federal 

sources to implement appropriate solid-waste management improvements. (The KIB program should be developed as a blueprint example of how to keep bears from getting food or garbage from areas of human habitat). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

161 Recognize the following groups for their efforts to reduce bearhuman encounters around Kodiak and encourage continuation 

and expansion of these activities: 

 Fish processors for collecting garbage from setnet sites  Air-taxi operators for taking out garbage for campers, 

hunters, and anglers 

 Logging camps on Afognak and remote cannery 

operators for developing effective waste-management techniques 

 Alaska State Parks and Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

for developing and enforcing waste-management techniques 

 Kodiak Island Borough and the U.S. Coast Guard for 

taking leadership roles in establishing effective solidwaste management techniques on the Kodiak Road system 

The Refuge will continue efforts to reduce bear-humyou for the compliment. 

162 To minimize bear problems, educate people about handling 

personal property, including chicken pens, drying sheds, foodstorage areas, and pet food. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

163 Develop an intergovernmental working group composed of 

representatives from wildlife management agencies (ADF&G, USFWS), the Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee, public safety agencies (Alaska State Troopers, local and military police departments), local governments (city, village, and borough), and Alaska State Parks. The working group should meet at least once each spring to review current policies 

to reduce bear-human encounters and to coordinate efforts for the upcoming year. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 

164 Establish lines of communication among agencies with various 

areas of responsibility. 

The Refuge fully supports efforts to improve collabo(Goal 15). 

165 Provide public information on actions planned by the 

intergovernmental working group and encourage public input and questions on those actions. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 

166 Make available public information in a variety of media, 

including print, radio, public television, and personal appearances; attempt to meet the special needs of various cultures and ethnic groups. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 

167 Make the public outreach program ongoing, with emphasis on 

bear behavior and suggestions on how to minimize negative bear-human interactions. (Comparisons of bear behavior around food and garbage to dog behavior in similar situations can be helpful in improving understanding). 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12. 

168 Advertise laws and regulations relating to leaving food or 

garbage in a manner that attracts wildlife. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

169 Encourage agencies to disclose management actions such as 

moving dumpsters, citing individuals for littering, aversive conditioning of bears, and lethal actions against problem bears. (All actions relating to bear-human interactions are matters of public record). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

170 Encourage the public to report to authorities observations of 

bears near human habitations (these observations can help to track the activities of individual bears and allow managers to alert school principals and residents of areas in which to be especially cautious; observations should not be advertised to the general public, however, to avoid encouraging peoples’ seeking out bears). 

Holders of refuge special-use and public-use-cabin preport bear problems to the Refuge. 

171 Disseminate to the public information about ADF&G’s policy 

regarding relocation of nuisance bears, which the CAC endorses. 

Refuge staff would advise public who encounter nuiof ADF&G policy. 

172 Locate on-site bear safety reminders on dumpsters (e.g., “Be 

Bear Aware”) and at collections sites (i.e., public landfills). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

173 Ensure that visitors are made aware of the efforts to keep bears 

away from human food and garbage; individual responsibilities of visitors should be outlined and disseminated so that they recognize their role in preventing problems. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives and 12.2. 

 Livestock Ranching 

174 Support the KIB Commercial Grazing and Conservation 

Zoning Plan. 

The Service contributed to development of this plan implementation. 

175 Encourage ranchers to continue practices that minimize bear 

predation. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

176 Recognizing the seriousness of foot and mouth disease and 

chronic wasting disease, the state should continue research about them and develop strategies to prevent their occurrence in Alaska. 

The Service acknowledges this concern and would sguarding action to prevent problems, as directed in O
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

 Bear-Viewing Activities—Public-Use Restrictions on 

the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

177 Recommend that KNWR initiate a step-down re-evaluation 

process for the Public Use Management Plan (PUMP) area closures in light of the fact that new data are needed (research data are 12 yr old) and that the public-use potential, on which some of the closures were based, has not been fulfilled and likely won’t be. 

In coordination with ADF&G, the Service has begun evaluating key bear concentration areas in order to ishould be subject to site-specific voluntary guidelineseasonal use limits and/or day use only restrictions; use permits for commercial activities would mirror nregulations. This evaluation will be ongoing as guidand monitoring of use occurs. Public input, includinKUBS, will be sought during this process. For addit

description of Alternative D, the Preferred Alternativ

 Bear-Viewing Activities—Frazer Fish Pass 

178 Recognizing the practical benefits of the solution implemented 

by USFWS for guided sport fishing, and in order to keep the rules fair and consistent for guided and unguided anglers, the following change should be made to State of Alaska sport fishing regulations: modify waters closed to sport fishing on the Dog Salmon River to prohibit fishing within 200 yd downstream of the Frazer fish pass from June 1 through August 31. (By recommending this closure, the CAC does not imply support for sport-fishing closures in other systems on the Kodiak archipelago to create bear-viewing opportunities.) 

This recommendation was instituted by the state in 2

 Bear-Viewing Activities—Bear Viewing 

179 Evaluate bear-viewing sites around the archipelago using a set 

of important criteria such as private or public land ownership, number of human users and timing of bear use, accessibility to visitors, existing viewing use, proximity to local communities or dwellings, competing uses, and compatible uses. 

The Service assessed status and trend of bear viewinand has begun the process of re-evaluating status of areas, some of which are used for bear viewing (or hsupport viewing) (see recommendation 176). The Seto apply these findings, and information from other management of public use in bear concentration area
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

180 Develop a general set of operational guidelines relating to bearviewing sites that protect all natural resources. If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, the S

closely with ADF&G and stakeholders to identify anguidelines for management of bear viewing at O’Maguidelines promoting safe and conscientious viewing developed for refugewide use (possibly adoption of Viewing Bears by ADF&G and NPS {ADF&G, 200voluntary site-specific guidelines, possibly including and/or day use restrictions, would be developed for muse at certain accessible concentration areas. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

181 Review the following lands within the borders of KNWR to 

consider suitability for re-opening (access to some of the following public and private lands is restricted or closed to the public, to commercial operators, or to both): 

 Area closed by regulation to all entry: 

- O’Malley River, June 25–September 30 (2,560 

acres) 

 Areas administratively closed to all commercial users and 

their clients: 

- Connecticut Creek, July 15–August 31 (2,262 

acres) 

- Dog Salmon River, June 25–August 31 (960 acres) - Humpy Creek, July 15–September 15 (2,879 acres) - Seven Rivers, July 15–September 15 (3,796 acres) 

 Areas administratively restricted to day-use only by all 

commercial users and their clients: 

- Red Lake River/Lakeshore, July 1–August 31 

(1,746 acres) 

- Upper Thumb River, July 1–August 31 (613 acres) - Southeast Creek, July 15–August 31 (1,108 acres) - Little River Lake/Lakeshore, July 15–August 31 

(480 acres) 

- Deadman Bay Creek, July 15–August 31 (951 

acres) 

 Access restrictions imposed by private landowner (permit 

required): 

- Karluk Lake and River 

The Service reviewed and identified several manageapplication at O’Malley River, including the Preferrwould re-establish a formal viewing program at the operated and commercially guided viewing opportunidentified a number of management strategies for othareas, including the Preferred Alternative, which is drecommendations 38 and 176. For additional detailsAlternative D, the Preferred Alternative, in Chapter 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

182 Review the following areas, which may also have restrictions 

or closures to public access, to commercial operators, or to both: 

 Frazer fish pass- Lower Dog Salmon Falls  Red Lake  Southeast Creek  Ayakulik river at its confluence with the Red River 

See the Service’s response to recommendation numbdiscussions between 2000 and 2003 resulted in new Frazer fish pass and Ayakulik River areas. In 2001, 

fishing regulations in the vicinity of the Frazer fish p

cooperative working group formulated and establishpublic occupancy and use of the lower Ayakulik Rivconfluence with Red Lake River. 

183 If sites are selected for formal regulation as bear-viewing sites, 

formulate rules and guidelines for the use of viewing areas to address the following: 

 access  camping  education  bear safety  group size limits  firearm possession and use by viewers  food and garbage handling and storage  sport fishing 

If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, a for

program would be developed at O’Malley River. Thbased on a framework of operational guidelines formcollaborative public process that would address the arecommendation. The Preferred Alternative also callvoluntary guidelines and day-use restrictions at otheconcentration areas, as discussed previously (see rec176, and 179). 

184 Investigate sites on the northern archipelago for possible bearviewing locations (e.g., Paul’s Lake, Litnik, Portage, Foul Bay, 

Hidden Lake). 

Hidden Lake occurs in the Afognak Unit of Kodiak considers it to have low potential for bear viewing; ithe site potential assessment completed in 1990, and evaluation of key bear concentration areas continues finding.. 

185 Determine the optimum number of people who can use any 

area at any one time and that will best meet the public demand and still be compatible with refuge purposes and conservation. In the case of Frazer fish pass, this determination should be made soon. 

If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, it wodetermination at O’Malley River. Implementation of 10.2, 10.4, and 10.5 would provide data that could ballocation decisions for other areas. Frazer fish pass assessment priority. 

186 USFWS monitor human activities in areas that have come to its 

attention as being of high interest or use; the amount of total use and the types of users (e.g., guided, unguided, viewers, anglers) should be recorded. 

Implementation of Objectives 2.4, 10.1, 10.2, 10.4, athis recommendation. Also see ***** Table 6-3, “M

for Public Use, Standards, and Possible Actions.” 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

187 USFWS encourage only those bear-human interactions that are 

compatible with maintaining the natural behavior of wild bears and protection of their wilderness habitat. 

This recommendation is consistent with Refuge purp

188 Recommend that, if use of an area is found to consistently 

exceed an acceptable human saturation level or begins to consistently displace bears, the following controls, in 

descending order of implementation as needed, be implemented: 

1) a site-specific set of use regulations that applies to all users 2) limitations on group sizes 3) required back-country permits for unguided users and a 

prospectus process for commercial operators 

If the Preferred Alternative were implemented, some would be incorporated into the operational framewoseasonal bear-viewing use at O’Malley River. Additrecommends that site-specific voluntary guidelines, seasonal use limits and/or day use only restrictions, certain bear concentration areas based on the re-eval

particularly areas that are easily accessible. 

189 If sites are selected for formal regulation as bear-viewing sites, 

develop a set of recommended allocation levels for guided and unguided use visitations that is designed to avoid conflict with the following: 

 sport fishing- hunting  agriculture and livestock ranching- commercial fishing  weirs  setnet sites  public-use cabins  adjacent private land owners  human habitations 

If implemented, the Preferred Alternative would limO’Malley River to bear viewing only, consistent witrecommendation 191. The ongoing evaluation and aconcentration areas could identify areas where volunlimits and/or day-use-only restrictions or possible recould be instituted, based on the finding of monitoriareas. 

190 Develop requirements for levels of use, allocation of use, 

public and commercial access, and permitting based on experience and history of similar existing federal and state programs; these requirements should minimize conflicts between bear viewing and other wildland-recreation interest 

groups. 

See response to recommendation number 188. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

191 Recommend USFWS conduct a needs assessment for bearviewing opportunities on public land, and, when conditions 

warrant, establish a unique viewing area, on public land, with the following attributes and conditions: 

 use by tightly controlled small groups (i.e., no more than 

12 persons per day) and supervised on-site activities 

 permits issued by drawing for off-site overnight stays of 

no more than three days 

 remainder of permits available for day use by guides, air 

taxi operators, and individuals 

 unsuccessful applicants and visitors provided with 

comprehensive information about alternative bearviewing opportunities on the archipelago 

The assessment of bear-viewing opportunities and n2002{Allen, 2002 #456}. Further, the Service would viewing program at O’Malley River. This program wframework of operational guidelines formulated as ppublic planning process. 

192 Recommend USFWS reopen O’Malley Creek area to bear 

viewers June through September employing a management strategy that allows guided day-use bear viewing. 

If the Preferred Alternative were adopted, this recomimplemented; that alternative recommends a program agency-supervised and commercially guided viewindifferent periods of the viewing season. 

193 Manage any bear-viewing sites on KNWR lands consistent 

with refuge purposes. 

Any formal bear-viewing program or other opportunor other wildlife on Kodiak Refuge would be allowewith refuge purposes. 

194 Prohibit establishing industrial tourism viewing with 

infrastructure such as that at Brooks Camp. 

Allowing “industrial tourism” with extensive infrastcompatible with refuge purposes and would not be aRefuge. 

195 Disseminate bear-viewing guidelines for the public and private 

sector that reflect safety while viewing bears from the ground or by walking, and procedures to alert bears to human presence. These guidelines should stress low-impact bear viewing by all users in all locations and should be similar to those of the North American Nature Photographers Association. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1General guidelines would be developed, or existing (e.g., Best Practices for Viewing Bears; A{ADF&G

facilitate safe and conscientious viewing of bears. B

evaluation of bear concentration areas, site-specific for bear viewing and other public uses would be devfor some easily accessible areas. Public input would development of these guidelines. 

196 Require ADF&G and USFWS training, and oversight of 

pertinent regulations, for all guided bear-viewing programs. 

This recommendation would apply to guided bear-vthe Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

197 Recommend that ADF&G and USFWS conduct annual bearviewing guide clinics. This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1198 Encourage private landowners that develop bear-viewing 

opportunities on private land to do so within accepted state and 

commercial guidelines. 

The Service would continue to consult with and adv

whom it has easement agreements with regard to bespractices for bear viewing. When requested, the Servwith community members to address bear managemvillages, remote cabins, and lodges (Objective 15.6)

199 Create economic incentives for bear management, including 

bear viewing, in the villages. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

200 Investigate road-accessible wildlife- and bear-education 

opportunities that would minimize negative bear-human conflicts (e.g., a suggested area is along Buskin Lake near the 

golf course). The area could include interpretive signs dealing with wildlife management, habitat, track identification, realistic 

bear-viewing opportunities, and safety. Small spotting scopes, such as those at Fort Abercrombie, could be installed so that visitors can get a close-up view of habitat areas for bears, goats, ducks, eagle, etc. Other areas suggested for bear education/interpretive signing/viewing possibility on the road system are Buskin River State Recreation Site and Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

201 Seek funding for islandwide education and regulation of bearviewing businesses through, but not limited to, the following: 

 reasonable permit fees  sale of Kodiak Wildlife Viewing stamps  Wildlife Restoration funds  Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The Service’s Preferred Alternative calls for increas

education and regulation of bear-viewing services on Service also supports development of cooperative edtargeted at islandwide businesses. 

202 Recommend the statewide sale of Wildlife Stamps, similar to 

Duck Stamps or Colorado Wildlife stamps, to both Alaska residents and nonresidents. Sales should be broad-based and aimed at nonconsumptive users of wildlife rather than at commercial operators. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

203 Encourage bear-viewing visitors to constantly attend food and 

garbage or store food in bear-resistant containers and to not display or consume food in a manner that may attract bears. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

204 Recommend that USFWS make its policies concerning wildlife 

photographers consistent with those to USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Alaska State Parks. 

Refuge policies concerning wildlife photography are Title 16 USC Section 4601-6d (Commercial Filminga special-use permit and charges a reasonable fee for activities or similar projects on the Refuge. With cerpermit is required and no fee is assessed for still phoor private) on the Refuge if such photography takes of the public are generally allowed. A permit, fee, or if such photography takes place at other locations whgenerally not allowed. This is standard for all Deparland management agencies. 

205 Recommend that USFWS and ADF&G continue to research 

bear viewing on KNWR. 

Objective 2.4 addresses this recommendation. FurthPreferred Alternative calls for studying bear viewing during initial years of program operation. 

206 Recommend that USFWS implement practical, site-specific, 

and biologically based objectives and compatibility standards for wildlife viewing in bear concentration areas using the best 

technical information and a stakeholder planning process. Guidelines for development of objectives and standards include the following: 

 sites with established viewing use—based on existing 

amount and pattern of bear use and public use 

 sites with no established viewing use—based on amount 

and pattern of bear use before public use introduced 

The Service would implement this recommendation 2.4. The Service would develop site-specific technicbear use and bear-human interactions in concentratiocontinued application of the cooperative research pr

 Use of Aircraft on the Kodiak Archipelago 

207 Enforce federal and state laws and regulations that prohibit 

disturbance of wildlife with an aircraft. 

Service law enforcement officers (Refuge staff, speccontinue to work with state officers to enforce pertin

regulations prohibiting disturbance to wildlife by air
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

208 Manage aircraft use in wildlife-viewing operations: Develop—

through the cooperation among appropriate regulatory agencies, private landowners, and commercial service groups—guidelines describing minimum altitudes, flight paths, horizontal distances, and access points. Following are suggested guidelines: 

 When viewing from an airplane while in the air, remain 

more than 800 feet from the bear or bears. 

 Prohibit intentional bear viewing by helicopter.  While flying near viewing areas, transit the area quickly, 

avoid circling or directly overflying the viewing area, and be considerate of viewers on the ground. 

 Do not take off or land within 300 feet of visible bears. 

Guidelines developed in the 1990s are included as cuse permits issued to air-taxi services operating on t

209 Encourage commercial providers of bear-viewing services to 

adopt standards of operation. 

Commercial providers of viewing services are requirof an operations plan from the Refuge. The Service 

providers to adopt Best Practices for Viewing Bears 

#686} or other voluntary guidelines developed for apRefuge as standards in operational plans submitted toperational standards would be included as conditiospecial-use permits (e.g., site-specific guidelines and 

210 Urge commercial operators to ensure that all equipment, 

guides, pilots, and boat operators meet all federal, state, and local requirements that apply to their operations. 

The Service would continue to apply conditions to scommercial activities on the Refuge, requiring that aoperators, and equipment meet federal and state requ

211 Enforce state and federal laws regarding the intentional 

harassment of bears with aircraft. 

Service law enforcement officers (Refuge staff, speccontinue to work with state officers to enforce pertin

regulations prohibiting disturbance of bears by aircr

212 To minimize disturbance to bears, develop guidelines for 

overflying by helicopters for recreational purposes. 

Helicopter landings for recreational purposes are noRefuge. The Refuge would develop guidelines for reby commercial and private operators of helicopters 

213 To minimize disturbance to bears, develop guidelines for 

overflying by fixed-wing aircraft for recreational purposes. 

Guidelines developed in the 1990s are included as cuse permits issued to air-taxi services operating on t

 Public-Use Cabins 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

214 Proposed new public-use cabins, or those acquired through 

land acquisition, on KNWR that cause serious adverse impact on important bear habitat or serious conflicts with guides or other user groups should be reevaluated for relocation to more suitable sites. 

Public-use cabin management prescriptions in Altern(Preferred Alternative) would allow for relocation oprescriptions would be conducted using a stakeholdeinput from the public. This recommendation is consi10.6. 

 Other Remote Cabins 

215 All new remote cabins, or land disposals for the purpose of 

building new remote cabins, that cause serious adverse impacts on important bear habitat or serious conflicts with guides or other user groups should be re-evaluated for location at more suitable sites. 

The Service would not build new public-use cabins, cabins, in or adjacent to bear concentration areas on 

 Chapter 7: Research and Monitoring  Monitoring (in priority order) 

216 Maintain the current bear-harvest monitoring regime, including 

permit reports, specimen requirements, and on-island bear sealing. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.1 in supprecommendation and ADF&G’s management of spoService anticipates no changes in management of su

bears. 

217 Continue monitoring bear density on Kodiak Island and 

increase survey frequency to at least once every five years for the Aliulik Peninsula, Karluk Lake, Terror Lake, Kiliuda, and Spiridon survey areas. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.2 in supprecommendation. 

218 Continue monitoring salmon escapement trend data and 

subsequent species-specific productivity; evaluate salmon harvest strategies for all human user groups. 

The Service would continue to routinely evaluate saproductivity, and harvest strategies in accordance withrough 7.4. 

219 Develop methods to objectively document annual abundance 

and availability to bears of vegetation in representative habitats on the Kodiak archipelago. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.8 and Gorecommendation. 

220 Monitor the bear population carefully on an annual basis to 

ensure survival of the optimum sex and age distribution of bears. 

The Service would implement Objectives 2.1, througmonitor the bear population in conjunction with AD

 Future Research—Density and Harvest 

221 Research and monitoring should be done to evaluate the 

effectiveness of depredation permits in terms of density and harvest calculations. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.1 to augmto address this recommendation. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

222 Assess bear density on Afognak Island and the Kodiak road 

system with the goal of establishing routine density monitoring in these areas by 2005. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.6 to spec

Afognak bear research needs. Presently, the Refuge seeking cooperative funding to support this researchaddress the need, role, and priority of research of roawildlife inventory and monitoring plan scheduled foafter completion of the revised Conservation Plan (O

223 Determine the optimum percent of adult male bears that should 

be harvested by hunters in order to maintain genetic diversity and vigor (i.e., fitness) in the population, and evaluate existing survival, productivity, harvest, and population data to determine appropriate harvest rates by area, by sex, and by age. 

The Service would implement Objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2would increase collaboration with ADF&G, target asex-specific sources of bear mortality, and increase kdiversity of Kodiak bears. 

224 Work with villagers, remote cabin and lodge residents and 

owners, and hunters to refine population estimates and to refine unreported bear-kill data on in order to maintain a bear population that can sustain a 6 percent annual sport harvest. Include revised estimates in harvest analyses. 

The Service would implement Objectives 2.1, 2.2, aADF&G’s effort to address this recommendation. 

225 Explore methods to estimate subadult (i.e., from weaning to 

maturity) mortality and dispersal and apply results to existing survival estimates. 

The Service would specifically address feasibility of bear mortality in a revised wildlife inventory and moscheduled for completion two years after completion Conservation Plan (Objective 1.1). 

226 Continue to track the number of bears killed by deer, elk, and 

goat hunters to minimize such bear mortality and make a serious effort to mitigate this problem through education of big-game hunters on how to avoid dangerous situations involving bears. 

The Refuge strongly supports ADF&G’s systematic human-caused bear mortality. The Service would audepartment’s effort through implementation of Obje

 Future Research—Habitat 

227 KNWR should detail its management intent for the Mt. Glottof 

Research Natural Area (RNA), especially with regard to uses by the public. While the CAC recognizes the importance to bears of the Mt. Glottof RNA, USFWS is urged to continue to allow existing human uses of the area, including hunting, hiking, and trekking. Any future management plans for the area should include substantial public input. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

228 Delineate types and extent of bear habitat on the Kodiak 

archipelago using remote-sensing technology and groundtruthing. 

In 2001, the Service initiated cooperative research to cover map for the archipelago. This project is schedu2004. Research results will be used for many purposof bear habitat on Afognak Island (e.g., Objective 2.

229 Use radiotelemetry data from previous studies to examine 

habitat preferences by bears on various parts of Kodiak Island (by season and by reproductive status). 

In 2004, the Refuge established a cooperative agreem

that specifically supports implementation of this rec

230 Examine bear use of spruce forests and adjacent habitats by 

conducting a radiotelemetry study on Afognak Island. Include documentation of bear use of newly cut and regenerating forests. 

The Service would implement Objective 2.6 to specAfognak bear research needs. Presently, the Refuge seeking cooperative funding to support this researchwould be included as a factor in study design and da

231 Conduct baseline research on Sitka black-tailed deer and 

mountain goat habitat use and movements using radiotelemetry. Data collected from these investigations, and 

data already collected on elk, will be used to focus future research on impacts of these species on bears. 

The Service would implement Objectives 3.2 and 3.address the research needs identified in this recomm

232 Develop methods to objectively document annual vegetative 

abundance and availability to bears in representative habitats on the Kodiak archipelago. 

The Service e would implement Objective 2.8 to spe

recommendation. 

233 To minimize snowmachine impact on bears, additional 

research is needed to provide the facts necessary to identify highly sensitive areas of brown-bear habitat (e.g., denning areas). 

The Service expects to study, in cooperation with AD

distribution of bears on Afognak Island (Objective 2research would be evaluated when the Refuge updatinventory and monitoring plan two years after approConservation Plan (Objective 1.1). 

234 Identify funding sources to study effects of introduced species 

on bear habitat and conduct research to determine if a problem exists with introduced species depleting bears’ food resources or otherwise damaging bear habitat. When evaluating the results of research on introduced species, social issues (e.g., subsistence hunting) should be considered. Research should be subject to peer review. 

If the Preferred Alternative were adopted, the Servicseveral new goals and objectives (2.8, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6) and research of introduced species. Proposals would submitted for funding to increase Service support foCooperative funding would be pursued once individinitiated. Hunting would be addressed as needed if thpotential implications on hunting. The Service woulreview of study plans and results. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-36 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

235 Research the impact on bears of commercial use of 

salmonberries and blueberries. 

Although gathering of resources—such as berries, mantlers—for commercial purposes may be authorized importance of berries as a food source for bears woubefore authorizing such use. Objectives 2.8 and 3.6 a

berries and berry-producing shrubs as a food source deer on the Refuge. 

236 Continue evaluating species-specific salmon escapement levels 

against drainage-specific bear use of salmon; investigations should emphasize an ecosystem overview (e.g., salmon biological escapement goal [BEG] rather than bear densities). 

Escapement estimates for Dog Salmon River specifiuse of salmon. The Service would work with ADF&apply this same model to planning escapement leveldrainages in accordance with Objective 7.2. 

 Future Research—Bear-Human Interactions 

237 Examine bear use, human use, and bear-human interactions in 

areas of high bear concentration where public use has been established and where regulations limiting public use and access may be considered. 

This recommendation corresponds with Objective 2

238 Compare survival rates, including vulnerability to hunters, of 

bears that frequent structured bear-viewing sites with those that do not. 

Presently the Service does not think that bear huntinof bears habituated to routine bear viewing at Frazer handful of other locations on the Refuge. However, acknowledges the potential for increased risk posed viewing and other public use at Karluk Lake. If futudescribed in Objectives 2.1 and 2.4, identifies a probdetermine the need for research, and potentially appin Appendix T of the KABCMP to solve the problem

239 Delineate the movements and survival rates of bears that 

frequent solid-waste sites and other human-use areas. 

The Service interprets this recommendation to mean target food-conditioned bears that use the Larsen Bawould assess the specific need and priority for this rupdates its wildlife inventory and monitoring plan twof the revised Conservation Plan (Objective 1.1). 

240 Assess the relationship between quality of visitor experience 

and different types of bear-viewing operations. 

Allen and Collins {Allen, 2002 #456} assessed the gpertaining to the Refuge and other bear-viewing siteaddress site-specific relationship by implementing O10.5. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

241 Evaluate the effectiveness of landfill and on-site human food 

and garbage management strategies, including public education efforts, and refine efforts to improve their effectiveness. 

The Service would continue to monitor effectivenesmanagement in Refuge areas subject to intensive huimplemented, the Preferred Alternative would allow temporary, fortified food and waste facilities—such confluence of Bare Creek and the Ayakulik River—

242 Evaluate the effectiveness of bear-safety public education 

efforts and refine to improve effectiveness. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

243 Identify areas where hardened fishing campsites would 

minimize bear-human conflicts. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

244 Research and monitoring should be done to evaluate the 

effectiveness, in reduction of bear-human interactions, of depredation permits. 

The Refuge strongly supports ADF&G’s systematic human-caused bear mortality. The Service would audepartment’s effort through implementation of Obje

 Chapter 8: Education  Bear-Education—User Education-General 

245 Develop an intergovernmental working group composed of 

representatives from wildlife management agencies (ADF&G, USFWS), public safety agencies (Alaska State Troopers, local and military police departments), local governments (city, village, and borough), the Kodiak Fish & Game Advisory Committee, and Alaska State Parks. The working group should meet at least once each spring to review current policies to reduce bear-human encounters and to coordinate efforts for the upcoming year. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 

246 Develop a bear education kit, similar to that developed on the 

Kenai Peninsula (see section 8.2.1 in KABCMP), for Kodiak archipelago communities. It would include locally relevant materials that either already exist or need to be developed. A group of educators and biologists, similar to the one working on the Kenai kit, would work together to finalize and field test the Kodiak kit. Upon completion of the kit, ADF&G Project WILD staff and facilitators would develop and facilitate training sessions for teachers in each Kodiak archipelago community. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-38 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

247 Ensure a level of cooperative state and federal law enforcement 

deemed essential to achieve compliance with conservation laws and regulations; preventive education should be the first priority in this regard. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 15.5. 

248 Establish lines of communication among agencies with various 

areas of responsibility. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 15. 

249 Strongly encourage education of outdoor recreationists about 

bear behavior, impacts to bear habitat, bear-human interactions (e.g., resulting from improperly handled food and trash), field safety practices, and use of bear-resistant containers and electric fences, etc. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives Goal 12. 

250 To minimize bear problems, educate people about handling 

personal property, including chicken pens, fish-drying sheds, food-storage areas, and pet food. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives Goal 12. 

251 Ensure that visitors are made aware of the efforts to keep bears 

away from human food and garbage; individual responsibilities of visitors should be outlined and disseminated so that they recognize their role in preventing problems. 

The Service would implement Objectives 10.3 and 1increase the awareness of visitors and guides of their 

 Bear Education—User Education-Hunters 

252 Urge ADF&G, USFWS, and other appropriate groups to 

develop informational and educational materials to help minimize bear-human conflicts and thereby improve hunter image. These materials should be developed for multimedia use and include the following subjects: 

 trip planning and physical conditioning  meat handling and storage skills  bear behavior and safety  a safety-in-bear-country video for wide distribution and 

use 

This recommendation is consistent with Objectives 

253 Encourage guide/outfitters and transporters to make bear-safety 

educational materials available to all hunters. 

Refuge-permitted hunting guides are encouraged to information to their clients (Objective 11.2). 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

254 Encourage ADF&G to continue to track the number of bears 

killed by deer, elk, and goat hunters to minimize such bear mortality. ADF&G should make a serious effort to mitigate this problem through education of big-game hunters on how to avoid dangerous situations involving bears. 

The Refuge strongly supports ADF&G’s systematic human-caused bear mortality. The Service would audepartment’s effort through implementation of Obje

255 Require a mandatory hunter-safety course, which should 

include bear-safety instruction, before going afield to hunt in GMU 8. 

This would apply to Refuge lands if adopted by the 

256 Encourage ADF&G to develop other educational tools (e.g., 

videos using local people to educate hunters about hunting in bear country). 

The Refuge would use these tools in its educational available from the state. 

257 Submit an article (written by Hank Pennington) about hunting 

on Kodiak to a sporting magazine. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Bear Education—User Education-Off-Road Vehicles 

258 Create educational program to encourage responsible use of 

ORVs to minimize negative impacts on bear habitat. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goals 10 anwould address this recommendation though collectivObjectives 10.2, 10.7, 10.8, and 11.2. 

 Bear Education—User Education-Anglers 

259 Develop an educational program for anglers in cooperation 

with professional organizations, agencies, and sportsmen’s groups to include information about proper food and fish storage and cleaning of fish. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

260 Include bear biology, behavior, and safety information in the 

KNWR salmon camp curriculum. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12. Thcontinue to provide salmon campers with bear bioloinformation. 

 Bear Education—User Education—USCG 

261 Continue education cooperation between ADF&G and the 

USCG annually, or more often as required, to alert air crews to their wildlife-conservation responsibilities and to promote good relations within the community. 

This recommendation was implemented on April 30Refuge, ADF&G, and USCG signed a memorandum agreement directs the Refuge and ADF&G to increawith USCG Air Station officers and staff and to provinformation they can use to prevent displacement of interference with human hunting activities. 

 Economic Incentives and Land Management 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

262 Establish an education plan and explore economic incentives 

aimed at encouraging public and private landowners to consider the effects on bears of motorized access and to continue land-management programs that are consistent with wildlife conservation. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

263 Encourage private landowners (e.g., via the use of conservation 

easements, economic incentives, and education) to consider bear habitat when making land-management decisions. 

The Service would continue to use a variety of approstewardship of bear habitat by private landowners in accordance with Objective 10.2. 

 Villages and Rural Residents 

264 Identify appropriate elders and leaders to work with VPSOs to 

help educate residents about conservation laws, rules and regulations. 

The Refuge would facilitate this effort by directing itechnician to provide VPSOs with information on lapertain to the Refuge. Such action is consistent with 15.4. 

265 Encourage village residents, VPSOs, and appropriate agencies 

to work together to develop information and education materials and strategies to reduce bear-human conflicts in the villages. 

The Service would implement Objectives 15.4, 15.5

encourage information exchange, interagency coopeof bear-human conflicts in village communities. 

266 Encourage state troopers and USFWS to provide information 

to rural residents about the laws, rights, and duties regarding killing bears in defense of life or property (DLP). 

The Service would address this recommendation wh

Objectives 10.3, 12.2, and 15.4. 

267 Through a co-management agreement with the state, use 

village committees and VPSOs to take responsibility for working on DLP issues in villages, including solid-waste management issues; this should include a significant educational component (e.g., schools, videos, and employing elders). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Outreach 

268 Place educational materials in places (or with people) where 

they can be readily accessed (Web site, airport, magazines, tourism offices, USCG base, villages, guide/outfitters, public libraries, schools, museums, ferries, tribal council offices, Fish & Wildlife Protection officers, Alaska State Park offices and state parks staff, public radio, and television). 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

269 To foster cooperation, the Alaska Department of Public Safety, 

Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection [now Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement], and the USFWS conduct annual outreach programs, explaining regulations and enforcement issues (including DLPs) in communities throughout the Kodiak archipelago. 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12 and 15.6. 

270 Provide public information on actions planned by the 

intergovernmental working group and encourage public input and questions on those actions. 

This working group was established in 2000. Compoincluding the Service, its primary purpose was to facdevelopment. The Service welcomes further involveKABCMP implementation issues should they arise. 

271 Make available public information in a variety of media, 

including print, radio, public television, and personal appearances; attempt to meet the special needs of various cultures and ethnic groups. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

272 Make the public outreach program ongoing, with emphasis on 

bear behavior and suggestions on how to minimize negative bear-human interactions (comparisons of bear behavior around food and garbage to dog behavior in similar situations can be helpful in improving understanding). 

This recommendation is consistent with Goal 12. 

273 Encourage agencies to disclose management actions such as 

moving dumpsters, citing individuals for littering, aversive conditioning of bears, and lethal actions against problem bears. (All actions relating to bear-human interactions are matters of public record). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

274 Encourage the public to report to authorities observations of 

bears near human habitations. (These observations can help to track the activities of individual bears and allow managers to alert school principals and residents of areas in which to be especially cautious; observations should not be advertised to the general public, however, to avoid encouraging people seeking out bears). 

Holders of Refuge special-use and public-use-cabin report bear problems to the Refuge. 

275 Locate on-site bear safety reminders on dumpsters (e.g., “Be 

Bear Aware”) and at collections sites (i.e., public landfills). 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan Recommendations 

C-42 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

276 Work with service providers to make available to all visitors 

educational materials emphasizing bear safety, realistic expectations for bear viewing (including cost of access), Kodiak bear life history, and proper wildlife management. These materials should include ADF&G and KNWR bearsafety brochures and all materials specific to bear viewing. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

277 Disseminate bear-viewing guidelines for the public and private 

sector that reflect safety while viewing bears from the ground or by walking, and procedures to alert bears to human presence. These guidelines should stress low-impact bear viewing by all users in all locations and should be similar to those of the North American Nature Photographers Association. 

This recommendation is consistent with Objective 1

278 Investigate road-accessible wildlife- and bear-education 

opportunities that would minimize negative bear-human conflicts. A suggested area is along Buskin Lake near the golf course. The area could include interpretive signs dealing with wildlife management, habitat, track identification, realistic bear-viewing opportunities, and safety. Small spotting scopes such as those at Fort Abercrombie could be installed so that visitors could get a close-up view of habitat areas for bears, goats, ducks, eagles, etc. Other areas suggested for bear education/interpretive signing/viewing possibility on the road system are Buskin River State Recreation Site and Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 

 Funding 

279 Seek funding for islandwide education and regulation of bearviewing businesses through, but not limited to, the following: 

 reasonable permit fees  sale of Kodiak Wildlife Viewing stamps  Wildlife Restoration funds  Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Although this recommendation does not apply to the consistent with the intent of Goal 12. 
Appendix C: Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management P

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Index 

No. 

Recommendation Refuge Management Direct

280 Recommend the statewide sale of Wildlife Stamps (similar to 

Duck Stamps or Colorado Wildlife stamps) to both Alaska residents and nonresidents. Sales should be broad-based and aimed at nonconsumptive users of wildlife rather than at commercial operators. 

This recommendation does not apply to the Refuge. 
Appendix D 

Co-operative Management Agreement for the 

Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 
Appendix D 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-1 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-3 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-5 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-7 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-9 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-11 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-13 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-15 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-17 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-19 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-21 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-23 
Appendix D: Co-operative Management Agreement for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project 

D-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E 

 

 

 

 

Compatibility Determinations 

 

Use: Commercial Fishing ................................................................................................................E-1

Use: Commercially Guided and Outfitted Hunting Services .....................................................E-7

Use: Commercially Guided Recreational Fishing Services......................................................E-17

Use: Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, 

and Interpretation .................................................................................................................E-27

Use: Commercial Transporter Services ......................................................................................E-37

Use: Fisheries Projects at Frazer Fish Pass, Hidden Lake, and Spiridon Lake..................E-45

Use: Helicopter Use to Support Authorized Activities by Other Federal, Tribal, 

State, and Local Governments and for Maintenance of One Private 

Radio Repeater Site ..............................................................................................................E-49

Use: Limited Military Training Activities...................................................................................E-55

Use: Unguided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, 

and Interpretation .................................................................................................................E-61

Use: O’Malley River Bear-Viewing Program .............................................................................E-67

Use: Other Public Uses..................................................................................................................E-77

Use: Private Cabin and Temporary Camp Special Use Permits.............................................E-81

Use: Public use Cabins...................................................................................................................E-87

Use: Reburial of Archaeological Human Remains per State and Federal Guidelines .........E-91

Use: Recreational Fishing.............................................................................................................E-97

Use: Recreational Hunting..........................................................................................................E-103

Use: Residence Permit.................................................................................................................E-109

Use: Scientific Research ..............................................................................................................E-113

Use: Snowmachines (Snowmobiles)...........................................................................................E-119

Use: State of Alaska Management Activities ...........................................................................E-123

Use: Subsistence Activities .........................................................................................................E-127

Use: Trapping................................................................................................................................E-131
Appendix E 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Commercial Fishing 

Primary Use: Fishing (commercial) 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), fishing (general), fishing (other), hunting (big game), hunting (other 

migratory birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant 

gathering, natural resource collecting, camping, hiking and backpacking, pets, 

photography, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), fishing (subsistence), 

gathering (subsistence), hunting (subsistence), subsistence (other), photography 

(wildlife), wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest (firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (1980). 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following:

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-1 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use(s) 

This determination re-evaluates commercial fishing and facilities related to 

commercial fishing on the Refuge as described in the 1987 Kodiak Refuge 

Management Plan for Commercial Fishing Activities. Section 304(d) of the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act allows the exercise of valid commercial 

fishing rights and the use of Refuge lands for structures and activities incident to the 

fishing rights as long as they are compatible with Refuge purposes and not a 

significant expansion of the level of such commercial fishing activities within the 

Refuge during 1979. The uses evaluated in the previously mentioned plan consisted 

of 25 setnet site special use permits that authorized the following types of facilities 

and uses: 

 Primary type of facilities authorized per site: 

– One primary cabin for living quarters, cooking, food and dry goods storage,

laundry, shower stall, and area for wet clothes 

– One structure for off-season gear storage and in-season overflow living quarters 

and workspace 

– One outhouse

– One banya, if there is an inadequate fresh-water supply at the site 

– A small water storage tank (if necessary to build head for water supply) 

 Size of facilities 

– Primary cabin—600 square feet 

– Utility cabin—400 square feet (for holders of 1–3 limited entry permits); 500 

square feet (for holders of 4 limited entry permits), and 600 square feet (for

holders of 5 limited entry permits) 

– Banya—64 square feet (if freshwater source is not adequate for shower) 

Facilities may be occupied from May 15 through September 15 annually. Occupancy 

at other times of the year must be authorized by the Refuge Manager. Commercial 

fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska to maintain healthy fish populations; 

one of the purposes of Kodiak Refuge. Therefore, facilitating continued commercial 

fishing directly contributes to achieving Refuge purposes. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage the 

commercial fishing special use permit program. Administrative staff time is used to 

prepare the permits. Field staff visit sites and conduct inspections for compliance 

with the terms and conditions of the special use permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

With the levels of use and related facilities described in the Management Plan for 

Commercial Fishing Activities, no long-term significant adverse effects on Refuge 

resources are anticipated. Most of the facilities have been in place for a number of 

years. The potential for adverse human-bear encounters always exists on Kodiak 

Refuge, especially where people congregate and especially associated with fishing. 

Special conditions in special use permits are designed to minimize this danger. 

E-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Reported defense-of-life-or-property bear kills are considered when the State of 

Alaska is establishing the number of brown bear hunting permits to be issued so nolong-term adverse impacts would occur even if there are bear kills associated with 

these permits. 

Invasive plants could become established at these sites because of the continued 

presence of visitors and existing vegetation and soil disturbance. These sites would be

relatively easy to monitor for the presence of invasive plants, and eradication efforts 

could be undertaken prior to invasive plants spreading beyond the immediate vicinity. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. The State of Alaska commented about allocation of 

setnet fishing permits. The justification section of the compatibility determination was 

changed to clarify that the service was discussing special use permits issued by the 

Refuge for setnet site facilities; not limited entry permits issued by the State of Alaska 

for commercial fishing. There were no other public comments about this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Primary facilities permitted per site are one cabin (600 square feet), one utility structure 

(400 square feet), one outhouse, and one banya (64 square feet) if a fresh water source is 

not adequate for a shower. 

 Buildings must be single story, and the exterior must be a dull color that blends with the 

surroundings. 

 If existing facilities contain less square footage than allowed in the cabin management 

plan, the size of facilities may be increased up to the maximum. However, the increase will 

only be allowed if the total number of structures on site is brought into conformance with 

the cabin management plan. 

 If existing facilities contain more square footage than allowed in the cabin management 

plan and these facilities are removed, replacement facilities must conform to 

specifications of the plan. 

 New garden plots are not allowed. 

 A special use permit is required 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. The step-down plan for commercial fisheries activities will be 

revised as necessary to identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to 

remain compatible with Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of these and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-3 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

The following permit special conditions will be updated, if necessary, when the Kodiak 

Refuge Management Plan for Commercial Fishing Activities is revised. 

Regional Special Conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities 

allowed by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party 

chief/supervisor; aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for 

these vehicles; and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided 

in the original permit application. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the 

permittee except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon 

completion of permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 Unauthorized caches of fuel are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance 

with regional Service fuel storage policy. 

E-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Subject to available suppression resources, all permitted cabins will be protected from

wildfire to the extent possible. Human safety will receive the highest priority 

consideration by land managers and fire-suppression personnel. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent 

resource problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource 

problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the permittee’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or

other uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 Additions or alterations to existing structures and construction of new facilities must have 

the Refuge Manager’s prior approval in writing. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

 This is a permit for the specific approved commercial use from a designated site. No

permitted cabin (site) may be used for recreational purposes, and no cabin may be sublet 

or rented. 

Justification 

Analysis conducted as part of the Refuge’s original comprehensive conservation planning 

process found that commercial fishing–related activities on Kodiak Refuge had expanded 

beyond the 1979 level and that any further expansion of facilities would not be compatible

with Refuge purposes. Since 1979, some facilities on selected Refuge lands were

conveyed to private ownership. Commercial fishing activities continue on these sites, but 

are no longer administered by the Refuge. Other new facility sites include several

recently constructed on private land and on islands administered by Alaska Maritime 

Refuge. The Kodiak Refuge, with substantial input from commercial fishing setnet 

permit holders and others, prepared the 1987 plan to address concerns that had been 

raised relative to adverse effects of facilities on Refuge resources. The plan was crafted 

to ensure that commercial fishing activities could continue without materially interfering 

with or detracting from the purposes of Kodiak Refuge. The 1994 public use 

management plan also concluded that no new permits for commercial fishing support 

facilities should be issued on the Refuge. Comments received from Refuge setnet site 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-5 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Commercially Guided and Outfitted Hunting Services 

Primary Use: Hunting (big-game guiding, small game and waterfowl guiding and outfitting) 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), fishing 

(guiding and outfitting), hunting (upland-game—guiding or outfitting), hunting 

(waterfowl—guiding or outfitting), hunting (other—guiding or outfitting), plant

gathering, natural resource collecting, camping, hiking and backpacking, pets, 

photography, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), photography 

(wildlife), wildlife observation (guiding or outfitting), fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest

(firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-7 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates commercial guiding and outfitting services for 

recreational hunting on Kodiak Refuge. Although big game species, brown bear, deer, 

mountain goat, and elk are the primary species hunted, waterfowl, ptarmigan, fox, and 

other species are also hunted by clients of guides and outfitters. The compatibility of 

recreational hunting is evaluated separately. Guided hunting of brown bear predates 

Refuge establishment in 1941. Other commercial uses conducted concurrently and 

incidentally to big-game guiding activities are routinely authorized. These include 

wildlife viewing, photography, guided small-game and waterfowl hunting, hiking, river 

floating, other related activities, and boat and aircraft access. Commercially guided 

hunting and related services contribute to fulfillment of Refuge purposes and to the

National Wildlife Refuge System mission by facilitating priority public use and 

management of healthy wildlife populations through controlled hunting. 

Big-game guides are competitively selected to operate on Refuge lands through a formal 

process established by regional policy in 1992. This policy manages commercial guiding 

activities at a level that is compatible with Refuge purposes and that ensures high-quality 

guiding services are available for the public. There are 25 big-game guide use areas on

the Refuge. All the guide areas are designated as sole-use areas and are limited to one 

authorized guide. Individual guides are limited to special use permits for no more than 

three use areas on Refuge lands in Alaska. 

Currently, there are 17 guides operating on the Refuge. Guides must be qualified and 

licensed by the State of Alaska and are required to follow their written operations plans, 

which are evaluated by Service personnel during the competitive selection process. 

Operations plans include (1) dates of operation, (2) species to be hunted, (3) maximum

and expected number of clients for each species, (4) number and type of existing or new 

camps (i.e., tent, temporary platform with tent, cabin, boat), including other needed 

facilities such as caches, (5) access points and mode(s) of transportation (i.e., airplanes,

boats, and other nonmotorized means), (6) fuel storage needs, and (7) services provided

by others (contracts for transportation, food services, etc.). 

In addition to the competitively awarded permits for big game guiding, permits are issued 

for guided hunting of other than big game. This type of permit allows for the guiding of

small game and waterfowl hunters. From one to three permits are issued annually. 

This compatibility determination addresses the full spectrum of uses associated with the 

overall activity of commercially guided hunting, including all means of access, lodging and 

facilities, and other elements identified in the guides’ operations plans. Authorized 

means of access for areas on the Refuge include fixed-wing aircraft, motorboats, 

nonpowered boats, hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. Lodging and facilities 

include tents, tent frames, temporary platforms, existing cabins, and caches. Use of offroad vehicles by hunting guides and their clients is prohibited on the Refuge. 

Hunting guides operate on the Refuge from early spring through late fall, in accordance 

with seasons established by State of Alaska hunting regulations. Guiding occurs during

the various hunting seasons. Guides are in the field before and after seasons, preparing 

E-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

for hunting season and removing any temporary facilities established under their special 

use permits. Guides report their activities annually as required under the terms of their 

special use permits. 

From 1997 through 2002, guided recreational hunting averaged about 760 client use days 

per year, with a high of 1,311 use days in 1998 and a low of 546 use days in 2002. Most 

guided hunting is brown bear hunting. There is also guided goat and deer hunting. 

Under state law, most hunters who are not Alaska residents must use the services of a 

licensed big game guide to hunt brown bears and mountain goats. There are occasional

guided elk hunts, and guided hunters may also harvest reindeer. For other-than-biggame hunts, waterfowl, small upland game are the target species. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage guided

big-game hunting activities at existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time 

primarily involves issuing and renewing special use permits every five years; ensuring 

licenses and certifications are current; collecting client use day fees; and reporting data 

on an annual basis. Fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily 

involves monitoring the permittees’ compliance with permit terms. 

Permits are issued competitively for a five-year term, with provision for automatic 

renewal for a second five-year term. The competitive process requires a significant level 

of time and effort for the applicants as well as for Refuge and agency staff.

Refuge staff participation includes the following: Refuge Manager—five months, full 

time, for the competitive process, possibly including additional time for dealing with

appeals that result in litigation; Refuge staff members who served on ranking panels 

(three panel members for five weeks each) equal 3.75 months staff time; administrative 

staff assistance provided by this Refuge—two people for two weeks each (1.0 months). 

Total minimum staff time by Kodiak Refuge staff members is 9.75 months to issue 25 

permits. 

Refuge staff time to annually administer and monitor these permits is 9.0 months. 

Transportation and other operational costs for monitoring is about $25,000 per year. A

nonrefundable administrative fee is assessed when each permit is issued. In addition, 

client use fees are assessed for each day a guide has a client on the Refuge. Current 

client use fees are $16.70 for bear hunters, with $100.00 per-client minimum, and $5.60 for 

deer and goat hunters. Fees collected are deposited into the general fund and are not 

returned to the Refuge. 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are also available to manage other 

than big-game guiding activities at existing and projected levels. Currently, there is a 

nonrefundable administrative fee for this annual permit and a client use fee of $5.60 per 

day is assessed each day a guide has a client on the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Criteria in the competitive scoring and selection process used to select big-game guide 

permittees address minimizing impacts to Refuge resources and to other visitors. These 

criteria include impacts on wildlife resources; other Refuge resources such as water 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-9 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

quality, soil and vegetation disturbance, and other Refuge users, especially subsistence. 

The criteria address such factors as target species, number of clients, transportation 

modes, number of and amount of aircraft use, fuel storage, garbage and human waste 

management, methods to protect wildlife and habitat, type and location of lodging, and 

location of access points. These selection criteria are used to rank or score applicants and 

provide a strong incentive to maintain a low-impact guide service. Permit conditions and 

stipulations noted in a following section also contribute to minimizing potential impacts. 

Commercial big-game guide operations have limited competition with other recreational 

or subsistence harvest. Brown bear hunting on Kodiak is tightly regulated by the State of 

Alaska’s drawing permit system. A specific number of permits are available each season

for resident and nonresident hunters. A limited number of federal permits (11) are 

available for subsistence use, with an average harvest of three bears each year. Guides

use a variety of strategies to minimize conflicts with other hunters, including basing their 

operations on private land, using less desirable camping locations, or backpacking camps 

into more remote parts of hunt areas. Guided hunts for waterfowl, ptarmigan, and small 

game have similar patterns of Refuge use. 

Big-game guides also may target deer and mountain goats, the latter being an introduced 

species that is rapidly expanding its range on Kodiak Island. Maximum harvest quotas 

are established for each hunt area for mountain goats and brown bears to maintain 

population objectives. State hunting regulations favor harvest of male bears to protect 

breeding females. No harvest quotas are established for deer by the Service because

weather, not hunting, is the primary limiting factor on deer populations. 

Refuge officers and State Troopers routinely patrol the Refuge during the relatively

short big-game hunting seasons. 

A majority of the guides access the Refuge by landing on saltwater, lakes, and rivers with 

float-equipped aircraft or by boats, thus minimizing impacts on Refuge habitat. A 

potential impact or threat associated with floatplane access is the introduction of invasive 

species carried on the aircraft floats, although it is not known to have occurred on the 

Kodiak Archipelago to date. Temporary displacement and/or disturbance to wildlife can 

occur during takeoffs and approaches to landings. There may be occasional disturbance 

of wildlife along coastal areas used by boats. There are no known long-term impacts to 

Refuge wildlife populations from this disturbance. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. However, the State of Alaska noted during a meeting that there were 

inconsistencies in some of the special conditions for special use permits. These 

inconsistencies were corrected.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

E-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the Refuge 

will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to identify specific 

management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with Refuge purposes. This 

includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other compatible activities. Findings from

monitoring would be used to determine what additional management actions, if any, were needed to 

ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement and administrative monitoring of permits will be 

carried out to ensure compliance with the following conditions that are incorporated into all permits 

to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas will be 

replaced by special conditions developed through the step-down planning process outlined in 

the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Regional Special Conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related provision

in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent state regulation 

(e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate revocation of this permit 

and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons working under the authority of this 

permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of decisions relative to permits are handled in 

accordance with 50 Code of Federal Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, aircraft 

pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities allowed by this 

permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be reported 

immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska 

State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or lands 

covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for noncompliance 

or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working hours in 

person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed by this 

permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the Refuge 

Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; aircraft and 

other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; and names of crew 

members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original permit application. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the Refuge 

with (1) a copy of current business license and guide-outfitter license; (2) proof of 

comprehensive general liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as 

additionally insured, ($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate for guides/outfitters) 

covering all aspects of operations throughout the annual use period; (3) changes in names of 

assistant guides and other employees; (4) copies of CPR and First Aid cards for permittee and all 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-11 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

personnel that will operate on the Refuge; and (5) any changes in information provided for the 

original special use permit proposed operations plan. 

 The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the Refuge Manager 

with a comprehensive summary report of the number of clients, number of client days per 

activity type and locations by December 31 for all uses during that calendar year, unless stated 

otherwise in the permit. The permittee shall provide this information on a Hunting Activity

Report form provided with the special use permit. A legible copy of the state’s “Hunt Record” 

for each client will be required in addition to the summary report. 

 A nonrefundable administrative fee will be assessed prior to issuing this permit. The permittee 

shall provide the Refuge Manager client-use information on a form provided with the special use 

permit at the end of the calendar year. Client use day fee for bear hunters, deer hunters and goat 

hunters will be assessed. Client use fees are adjusted by the Regional Office every three years 

based on the Implicit Price Deflator Index (PDI). A client use day is defined as one calendar day 

(24 hours), or portion thereof, for each client using the Refuge. 

 Failure to report the actual number of client use days per type of authorized activity by

December 31 of each calendar year and annually paying the Service’s established fees (client 

use day and reserved land site) within 30 days after receiving a bill for collection will be grounds 

for revocation of this permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the 

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are prohibited. The 

excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, or archaeological 

specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must be 

located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee except 

for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of permitted 

activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, harassment, 

hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, except for takeoff 

and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized caches of fuel or other supplies are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be as 

outlined in the operations plan and in compliance with regional Service fuel storage policy.

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited.

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or other 

types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource problems or 

conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by this 

permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited unless a 

letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any activities 

allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

E-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the Refuge

Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No 

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper disposal 

of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, bottles, 

fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and disposed of off 

Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee or his or her designated assistant must accompany clients while on the Refuge. 

Permittee or assistant must be present within the permit area while clients are engaged in 

activities authorized under this permit. Permittees with more than one permit area must be 

present within one of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge areas in which they are authorized to 

operate. 

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of the 

O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, occupancy,

and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 annually. 

 The following areas are currently closed seasonally to commercial use: 

– Connecticut Creek (July 15–August 31)

– Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15) 

– Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15) 

– Lower Dog Salmon Falls (June 25–August 31) 

 The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day use only by commercial users: 

– Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1–August 31) 

– Upper Thumb River (July 1–August 31)

– Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31) 

– Little River Lakeshore (July 15–August 31) 

– Deadman Bay Creek (August 15–September 30) 

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 25 

through July 15: 

– Over fly the area of intended landing to check for floaters and other aircraft. 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on CTAF 

122.8. 

– Slow (displacement) taxi only, no step taxi. 

– No takeoff or landing on the four designated corners. (See attached map.) 

– Unless the wind creates a safety hazard or makes operations impossible, the area

downstream from easternmost designated corner is restricted to landings and 

displacement taxi only. Avoid the lower area for takeoff or landing.

– Please advise your clients that airplanes are necessary for the Ayakulik recreational 

fishery, but there are hazards to both anglers and airplanes. Everyone involved needs to 

be cautious, courteous, and respectful of other users on the river and the resource. 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers in 

contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Motorboat operators must possess U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) licenses for all passenger-carrying 

operations, if required by USCG regulations. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-13 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or harasses 

other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. Examples of prohibited 

acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or persons at less than 500 feet 

(unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects on any landable area to restrict use

by other aircraft or persons. 

 The permittee’s operations plan and the attached synopsis, as amended and accepted by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, are hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special condition. All 

deviations from the operations plan and synopsis must receive prior written approval by the 

Refuge Manager or his/her designee. 

 No long-term tent camps are permitted on Refuge lands without permission of the Refuge 

Manager. Overnight hunting camps may be maintained in one location for not more than 15 

days during any 30-day period and must be completely removed at the end of each camping 

period. All commercial tent camps must be located at least three miles from other commercial 

camps and must be moved at least three miles following each use period. All camps must be 

located at least one mile from any Refuge public use cabin. 

 Fixed tent platforms are prohibited. Wall tents with floors that are completely removed from the 

Refuge at the end of the permit period are allowed. 

 Maximum overnight camp size will be six people, including guides and assistants. The Refuge 

Manager may restrict use and duration of some sites for overnight camping to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts. 

 The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from

subcontracting clients with any other guide.

 Access on Alaska Maritime NWR islands, rocks, and spires adjacent to Kodiak NWR is allowed 

for glassing or scoping of game and wildlife viewing. Access is restricted to day use only,

colonies of nesting birds must be avoided, and any foot travel must performed in a manner to

avoid damage of ground-nest sites. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or attempts to 

change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, deer, and eagles 

– Any other types of commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) 

Refuge Guide and Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 Additions or alterations to existing structures and construction of new facilities must have the 

Refuge Manager’s prior approval in writing.

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting seasons or 

for protection of life or property.

Justification 

Recreational hunting has been found to be compatible with the purposes of Kodiak 

Refuge and with the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Commercial big-game 

guiding and outfitting services are a form of traditional activity that Congress intended to

preserve with enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which 

redesignated the Refuge. These services support not only hunting, but also other 

activities, including wildlife observation and photography; these are three of the priority 

public uses of national wildlife refuges. Most non-Alaska residents would not be able to 

hunt brown bears on Kodiak Refuge if guiding were not allowed. 

E-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: January 2016 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

E-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Commercially Guided Recreational Fishing Services 

Primary Use: Fishing (guiding and outfitting) 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), hunting 

(upland-game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant gathering, rock collecting, 

natural resource collecting, camping, hiking and backpacking, pets, photography, video, 

filming, or audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), swimming and 

beach use, outdoor recreation (other), photography (wildlife), wildlife observation 

(guiding or outfitting), fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest (firewood) 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-17 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

This compatibility determination addresses the full spectrum of uses associated with 

commercially guided recreational fishing. This includes all means of access, lodging and 

facilities, and other elements identified in the guides’ operations plans. Commercial 

fishing guides target five species of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, steelhead, Dolly 

Varden, and Arctic char on the Refuge. This activity predates Refuge establishment and 

has been authorized on the Refuge since it was established in 1941. Other commercial 

uses conducted concurrently and incidental to guided recreational fishing are routinely 

authorized. These include wildlife viewing, photography, guided small game and 

waterfowl hunting, hiking, river floating, camping, and related activities. Commercially 

guided recreational fishing and related services contribute to fulfillment of Refuge 

purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission by facilitating priority public 

use and management of healthy fish populations through managed fishing. 

The compatibility of recreational fishing on Kodiak Refuge is evaluated in a separate 

compatibility determination. Means of authorized access include fixed-wing airplanes, 

motorboats, nonpowered boats, and hiking. Guided recreational fishing occurs spring 

through fall. Recreational fishing is managed under State of Alaska fishing regulations on 

the Refuge. 

Of the 117 drainages on the Refuge, 11 could be classified as having excellent recreational 

fishing opportunities, based on reasonable accessibility by float plane or boat, and

populations of anadromous and/or resident fish. Although all these drainages provide 

opportunities for day use and overnight primitive camping, cost of traveling to these 

areas for day use fishing is prohibitive for most visitors unless they are staying at a 

remote lodge providing this service. All 11 drainages provide opportunities for coho 

salmon fishing; however, only the Ayakulik and Karluk rivers support chinook and 

substantial numbers of steelhead. Although smaller populations of steelhead exist on

some of the other rivers, very little fishing effort has occurred on these rivers. 

Chinook salmon fishing usually starts in late May, and the run is typically over by July

10. Although fish are present in the systems through mid-August or later, there is a 

general closure to angling for chinook by regulation on July 25 to protect spawners. 

Steelhead usually start entering river systems in late August, and their numbers peak in

late October, although it is suspected that some fish continue to enter the rivers into 

early spring of the next year. Fishing for steelhead and resident rainbow in flowing fresh 

water has historically been closed by regulation from April 1 through June 14 to protect 

spawners. The Board of Fisheries recently opened a catch-and-release steelhead season

on portions of the Karluk and Ayakulik rivers during this time period. Coho enter the 

drainages from mid- to late-August and usually peak near the end of September. 

Recreational fishing for coho is usually good through early October in most systems. 

Fishing for Dolly Varden and Arctic char can be found year-round, depending on which 

river system is targeted.

Recreational fishing guides under permit from the Refuge may operate from a temporary 

camp on a river or from one of the remote lodges located on private lands adjacent to the 

Refuge. Until 2001, 24 recreational fishing guides—the maximum number allowed since 

the 1980s—operated under special use permits on the Refuge, offering both day and 

E-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

overnight trips for clients. In 2001, the number of recreational fishing guiding permits 

issued peaked when 36 were awarded.

In 2001, the Refuge implemented a prospectus system for awarding permits to 

recreational fishing guiding businesses in four drainages: the Dog Salmon, Ayakulik, 

Uganik, and Little River. Outside of these four drainages, there is no limit on the 

number of recreational fishing guides. Each fishing guide can have overnight camps on

only two river systems, and no more than two overnight camps are allowed per drainage

for all commercial activities by all guides. Guides are authorized to use any Refuge 

drainage not under prospectus, but are restricted to a group of six people for each trip 

(including guide and cook, if any). Each guide must submit a year-end report to the 

Refuge identifying the number of clients guided, the location(s) of fishing activities, and 

the number of fish caught by species. 

Recreational fishing, both guided and unguided, currently accounts for slightly more than 

one-third of overall annual public use on the Refuge. Guided recreational fishing is about 

half that use. From 1997 through 2003, an average of 1,743 guided recreational fishing 

use days annually occurred, with peak use of 2,272 guided use days in 1999 and a sevenyear low of 1,380 guided use days in 2002. Despite anecdotal evidence of fishing-use 

increases in selected areas, it appears that total use has been relatively stable for some

time. According to Schwarz and Clapsadl, estimated overall (including off-Refuge lands) 

Kodiak recreational fishing effort in 1997 was similar to the previous 10-year average 

(Schwarz and Clapsadl 2000). 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage

recreational fish commercial guiding activities at current and projected levels. 

Administrative staff time primarily involves issuing permits, ensuring that licenses and 

certifications are current, collecting client use day fees, and entering activity data into a 

database for analysis. Fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily 

involves monitoring the permittees’ compliance with the terms of the permits.

Refuge staff time to annually administer and monitor these permits is 9.0 months. 

Transportation and other operational costs, including a field camp on the Ayakulik River 

for monitoring, is about $30,000 per year. A nonrefundable administrative fee is assessed 

when each permit is issued. In addition, a client use fee is assessed for each day a guide 

has a client on the Refuge. Fees collected are deposited into the general fund and are not 

returned to the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Both the Federal Subsistence Board and State Board of Fisheries regularly adopt

regulations in response to fish population levels and to address issues of fishery 

allocation. The opportunity for continued subsistence uses of fishery resources by local 

residents receives the highest priority from the Federal Subsistence Board. Regulations 

have been implemented in recent years to address resource concerns at specific locations 

on or near the Refuge. 

The estimated guided recreational harvest of these fish is well within the limits 

established in various management plans. Past impact evaluations have focused on 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-19 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

impacts to the brown bear population. There has been one documented defense–of-lifeor-property bear kill by a sport fish guide on the Refuge. 

A majority of the guides access the Refuge by landing on lakes and rivers with floatequipped aircraft, thus minimizing impacts on Refuge habitat. A potential impact or 

threat associated with floatplane access is the introduction of invasive species carried on

the aircraft floats, although it is not known to have occurred on the Kodiak Archipelago

to date. Temporary displacement and/or disturbance to wildlife can occur during takeoffs and approaches to landings. There are no known long-term impacts to Refuge 

wildlife populations from this disturbance. 

Refuge officers and State Troopers routinely patrol the Refuge to monitor compliance 

with state regulations and permit conditions. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with revision of the Refuge’s comprehensive 

conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility determination. 

However, the State of Alaska noted during a meeting that there were inconsistencies in 

some of the special conditions for special use permits. These inconsistencies were 

corrected.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas will be 

replaced by special conditions developed through the step-down planning process outlined in 

the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

E-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities 

allowed by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party 

chief/supervisor; aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for 

these vehicles; and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided 

in the original permit application. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general 

liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as additionally insured,

($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate for guides/outfitters) covering all aspects 

of operations throughout the annual use period; (3) changes in names of assistant guides

and other employees; (4) copies of CPR and First Aid cards for permittee and all 

personnel that will operate on the Refuge; and (5) any changes in information provided

for the original special use permit proposed operations plan. 

 The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the Refuge

Manager with a comprehensive summary report of location, numbers of clients, dates, 

and numbers of fish caught (released and kept) by January 15 for all uses during that 

calendar year, unless stated otherwise in the permit. An annual nonrefundable 

administrative fee will be assessed prior issuing this permit. In addition, a client use day 

fee will be assessed at the end of the calendar year based on the permittee’s use report. 

Client use fees are adjusted by the Regional Office every three years based on the Implicit Price 

Deflator Index (PDI). The permittee shall provide this information on a Fishing Activity 

Report form provided with the special use permit. A legible copy of the state’s “Fishing 

Log” for each client may be required in addition to the summary report. For law 

enforcement purposes, the permittee may be required to provide names and addresses of 

clients. Failure to submit required reports and payments could result in the issuance of

citations and revocation of the permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-21 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the 

permittee except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon 

completion of permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all

aircraft, except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above 

ground level.

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized caches of fuel or other supplies are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be 

as outlined in the operations plan and in compliance with regional Service fuel storage

policy. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent 

resource problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource 

problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times 

while exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or

other uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee or his or her designated assistant must accompany clients while on the 

Refuge. Permittee or assistant must be present within the permit area while clients are

engaged in activities authorized under this permit. Permittees with more than one permit 

area must be present within one of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge areas in which 

they are authorized to operate.

E-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of 

the O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, 

occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 

annually. 

 The following areas are currently closed seasonally to commercial use: 

– Connecticut Creek (July 15–August 31) 

– Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15) 

– Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15) 

– Lower Dog Salmon Falls (June 25–August 31) 

 The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day use only by commercial 

users: 

– Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1–August 31)

– Upper Thumb River (July 1–August 31) 

– Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31)

– Little River Lakeshore (July 15–August 31) 

– Deadman Bay Creek (August 15–September 30)

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 

25 through July 15: 

– Over fly the area of intended landing to check for floaters and other aircraft. 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on 

CTAF 122.8.

– Slow (displacement) taxi only, no step taxi. 

– No takeoff or landing on the four designated corners. (See attached map.) 

– Unless the wind creates a safety hazard or makes operations impossible, the area

downstream from easternmost designated corner is restricted to landings and 

displacement taxi only. Avoid the lower area for takeoff or landing. 

– Please advise your clients that airplanes are necessary for the Ayakulik 

recreational fishery, but there are hazards to both anglers and airplanes. Everyone 

involved needs to be cautious, courteous, and respectful of other users on the river 

and the resource. 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Motorboat operators must possess U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) licenses for all passengercarrying operations, if required by USCG regulations. 

 The permittee’s operations plan and the attached synopsis, as amended and accepted by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special 

condition. All deviations from the operations plan and synopsis must receive prior 

written approval by the Refuge Manager or his/her designee. OR 

 The permittee’s operations plan, as amended and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, are hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special condition. All deviations 

from the operations plan must receive prior written approval by the Refuge Manager or 

his/her designee. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-23 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft or persons. 

 Fixed tent platforms are prohibited. Wall tents with floors that are completely removed 

from the Refuge at the end of the permit period are allowed. 

 Permittee is limited to one (1) overnight guide camp in each of a maximum of two (2) 

drainages specified for overnight use on the face of the permit. Concurrent possession of

more than one Refuge recreational fishing permit does not increase this limit. Any 

additional overnight camping must be approved in writing by the Refuge Manager. All 

guide camps must be located at least one (1) mile from other guide camps or Refuge 

public use cabins and must be completely removed after use. No more than two operators 

will be permitted to set up overnight camps on a given drainage at a given time. 

 The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from 

subcontracting clients with any other guide. 

 Maximum overnight camp size will be six people, including guides and assistants. The 

Refuge Manager may restrict use and duration of some sites for overnight camping to 

prevent resource problems or conflicts. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

– Any other types of commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) 

Refuge Guide and Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 Operations are allowed on the Ayakulik River, Little River, Frazer lake/Dog Salmon 

River and the Uganik Lake/Lower Uganik drainages only by guides awarded permits 

through the prospectus system. 

Justification 

Commercially guided fishing services are a form of traditional activity that Congress

intended to preserve with enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act, which redesignated the Refuge. Guides support not only angling, but also other 

activities, including wildlife observation and photography, all of which the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act) identifies as priority public uses. Recreational fishing guiding 

operations on the Refuge provide the public with high-quality, safe, and unique 

recreational fishing opportunities found few places in the world. These visitor services 

are a valuable benefit to a segment of the public that is either not physically able to, not

comfortable with, or for other reasons chooses not to participate in unguided fishing trips 

on the Refuge. 

Recreational fishing has been found compatible with Refuge purposes and is one of the 

priority public uses of national wildlife refuges. Guides help facilitate public participation 

E-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation. 

Primary Use: Environmental education (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), 

interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), photography 

(wildlife), and wildlife observation (guiding or outfitting). 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), plant gathering, natural resource collecting, camping, cross-country 

skiing, dog training (including field trials), dog sledding and ski jouring, hiking and 

backpacking, pets, photography, snowshoeing, swimming and beach use, outdoor 

recreation (other), fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest (firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-27 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates the following commercially guided wildlife-dependent

activities: wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation when they are provided as separate services from guided hunting or 

recreational fishing. Compatibility of guided hunting and fishing is evaluated separately. 

Associated activities such as camping, backpacking, hiking, and other incidental uses are 

considered part of these wildlife-dependent activities for the purposes of this evaluation. 

These activities primarily occur during summer and early fall. 

Over the last several years, the total number of wildlife viewing use days has been fairly

stable, ranging from 1,207 in 2000 to 865 in 2001. The mix of guided and unguided use 

within this total has varied substantially, with guided use being two to five times the 

amount of unguided use. The number of permits issued for wildlife viewing and 

photography guides is not limited and has increased steadily from five in 1990 to 20 in 

2000 and 25 in 2001. There is no upper limit on the number of permits that can be issued. 

Most of the permits that are issued are for day use. Not all of these permits are used;

recent interest may have been spurred by the plan revision process, with some 

businesses wanting to get a “foot in the door” in case permits became limited later. 

Currently, an applicant submits an operations plan, and it is reviewed by the staff for 

potential conflicts with Refuge purposes or other users. If there is no apparent problem, 

the operations plan is made part of the special conditions, and the permit is issued. 

Commercially guided viewing is offered by a range of air-taxi, lodge, and marine 

transport services. Air-taxi operators offer single-day trips—which may combine aerial 

viewing, landing, and hiking to a viewing site—while lodge operators offer a multi-day, 

multi-purpose venue, which often includes guided bear viewing. Most guided, walk-in 

viewing is a site- and time-specific group venture. 

Many of the lodges on Kodiak Island conduct bear viewing as part of their operations, but 

usually in conjunction with other activities such as recreational fishing or other wildlife 

viewing. Some lodges offer bear viewing exclusively during times of the year when other 

activities such as hunting are not available. Guides typically seek to provide small groups 

of clients (two to six people) a wildland experience in which the clients have the 

opportunity to go unnoticed by bears as they watch and photograph them in their natural 

habitat. Most viewing is done at locations relatively close to the lodge and accessible by

boat ride (usually a skiff, although some operators use sea kayaks) and possibly a one- or 

two-mile hike. Viewing at these areas is usually dictated by timing of salmon migrations, 

which cause the bears to gather at predictable locations, and the huge tidal fluctuations in 

the long narrow bays of Kodiak Island, which determine when and for how long an outing 

can last. 

Some operators do not limit their bear viewing to Kodiak Island; they also use areas of 

the Katmai coast to provide additional viewing opportunities, especially earlier in the 

season. Lodges provide a range of wildlife-viewing opportunities over the course of 

several days. Lodge visits may involve a short hike up one of Kodiak’s coastal rivers, a 

boat ride to one of numerous bays, a floatplane ride to Frazer Lake, watching marine 

E-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

mammals and other marine wildlife, or, quite possibly, many or all of these activities over 

a three- to five-day visit. Most visitors to Kodiak Island desire to see a brown bear; no

matter what type of trip they come for, a bear sighting is almost always an added benefit. 

Air charters typically take clients to different areas during different times of year, 

depending on where bears are congregated. Information from other pilots can be a 

critical decision-making factor when the weather is flyable to more than one location. 

Viewing is typically better along the Katmai coast during May and June when bears are 

feeding in sedge meadows and along mud flats before the annual salmon migration 

begins. 

Once the salmon start to arrive, viewing improves on Kodiak Island in late July, August 

and into September as bears congregate at places like Karluk Lake and Frazer fish pass, 

which is easily accessible by float plane and a three-quarter–mile hike. One guide said it 

was nice to have an “ace in the hole” like Frazer where bears can be dependably seen. 

While these operators take small groups of two to six people, it is common to see other 

groups at these locations. A limited number of locations are readily accessible by 

floatplane, unaffected by tides, and provide consistent chances of seeing bears. 

Many people interviewed as part of a bear-viewing assessment conducted by the Service 

(Allen and Collins 2002) thought that people who have experience with areas such as 

Brooks Camp, McNeil River, and Pack Creek tend to seek out and prefer more primitive 

types of experiences offered at other areas such as the Katmai coast and Kodiak Island.

Several operators on Kodiak commented that people who do not know what to expect, or 

have preconceptions of an experience similar to McNeil River or Brooks Camp, are very

satisfied with the experience they do have and appreciate the fact that it is not the same

type of bear viewing they might find at other places. 

Over the life of the revised conservation plan (approximately 15 years), overall visitor use 

is expected to increase 20 percent to 30 percent, and some shifts in type of use and users 

may also occur. On Kodiak Refuge, it is anticipated that wildlife viewing will increase as a 

proportion of total recreation use days, and nonresidents will constitute a larger

proportion of the visitor population than they do today. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage wildlifedependent recreational activities at present levels. Administrative staff time primarily 

involves phone conversations, written correspondence, public use surveys, and 

interaction with visitors at the visitor center. As use increases, and there are demands to 

offer access to some areas currently closed administratively to commercial access, needs 

for staffing and funding will increase. Step-down planning processes, including intensive 

public involvement, are called for in the conservation plan prior to opening any of these 

areas. Such plans require staff time to develop, implement, and monitor, including 

biological monitoring to ensure compatibility of recreational use with Refuge purposes. 

These additional activities can be undertaken only as addition of staff and funding allows. 

Some minimal level of increase may be possible with out increases in staff and funding. 

There is also additional work entering activity data into a database for analysis. At

present, fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily involves 

conducting patrols to increase visitor compliance with state and federal regulations and 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-29 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

to foster respect for local residents’ activities and property. As use increases and/or 

additional areas are opened for use, biological monitoring will be required with associated

needs for funding and staffing. 

Refuge staff time to annually administer and monitor these commercial permits is three 

months. Transportation and other operational costs for monitoring is about $5,000 per 

year. A nonrefundable administrative fee is assessed when each commercial permit is 

issued. In addition, a client use fee is assessed for each day a guide has a client on the 

Refuge. Fees collected are deposited into the general fund and are not returned to the 

Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Adverse impacts to Refuge wildlife and habitats associated with these priority public uses 

and associated uses are evaluated in the environmental impact statement for the revised 

Kodiak Refuge conservation plan. Negligible impacts to Refuge habitats from 

disturbance or introduction of invasive plants are anticipated. Possible localized adverse 

impacts to some bird species and brown bears have been documented, but the proposed

plan would not have any long-term population level impacts on Refuge wildlife. Positive 

effects on the local economy, though small, are anticipated from these uses. 

Implementation of access and bear-viewing management would initially affect bears at 

concentration areas newly opened to managed bear viewing and other public uses. This 

use would disturb and displace unhabituated bears, resulting in a measurable short-term 

decline in bear use levels, despite application of seasonal area-use guidelines and

restrictions. Recovery to current bear-use levels would be expected possibly by year two 

or three, and probably by year four (Barnes 2004), as most bears habituated to 

nonthreatening, consistent, and predictable visitor activity. 

The step-down planning process called for in the conservation plan will be used to

establish any additional opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography in sensitive 

locations. It would minimize adverse impacts, especially those associated with brown 

bear viewing and photography. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. However, the State of Alaska noted during a meeting that there were 

inconsistencies in some of the special conditions for special use permits. These 

inconsistencies were corrected.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

E-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas will be 

replaced by special conditions developed through the step-down planning process outlined in 

the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed 

by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; 

aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; 

and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original 

permit application. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general 

liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as additionally insured,

($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate for guides/outfitters) covering all aspects of 

operations throughout the annual use period; (3) changes in names of assistant guides and 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-31 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

other employees; (4) copies of CPR and First Aid cards for permittee and all personnel 

that will operate on the Refuge; and (5) any changes in information provided for the 

original special use permit proposed operations plan. 

 The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the Refuge

Manager with a comprehensive summary of location, numbers of clients, and number of 

client days by January 15 for all uses during the calendar year, unless stated otherwise in 

the permit. The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with this information on the 

form provided with the special use permit. An annual nonrefundable administrative fee 

will be assessed prior issuing this permit. In addition, a client use day will be assessed at 

the end of the calendar year based on the permittee’s use report. Client use fees are adjusted 

by the Regional Office every three years based on the Implicit Price Deflator Index (PDI). For 

law enforcement purposes, the permittee may be required to provide names and 

addresses of clients. Failure to submit required reports and payments could result in the 

issuance of citations and revocation of the permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

E-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee or his or her designated assistant must accompany clients while on the 

Refuge. Permittee or assistant must be present within the permit area while clients are

engaged in activities authorized under this permit. Permittees with more than one permit 

area must be present within one of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge areas in which 

they are authorized to operate.

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of 

the O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, 

occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 

annually. 

 The following areas are currently closed seasonally to commercial use: 

– Connecticut Creek (July 15–August 31) 

– Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15) 

– Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15) 

– Lower Dog Salmon Falls (June 25–August 31) 

 The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day use only by commercial 

users: 

– Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1–August 31)

– Upper Thumb River (July 1–August 31) 

– Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31)

– Little River Lakeshore (July 15–August 31) 

– Deadman Bay Creek (August 15–September 30)

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 25 

through July 15: 

– Over fly the area of intended landing to check for floaters and other aircraft. 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on 

CTAF 122.8.

– Slow (displacement) taxi only, no step taxi. 

– No takeoff or landing on the four designated corners. (See attached map.) 

– Unless the wind creates a safety hazard or makes operations impossible, the area

downstream from easternmost designated corner is restricted to landings and 

displacement taxi only. Avoid the lower area for takeoff or landing. 

– Please advise your clients that airplanes are necessary for the Ayakulik 

recreational fishery, but there are hazards to both anglers and airplanes. Everyone 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-33 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

involved needs to be cautious, courteous, and respectful of other users on the river 

and the resource. 

 Guided viewing at the Frazer Lake fish pass site: 

– Access to the marked fish pass wildlife-viewing area will be along the ADF&G trail 

from the lake and the trail around the base of the ADF&G compound. 

– Wildlife viewing will be conducted from the marked viewing area only. 

– Food and/or flavored drinks will not be transported to, or consumed at, the 

wildlife-viewing area. 

– Clients will use the designated toilet area near the lake landing whenever possible. 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Motorboat operators must possess U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) licenses for all passengercarrying operations, if required by USCG regulations. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft or persons. 

 The permittee’s operations plan, as amended and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, are hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special condition. 

 Permittee is limited to one (1) overnight guide camp in each of a maximum of two (2) 

drainages specified for overnight use on the face of the permit. Concurrent possession of a 

Refuge recreational fishing permit does not increase this limit. Any additional overnight 

camping must be approved in writing by the Refuge Manager. All guide camps must be

located at least one (1) mile from other guide camps or Refuge public use cabins and must 

be completely removed after use. No more than two operators will be permitted to set up 

overnight camps on a given drainage at a given time.

 Fixed tent platforms are prohibited. Wall tents with floors that are completely removed from the 

Refuge at the end of the permit period are allowed. 

 The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from 

subcontracting clients with any other guide. 

 Maximum overnight camp size will be six people, including guides and assistants. The 

Refuge Manager may restrict use and duration of some sites for overnight camping to 

prevent resource problems or conflicts. 

 Access on Alaska Maritime NWR islands, rocks, and spires adjacent to Kodiak NWR is 

allowed for wildlife viewing. Access is restricted to day use only, colonies of nesting birds 

must be avoided, and any foot travel must performed in a manner to avoid damage of 

ground-nest sites. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property.

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

E-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles

– Any other types of commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) 

Refuge Guide and Other Visitor Service Definitions.

Justification 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act) identifies compatible wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation as four of six priority public uses of national wildlife 

refuges. The law states that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish 

and wildlife management, administration of these uses has been and is expected to 

continue to be generally compatible and that that priority public uses should receive 

enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning and 

management. 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of guides ensure that these wildlifedependent activities can occur without adverse effects to Refuge resources, other visitors, 

or subsistence activities. Permitted guides facilitate public use and enjoyment of these 

activities while protecting Refuge resources. 

Supporting Documents 

Allen, S., and A. Collins. 2002. “An assessment of bear-viewing opportunities relevant to 

management of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 77 pp. 

Barnes, V.G. 2004. Personal communication with Bill Pyle, March 9, 2004, about effects of 

preferred alternative of revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan on brown bears. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kodiak, Alaska. 202 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-35 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Commercial Transporter Services 

Primary Use: Other uses

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), environmental education (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized 

agents), environmental education (other), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff 

or authorized agents), fishing (general), fishing (guiding and outfitting), fishing (other), 

hunting (big game), hunting (big-game guiding and outfitting), hunting (other migratory 

birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (upland game—guiding and outfitting), hunting 

(waterfowl), hunting (waterfowl—guiding and outfitting), hunting (other), hunting 

(other—guiding and outfitting), plant gathering, trapping, natural resource collecting, 

camping, cross-country skiing, dog sledding and ski jouring, hiking and backpacking, 

pets, photography, video, filming, or audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, 

recreational—other), snowshoeing, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), 

research, scientific collecting, surveys, fishing (subsistence), gathering (subsistence), 

hunting (subsistence), trapping (subsistence), subsistence (other), photography (wildlife), 

wildlife observation, wildlife observation (guiding or outfitting), fixed-wing aircraft, 

photography, video or filming or audio recording (commercial), photography, video or 

filming or audio recording (news and education), residential, uses (other). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-37 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

Kodiak Refuge is world-renowned for its hunting and fishing opportunities and scenic 

landscape. Commercial transport of clients to access the Refuge to hunt big game, fish, 

and participate in numerous other outdoor recreational activities predates Refuge 

establishment in 1941. Commercial transporters provide a service that most visitors 

require to access the Refuge. Most commercial transporting activities on the Refuge are 

conducted by air taxis with float-equipped aircraft. 

Transporters are required, as conditions of their permits, to provide information on the 

primary activity, location, length of stay, group size, and other related items. These 

reports provide the most accurate and reliable information the Service has on Refuge use 

by unguided visitors. Commercial transporter–related services contribute to fulfillment 

of Refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission by providing access 

for most Refuge visitors and therefore facilitate priority public uses and other uses found 

compatible in separate compatibility determinations. Many of these compatible public 

uses contribute directly to achieving healthy fish and wildlife populations through 

managed use. 

Ten air taxi operators are permitted to fly hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, and other 

visitors and commercial guides and fishing crews to and from the Refuge. Operators are 

required to submit quarterly reports of recreation client trips to Refuge lands. There is

currently no limit to the number of trips or recreation clients air taxi operators can take 

to the Refuge. Neither is there a limit to the number of air taxi operators permitted to 

operate on the Refuge. 

The general trend in numbers of air taxis authorized to operate on the Refuge has been

stable over the past 15 years. The revised conservation plan projects an increase of 20 

percent 30 percent in visitor use of Kodiak Refuge over the 15-year life of the plan. It is

assumed that this use would also include increased use of air transporters. Most use

occurs between May and October. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage

commercial transporting activities at current and projected levels. Administrative staff 

time primarily involves annually issuing permits, ensuring licenses and certifications are 

current, collecting client use day fees, and entering activity data into a database for 

E-38 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

analysis. Fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily involves 

monitoring the permittees’ compliance with the terms of the permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Impacts associated with the activities that occur on the Refuge as a result of commercial 

transporters providing the public access to the Refuge are addressed in the respective 

compatibility determinations for each activity. Due to the Refuge’s administrative 

oversight of the activity, comprehensive state and federal regulations, which continually 

evolve to respond to fisheries and wildlife management needs, and combined law 

enforcement efforts of the state and Refuge personnel, direct impacts from commercial 

transporter services under existing management should have minimal impacts to fish and 

wildlife resources, other Refuge resources, or other Refuge users as discussed 

subsequently. 

A majority of transporters access the Refuge by landing on saltwater, lakes, or rivers 

with float-equipped aircraft, thus minimizing impacts on Refuge habitat. Displacement of 

wildlife may occur, especially during landings and take offs or when weather conditions

prevent flying at the recommended minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level. A 

potential impact or threat associated with floatplane access is the introduction of invasive 

species carried on the aircraft floats, although it is not known to have occurred on Kodiak 

Archipelago to date. No upland aircraft landing locations have been developed on the 

Refuge, and wheeled-plane landings were prohibited prior to ANILCA. Absence of 

upland landings eliminates the associated impacts of compaction, erosion, and habitat

destruction in these areas. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. There were comments recommending motorboat and aircraft access to

the refuge be restricted. As explained below, access by airplanes and motorboats for 

traditional activities is provided by ANILCA and has been found to be compatible. 

Should motorized transportation grow to levels where it interferes with Refuge purposes, 

the Refuge would take actions necessary to address compatibility concerns. The State of 

Alaska noted during a meeting that there were inconsistencies in some of the special 

conditions for special use permits. These inconsistencies were corrected. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Step-down planning processes identified in the revised 

conservation plan will be used to identify specific management to ensure that this activity 

continues to remain compatible with Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlifeKodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-39 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

dependent recreation and other compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be 

used to determine what additional management actions, if any, were needed to ensure 

compatibility. Continuing law enforcement and administrative monitoring of permits will be 

carried out to ensure compliance with the following conditions that are incorporated into all 

permits to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas will be 

replaced by special conditions developed through the step-down planning process outlined in 

the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) aircraft or other vehicle types to be used, identification 

information for these vehicles; and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in 

information provided in the original permit application. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general 

liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as additionally insured,

($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate) covering all aspects of operations 

throughout the annual use period. 

 The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the Refuge

Manager with a comprehensive summary of location, numbers of clients, and number of 

client days by January 15 for all uses during the calendar year, unless stated otherwise in 

the permit. The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with this information on the 

form provided with the special use permit. An annual nonrefundable administrative fee 

will be assessed prior issuing this permit. In addition, a client drop-off and a client pick-up 

will be assessed at the end of the calendar year based on the permittee’s use report. Client 

use fees are adjusted by the Regional Office every three years based on the Implicit Price Deflator 

E-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Index (PDI). For law enforcement purposes, the permittee may be required to provide 

names and addresses of clients. Failure to submit required reports and payments could 

result in the issuance of citations and revocation of the permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the airplane at all times while exercising the

privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. Construction of 

cabins or other permanent structures outside of the guidelines found in the Cabin 

Management Plan is prohibited. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of 

the O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, 

occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 

annually. 

 The following areas are currently closed seasonally to commercial use: 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-41 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

– Connecticut Creek (July 15–August 31) 

– Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15) 

– Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15) 

– Lower Dog Salmon Falls (June 25–August 31) 

 The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day use only by commercial 

users: 

– Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1–August 31)

– Upper Thumb River (July 1–August 31) 

– Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31)

– Little River Lakeshore (July 15–August 31) 

– Deadman Bay Creek (August 15–September 30)

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 25 

through July 15: 

– Over fly the area of intended landing to check for floaters and other aircraft. 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on 

CTAF 122.8.

– Slow (displacement) taxi only, no step taxi. 

– No takeoff or landing on the four designated corners. (See attached map.) 

– Unless the wind creates a safety hazard or makes operations impossible, the area

downstream from easternmost designated corner is restricted to landings and 

displacement taxi only. Avoid the lower area for takeoff or landing. 

– Please advise your clients that airplanes are necessary for the Ayakulik 

recreational fishery, but there are hazards to both anglers and airplanes. Everyone 

involved needs to be cautious, courteous, and respectful of other users on the river 

and the resource. 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft or persons. 

 The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from 

subcontracting clients with any other transporter. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

– Commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) Refuge Guide and 

Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

E-42 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: January 2016 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

E-44 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Fisheries Projects at Frazer Fish Pass, Hidden Lake, and Spiridon Lake 

Primary Use: Fishery enhancement 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), fishing 

(general), plant gathering, natural-resource collecting, camping, photography, video, 

filming, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), research, scientific 

collecting, surveys, fishing (subsistence), photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, 

wildlife observation (guiding or outfitting), fixed-wing aircraft, photography, video or 

filming or audio recording (commercial), photography, video, filming, audio recording 

(news and education), audio recording (non-wildlife-dependent, recreational—other). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-45 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination evaluates compatibility of continuing three currently-authorized 

fisheries management projects on Kodiak Refuge. Alaska Department of Fish and Game

maintains a fish ladder on Dog Salmon Creek below Frazer Lake and has sockeye 

salmon–enhancement projects at Spiridon and Hidden lakes. 

As described by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Frazer Lake Sockeye 

Salmon Project Summary, Frazer Lake is located on the southern end of Kodiak Island.

Dog Salmon Creek, at the lake outlet, flows south eight miles into Olga Bay. A 30-foothigh waterfall occurs on Dog Salmon Creek about one-half mile below the lake outlet. 

These falls prevent upstream passage of salmon. Sockeye were introduced to Frazer

Lake in 1951 through an egg transplant. Adult returns in 1956 were packed over the falls, 

a practice that continued through 1962. A fish pass was constructed in 1962 and 

supplemented with another fish pass in 1979. The creation of this run has resulted in a 

valuable contribution to Kodiak’s economy, and these sockeye have become a valuable

food source for brown bears and bald eagles. 

In December 1990, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in cooperation with the Kodiak 

Regional Aquaculture Association, submitted a proposal to the Service to stock sockeye

salmon into Spiridon Lake. Spiridon Lake did not support a natural run of anadromous

fish because of an impassible series of falls located below the lake outlet. A plastic pipe 

was installed to allow smolts to pass around the falls and downstream to the ocean. This

long-term stocking project was proposed to improve the commercial harvest of sockeye in 

the Kodiak area. The commercial fleet harvests these fish along the west side of Kodiak 

and in a designated terminal harvest area within Spiridon Bay. 

In 1992, Alaska Department of Fish and Game proposed to stock sockeye salmon into

Hidden Lake on the Afognak-Ban Island Unit of Kodiak Refuge. Hidden Lake is located 

on the northwestern shore of Afognak Island and does not support native stocks of 

salmon because of an impassible falls downstream of the lake outlet. All returning adult 

sockeye are harvested in traditional fishing areas in the northwestern Afognak area or in 

a special harvest area within Foul Bay. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage these 

projects. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Impacts of these projects included permanent and temporary facilities to support the 

necessary daily work during the field season. Frazer fish pass has three permanent 

buildings, two concrete fish ladders, and a weir. At least two people are stationed full 

time during the sockeye run. The area attracts brown bears that feed on the returning

salmon, and these bears attract visitors who come to view the bears. Where bears and 

people mingle, the potential for adverse bear–human interactions occurs. These have 

been managed through conditions in the authorizations for the facilities and operations

E-46 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

and through special conditions on the permits of authorized wildlife-viewing guides and 

air transporters. 

The Spiridon project has a permanent building, and the Hidden Lakes project has a 

temporary camp. The environmental assessments prepared for each of these projects

included analysis of the physical and chemical impacts, biological impacts, and economic 

impacts. The potential for over-utilization of nutrients and food sources by introduced 

salmon was one of the overriding concerns. Limnological monitoring is critical to ensure 

that this activity is properly managed. Findings of no significant impact were approved 

for both environmental assessments. 

Camps and the associated activities of running fisheries projects potentially could 

negatively affect Refuge resources. Displacement of wildlife or defense-of-life-orproperty kills of bears could result. Impacts on other Refuge uses were also considered. 

However, monitoring is demonstrating that impacts of the projects are negligible and 

that the projects are compatible with Refuge purposes. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

 Monitoring and reporting requirements listed in the cooperative agreements and 

environmental assessments must be followed. Annual coordination meetings must be

held to ensure guidelines are being met. 

 Stipulations required for wildlife-viewing guides and transporters apply, and are listed in

the compatibility determinations for those activities. 

 If a helicopter is used, the helicopter use must be specifically authorized in advance and 

the transporter must have a valid special use permit from Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Justification

These projects were found, in 1994, to be compatible with the purposes of Kodiak Refuge. 

Nothing in their operation has changed since they were evaluated in 1994, and the results 

of monitoring continue to show that stipulations proposed to ensure compatibility are 

working. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-47 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Helicopter Use to Support Authorized Activities by Other Federal, Tribal, State, and 

Local Governments and for Maintenance of One Private Radio Repeater Site 

Primary Use: Helicopters 

Supporting Uses: Research, scientific collecting, surveys, rights-of-way (utility), other 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates helicopter use to support authorized activities of local, 

state, tribal, and other federal agencies and maintenance of one private radio repeater. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-49 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

One or two applications per year are normally received to allow helicopter landings as 

part of some other authorized use such as geologic research, radio repeater site 

maintenance, State of Alaska fish and wildlife law enforcement, or fish or wildlife 

surveys. Permits could be issued at any time of the year but are most likely to be for 

activities during spring, summer, or fall. State law enforcement use of helicopters is 

normally limited to goat hunter contacts. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Adverse impacts associated with helicopter landings on the Refuge would be associated 

with displacement of wildlife, especially bears concentrated along streams to feed,

perhaps denning bears, and nesting bald eagles. The experience of Refuge visitors could 

also be adversely affected. Hunters would be especially vulnerable to disturbance by

helicopters. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. The Defenders of Wildlife commented that allowing 

helicopter use to maintain a private radio repeater was an incompatible use. This use was 

initially determined to be a compatible use in 1994. The operations plan for each request 

for helicopter use to support maintenance is reviewed for essential need, activity, time of 

year, and potential for impacts to refuge resources. If it is determined that the 

maintenance work can be performed with minimal or no impact to refuge resources, a 

permit is issued with special conditions necessary to ensure compatibility. Our files 

indicate that maintenance involving helicopter use occurs infrequently - about once every 

five years. Monitoring of the maintenance work has shown the use did not impact refuge 

resources and was compatible.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Nonemergency helicopter landings would not be authorized during spring and fall bearhunting seasons. 

 Unless authorized for brown bear research, helicopter landings would not be allowed in

the vicinity of key bear concentration areas, including important denning locations, 

during sensitive times of the year. 

 Ensure that all aircraft transiting the Refuge actively avoid large mammals (including 

brown bears, elk, mountain goats, and marine mammals) and active bald eagle nests. 

“Active avoidance” includes making a vertical or lateral deviation from a flight path 

within flight safety parameters to minimize or prevent adverse impact on the animals. 

E-50 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Other project-specific stipulations would be included in each separate, associated permit held 

by the client or other authorizations for the specific activity. 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions currently limiting access to nine bear concentration areas will be 

replaced by special conditions developed through the step-down planning process outlined in 

the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general 

liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as additionally insured,

($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate) covering all aspects of operations 

throughout the annual use period. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-51 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the helicopter at all times while exercising the 

privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with a report of activities under this 

permit within 30 days of permit expiration. 

 A nonrefundable administrative fee will be assessed prior to issuing this permit. 

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of 

the O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, 

occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 

annually. 

 The following areas are currently closed seasonally to commercial use: 

– Connecticut Creek (July 15–August 31) 

– Humpy Creek (July 15–September 15) 

– Seven Rivers (July 15–September 15) 

– Lower Dog Salmon Falls (June 25–August 31) 

 The following areas are currently restricted seasonally to day use only by commercial 

users: 

– Red Lake River and shoreline (July 1–August 31)

– Upper Thumb River (July 1–August 31) 

– Southeast Creek (Red Lake) (July 15–August 31)

– Little River Lakeshore (July 15–August 31) 

– Deadman Bay Creek (August 15–September 30)

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 25 

through July 15: 

E-52 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on 

CTAF 122.8.

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

– Any type of commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) Refuge 

Guide and Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 The Service requests that helicopters avoid landing in the vicinity of Refuge visitors and 

their camps. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

Justification

Under 43 CFR 36.11(4), helicopter use on national wildlife refuges requires a special use 

permit. The current conservation plan (page 165) states “use of helicopters is not 

permitted for recreational activities; other uses require a special use permit.” As only

occasional and limited use of helicopters would be authorized, the potential for adverse 

effects to Refuge resources and visitors would be negligible. It is recommended that all

aircraft fly 2,000 feet above ground level when possible. When weather conditions do not 

permit, aircraft should maintain an altitude of at least 800 feet above ground level.

Observations (Wilker and Barnes 1998) have shown that when aircraft fly above 800 feet, 

they provide minimal, if any, disturbance to brown bears. Helicopter landings would only 

be authorized when other means of access are impractical or unsafe. 

Supporting Documents 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kodiak, Alaska. 202 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Wilker, G. A., and V. G. Barnes, Jr. 1998. Responses of brown bears to human activities at 

O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, Alaska. International Conference on Bear Research 

and Management. 10:557–561. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-53 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Limited Military Training Activities 

Primary Use: Military training 

Supporting Uses: Camping, cross-country skiing, hiking and backpacking, fixed-wing aircraft 

and helicopter access. 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates requests from the military to conduct limited training 

exercises on Refuge lands. Although most of their on-the-ground training occurs outside 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-55 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge boundaries, Navy Seals and Coast Guard personnel occasionally use glaciers on 

the Refuge for winter survival training. Helicopters are used for access for this training. 

The Coast Guard has entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Service and the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game regarding flights over Kodiak Island. Navy Seals 

have their winter training school at Kodiak. Prior to each training activity, the military 

submits a detailed operational plan to the Refuge for approval.

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage these 

uses. Refuge staff provides the military information on sensitive wildlife areas and 

provides the Coast Guard annual refresher training on recommendations governing use 

of aircraft in and around the Refuge. Refuge staff review operations plans for any onthe-ground training on the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Navy Seal and Coast Guard survival-training activities in the high country can impact 

mountain goats and denning brown bears. Season of use is a prime consideration for this 

activity. Camp impacts include attracting bears by improper storage of food and disposal 

of garbage. Information provided in advance of training exercises stresses bear-aware 

camping and minimizing the opportunities for adverse effects. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. The Defenders of Wildlife commented that they were 

concerned that “non-coastguard helicopter transport and survival training” are not 

compatible with the refuge mission and goals because of disturbance to mountain goats 

and denning brown bears. Defenders stated, “we believe this disturbance occurs at a level 

that renders this use incompatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act. The Service rightfully banned recreational helicopters and should do

the same with helicopter use associated with military training. In the eyes of the 

Improvement Act there is no qualitative difference between two non-wildlife dependent 

uses with respect to meeting the strict compatibility requirements.” The operations plan 

for each proposed military training is reviewed for essential need, location, activity, time 

of year, alternate training locations, and potential impacts to refuge resources. If it is 

determined that training can be conducted with minimal or no impact to refuge 

resources, a permit is issued with the special conditions necessary to ensure 

compatibility. Otherwise, a permit would not be issued. Our files indicate that training 

occur infrequently - about once every ten years. The last permit for training was issued in 

1996. Monitoring of the last two training exercises indicated the use did not impact refuge 

resources.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

E-56 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Nonemergency helicopter landings would not be authorized during spring and fall bearhunting seasons. 

 Helicopter landings would not be allowed in the vicinity of key bear concentration areas, 

including important denning locations, during sensitive times of the year. 

 Ensure that all aircraft transiting the Refuge actively avoid large mammals (including 

brown bears, elk, mountain goats, and marine mammals) and active bald eagle nests. 

“Active avoidance” includes making a vertical or lateral deviation from a flight path within 

flight safety parameters to minimize or prevent adverse impact on the animals. 

 Coordinate with the Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game for annual 

refresher training on laws (both Federal and state) governing the use of aircraft around 

wildlife and, to minimize interference, review areas where large concentrations of brown 

bears are located. Prior to obtaining approval for training, the military must submit a 

detailed operations plan for Refuge approval. This operation plan must outline how wildlife 

impacts will be avoided. The plan must contain the details about the proposed training, 

including all areas where ground operations will be conducted and locations proposed for 

camping and other training activities. An inspection flight must be provided to take 

Refuge staff member to any campsite once activities are completed to ensure proper camp 

closeout procedures were followed. Any low-level flight activities must be coordinated in 

advance with the Refuge to ensure safety and to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

 A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-57 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities 

allowed by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the Refuge 

Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; aircraft and 

other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; and names of crew 

members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original permit application.

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of permitted activities and the 

permittee must provide an inspection flight for Refuge staff to activity areas to ensure 

proper camp closeout procedures were followed. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

E-58 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 Closed and Limited Access Areas—An area approximately 2,560 acres near the outlet of 

the O’Malley River, as described in 50 CFR 36.39 (j)(1), is closed to all public access, 

occupancy, and use (general and commercial) from June 25 through September 30 

annually. 

 Following are the special conditions for operations on the Ayakulik River effective May 25 

through July 15: 

– Announce your position and intention, for takeoff/landing or transit of the area, on 

CTAF 122.8.

 The Service requests that helicopters avoid landing in the vicinity of Refuge visitors and 

their camps. 

 Ensure that all aircrews are briefed on the importance of maintaining an appropriate 

distance from all wildlife to avoid harassment. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft or persons. 

 The permittee’s operations plan, as amended and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, is hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special condition. All deviations from 

the operations plan must receive prior written approval by the Refuge Manager or his/her 

designee. 

 Access on Alaska Maritime NWR islands, rocks, and spires adjacent to Kodiak NWR is 

allowed. for glassing or scoping of game and wildlife viewing. Access is restricted to dayuse only, colonies of nesting birds must be avoided, and any foot travel must performed in 

a manner to avoid damage of ground-nest sites.

 When transiting lands within the boundaries of the Kodiak Refuge, aircraft shall maintain 

an altitude of at least 750 feet above ground level. An exception is granted when 

inclement weather makes it necessary for aircraft to fly at lower levels, particularly

during the transit of mountain passes. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property.

Justification 

The Refuge staff and Alaska Department of Fish and Game work closely with the Coast 

Guard to insure there are minimal impacts from their operations. The Coast Guard 

willingly entered into the memorandum of agreement to cover their flight operations over 

Kodiak Refuge. Navy Seal and Coast Guard winter-survival training is conducted on 

glaciers on Kodiak Island. Depending on winter weather conditions, it is sometimes 

necessary for these activities to be conducted within Refuge boundaries. By working 

closely together, the Refuge and the military can meet military training requirements in 

an area where alternative nonRefuge sites are not available, and protect sensitive wildlife 

resources. Specific special conditions to ensure protection of Refuge resources and 

avoidance of impacts, such as practicing leave-no-trace camping, are included in specific 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-59 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Unguided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

Primary Uses: Environmental education (teaching teachers or group leaders, teaching 

students, other), interpretation, photography (wildlife), wildlife observation. 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), fishing (general), fishing (other), hunting (big game), hunting (other 

migratory birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant 

gathering, rock collecting, trapping, natural resource collecting, camping, 

cross-country skiing, dog sledding and ski jouring, hiking and backpacking, pets,

photography, video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—

other), snowshoeing, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), fishing 

(subsistence), gathering (subsistence), hunting (subsistence), photography (wildlife), 

wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest (firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-61 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates the following unguided wildlife-dependent activities: 

wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

While some visitors come to the Refuge specifically to engage in one or more of these 

nonconsumptive activities, many visitors also include these activities as part of a Refuge

hunting or fishing trip. Compatibility of hunting and fishing is evaluated separately. 

Associated activities such as camping, backpacking, hiking, and other incidental uses are 

considered part of these wildlife-dependent activities for the purposes of this evaluation. 

Of the four priority public uses, wildlife observation and photography are by far the most 

widespread with on-Refuge environmental education and interpretation occurring only 

intermittently as staff talk with visitors during patrols or chance encounters when 

conducting other work. 

Interpretive and educational efforts occur primarily in the City of Kodiak rather than on 

the Refuge because of the lack of developed visitor facilities and difficult access to the 

Refuge itself. Educational programs occurring on the Refuge are often held in 

conjunction with one of the six villages on the island (Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, 

Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Akhiok). Limited, informal interpretive and environmental 

education services are provided during contacts with visitors on the Refuge by staff on 

routine patrol. No formal environmental education or interpretive programs are

regularly conducted on the Refuge nor are any formal on-site programs planned under

the revised conservation plan. 

The Kodiak brown bear is a key attraction, but visitors also take advantage of 

opportunities to view and photograph other wildlife and the dramatic landscapes of the 

Refuge. Most of these activities predate Refuge establishment in 1941. Recreational

settings on the Refuge are remote and inaccessible by road. Typical forms of access for 

all areas of the Refuge include fixed-wing airplanes, motorboats, nonpowered boats, 

hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and other nonmotorized means. However, 

most visitors access the Refuge by commercial air taxis or charter boat. Private boats

and airplanes are the most common means of access for the relatively few visitors not 

using commercial transporters. 

Day trips to the Refuge are common for visitors interested in wildlife viewing, 

photography, and sightseeing. Camping on the Refuge usually occurs for periods of 

several days. Campers use tents ranging from small backpack-type tent camps to larger 

multiperson tents. Visitors also occupy public use cabins maintained by the Refuge or

stay at private facilities located adjacent to the Refuge or on inholdings. 

People visit the Refuge year-round, but most come to view and photograph wildlife 

during summer. Over the last seven years, estimated annual wildlife-viewing and 

photography use has ranged from just more than 850 use days to more than 1,200 use 

days (a use day is one person visiting for all or part of one day). Use is concentrated at 

areas that are accessible and that generally provide reliable viewing such as along major 

E-62 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

rivers during salmon runs. Of that total use, between 140 and 300 use days have been

unguided during the same period. 

Over the next 15 years, overall visitor use is expected to increase 20 percent to 30 

percent, and some shifts in type of use and users may also occur. Specifically, wildlife 

viewing and photography are expected to grow at a faster rate than other activities such 

as hunting and fishing. Nonresident use is expected to grow more quickly than resident 

use, which may suggests that unguided wildlife viewing and photography are not likely to 

grow as rapidly as guided viewing and photography. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage these 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Administrative staff time primarily involves

phone conversations, written correspondence, public use surveys, and interaction with

visitors at the visitor center. Staff time will also be involved with the step-down planning 

process for key bear concentration areas called for in the conservation plan. There is also 

additional work entering activity data into a database for analysis. Field work associated 

with administering the program primarily involves conducting patrols to increase visitor 

compliance with state and federal regulations and to foster respect for local residents’

activities and property. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Adverse impacts to Refuge wildlife and habitats associated with these priority public uses 

and associated uses are evaluated in this environmental impact statement for the revised 

Kodiak Refuge conservation plan. Negligible impacts to Refuge habitats from 

disturbance or introduction of invasive plants are anticipated. Possible localized adverse 

impacts to some bird species and brown bears have been documented, but the proposed

plan would not have any long-term population-level impacts on Refuge wildlife. Positive 

effects on the local economy, though small, are anticipated from these uses. 

Implementation of access and bear-viewing management would initially impact bears at 

concentration areas newly opened to bear viewing and other public uses. This use would 

disturb and displace unhabituated bears, resulting in a measurable short-term decline in

bear-use levels, despite application of seasonal area use guidelines and restrictions. 

Recovery to current bear-use levels would be expected possibly by year two or three, and 

probably by year four (Barnes 2004), as most bears habituated to nonthreatening, 

consistent, and predictable visitor activity. 

The step-down planning process called for in the conservation plan will be used to

delineate wildlife viewing and photography in sensitive locations. It would minimize 

adverse impacts, especially those associated with brown bear viewing and photography.

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-63 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

No special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of will be carried out to ensure compliance with the following 

conditions to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

Visitors will be required to comply with any regulations in places such as the seasonal closure 

of the O’Malley River area. Visitors will also be strongly encouraged to comply with voluntary 

guidelines adopted for wildlife viewing and photography and associated activities. 

Justification

All Refuge lands in the Kodiak Refuge are open to general public access unless 

specifically closed. The proposed uses are four of the six priority public uses identified in

the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act). The law calls for the Service to ensure that 

opportunities are provided for these uses and requires that the priority public uses 

receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in planning and management. 

Kodiak Refuge provides an incredible opportunity to function as an outdoor classroom

promoting an awareness of ecological functions and the interrelationship between human 

activities and the natural system and to educate and motivate future generations of 

people to support wildlife conservation. The current and projected amount of these 

activities has been found to have insignificant adverse physical and biological effects in 

the environmental impact statement for revision of the Kodiak Refuge conservation plan. 

Supporting Documents 

Barnes, V.G. 2004. Personal communication with Bill Pyle, March 9, 2004, about effects of 

preferred alternative of draft revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan on brown bears. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kodiak, Alaska. 202 pp. 

E-64 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-66 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: O’Malley River Bear-Viewing Program 

Primary Uses: Photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, and wildlife observation (guiding or 

outfitting) 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), environmental education (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized 

agents), interpretation, interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized 

agents), fishing (general), fishing (guiding or outfitting), plant gathering, rock 

collecting, natural resource collecting, camping, hiking and backpacking, photography, 

video, filming, or audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), 

swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), fixed-wing aircraft. 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-67 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

 Description of Use 

This determination evaluates operation of a bear-viewing program at the O’Malley River 

within Kodiak Refuge. The Service, in cooperation with Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, would develop and implement a bear-viewing program at O’Malley River. The 

regulation now closing the O’Malley River area to all use on a seasonal basis would be

modified to allow this use. The viewing program would combine agency-supervised use 

with commercially guided use, although agency-supervised viewers and commercially 

guided viewers would not be present at the same time. Permits for agency-supervised 

visitation would be allocated to individuals by lottery. Qualified bear-viewing guides 

would apply for guided use opportunities, which would then be available to their clients 

via private bookings. The viewing program would be patterned after the program 

operated by the Service at the O’Malley River site in 1992, but would probably differ in 

some respects. 

The 1992 program operated between early July and mid-August and included the

following elements: 

 Maximum of six to eight participants per viewing period, selected by lottery; 

 Viewing period of four days; 

 Participants supplied their own transportation to the site, food, clothing, footwear, and 

bedding; 

 The Service provided support facilities, including weatherports (large tents with rigid 

floors), a cooking shelter with cook stoves, utensils, and fuel, and an outhouse (all

located outside the limited access area); 

 Participants were escorted to and from the viewing site each day; 

 The viewing site consisted of a small, wooden platform located on an upland bench 

within 50 yards of O’Malley River; 

 Participants were required to stay at the viewing site during the day; and 

 Participants were allowed, under supervision, to fish, hike, or pursue other activities in 

designated areas adjacent to the support facilities site, but outside the limited use area. 

Aircraft access was managed to minimize the number of days on which aircraft 

landings occurred at the camp area. 

Qualified bear-viewing guides would be selected through a screening process, probably a 

prospectus. Applicants would be required to submit a proposed operations plan and 

other pertinent information requested by the Service and outlined in the prospectus. 

Applications would be evaluated and a permit awarded for operation of the program. 

Kodiak Refuge staff, in coordination with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, would

provide management oversight of the program, but all aspects of operation—such as 

client booking, transportation to the site, and on-site management of viewing activities—

would be the responsibility of the permittee(s). Selected guides could offer a viewing 

opportunity similar to that being offered by the agency program or possibly negotiate 

alternative plans of operation that would require the approval of the Refuge Manager. 

E-68 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Availability of Resources 

This program would only be implemented once adequate staff and funding were 

available, including staff and funding to supervise program participants and to conduct 

biological monitoring of program effects. A similar program was operated in the past 

with existing staff and funding; however, the costs of biological monitoring were not 

being funded by the Refuge at that time. In addition, the Refuge was not doing as much 

on-the-ground management of public use as it is today (for example, Ayakulik, Karluk, 

and Frazer rivers). Costs of this proposed program, which combines guided and agencyrun opportunities, would likely be higher than the cost of a purely agency-run program. 

Management costs would be similar to those that might be expected if the entire program 

were operated by guides. While the Refuge would seek to have the fees collected through 

this program returned to the Refuge to manage this program, this would require 

reauthorization of federal Fee-Demonstration-Program legislation and that this program 

be added to the list of authorized fee-demonstration projects. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The main effects likely from the bear-viewing program at O’Malley River would be on 

brown bears and on visitors. We would expect minor impacts to bears from the bearviewing program to be established at O’Malley River. These noticeable but minor 

impacts would be limited mainly to unhabituated animals that traditionally used the 

access trail and viewing site vicinity in July and August. Some affected bears would 

gradually habituate to this activity; others would shift their daily activity patterns to

avoid it (Sellers and Aumiller 1994). Yet other bears would probably move to and remain 

at different foraging sites. Although these animals may encounter increased competition 

with other bears, their survival would not be jeopardized. 

Initial declines in summer bear use would be followed by a gradual increase in use to

preprogram levels as displacement decreased and habituation increased (Wilker and 

Barnes 1998, Barnes and Wilker 2002). Bear use would be unlikely to differ significantly 

with preprogram levels after year four of program operation (Barnes 2004). 

Bears would be minimally disturbed by viewing-program activities because the type, 

level, timing, and distribution of human activity would be carefully managed. Access to

and from the viewing site and activity at the viewing site would be managed similarly to 

that of the agency-run viewing program conducted in 1992. However, some additional 

impacts to individual bears would be expected, given the realities of monitoring use by 

commercial operation. Those impacts could likely be alleviated only through presence of

an on-site agency monitor and strict penalties for noncompliance. 

The camp adjacent to the concentration area would have negligible effects on bears 

(Wilker and Barnes 1998). Careful camp management would ensure safety and prevent 

problems. Curious bears approaching camp would be deterred. Although other activities 

such as fishing could occur in the camp vicinity, effects on bears would be negligible 

because these activities would occur outside the bear concentration area. 

Viewing-program characteristics could change if fall bear viewing were authorized. 

Because of changes in distribution of food resources, bears increasingly use the lake 

shore area for travel and foraging in fall. Despite this need, adult males might tend to 

avoid the lake shore or shift activity patterns in response to human activity. If fall

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-69 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

viewing were allowed, social conflicts between bear viewers and bear hunters could 

develop. 

The current annual seasonal closure extends from June 25 through September 30. This 

allows unrestricted public access for a month before the start of hunting season. 

Habituated bears in the O’Malley area would be somewhat at risk of harvest, although 

the risk to individual bears is reduced by several factors (Barnes and Wilker 2000). The

bears most likely to become habituated include females accompanied by cubs—protected 

from harvest by regulation—and subadults whose small size makes them less attractive 

as trophy animals. However, two such bears were harvested in the O’Malley area in the 

fall of 2003 (Wilker 2004). Current management of recreational harvest provides for a 

conservative harvest. Consequently, there is substantial natural mortality of adult 

females. Few bears are present in the O’Malley area during the spring bear-hunting 

season because of the absence of spring forage in the area. Bears do not begin to 

congregate here in large numbers until the salmon runs start. 

In summary, a commercial viewing program would have minor short- and long-term 

effects on bears, assuming strict adherence to program requirements. Impacts would be 

minor mainly because the type, distribution, and level of human activity would be 

consistent and carefully regulated; human use would be limited to the access trail and 

viewing site vicinity, a relatively small portion of the concentration area; and most bears 

initially disturbed by humans would gradually habituate to them and resume traditional 

habitat use patterns.

Reopenning of the O’Malley River bear-viewing site would increase wildlife-viewing 

opportunities on the Refuge. Bears are almost certainly the most popular wildlifeviewing attraction on the Refuge. In recent years, the Refuge has received an average of 

about 900 guided wildlife-viewing use days per year. A bear-viewing program at 

O’Malley River, modeled after past programs, could support approximately 400 bearviewing use days if it operated at full capacity. Therefore, reopening the O’Malley River 

bear-viewing site for operation of a viewing program could clearly have a substantial 

positive effect on wildlife-viewing opportunities, leading to an increase in participation of 

nearly 50 percent. 

There would be a positive economic effect on the guides selected to provide the 

commercial viewing at O’Malley River and on local air taxi operators who would provide 

transportation to and from the site for visitors using both the government-run and the 

commercially guided programs. Other impacts from the program are likely to be 

negligible. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. While there were no comments specifically addressing 

this compatibility determination, there were many comments about the proposed 

O’Malley River Bear Viewing Program. One comment stated, “To allow wildlife viewers 

egress and ingress, in and out of sensitive areas on a daily basis, at a critical time of the 

year, and to allow people to trample natural habitat and plants, to disrupt diurnal 

rhythms of bears and other animals, are things that blatantly contradicts the very 

purpose the Kodiak Refuge had been created and managed for over six decades.” Most

E-70 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

other comments addressed the practicality and logistics of operating the proposed 

program. Previous experience has shown that this use can be conducted compatible with 

refuge purposes and the Service mission. Stipulations contained in this compatibility 

determination and refined through step-down planning would ensure that this priority 

public use is compatible.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A permit for individuals selected by lottery is required 

A special use permit for commercial guides is required 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. The step-down planning processes identified in the revised 

conservation plan will be used to identify specific management to ensure that this activity 

continues to remain compatible with Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlifedependent recreation and other Refuge-compatible activities. Findings from monitoring 

would be used to determine what additional management actions, if any, were needed to

ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement and administrative monitoring of permits 

will be carried out to ensure compliance with the following conditions that are incorporated 

into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

Permit special conditions displayed here will be replaced by special conditions developed 

through the step-down planning process outlined in the final revised Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-71 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed 

by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; 

aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; 

and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original 

permit application. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general 

liability insurance, listing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as additionally insured,

($300,000 each occurrence, $500,000 aggregate for guides/outfitters) covering all aspects of 

operations throughout the annual use period; (3) changes in names of assistant guides and 

other employees; (4) copies of CPR and First Aid cards for permittee and all personnel 

that will operate on the Refuge; and (5) any changes in information provided for the 

original special use permit proposed operations plan. 

 The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the Refuge

Manager with a comprehensive summary of location, numbers of clients, and number of 

client days by January 15 for all uses during the calendar year, unless stated otherwise in 

the permit. The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with this information on the 

form provided with the special use permit. An annual nonrefundable administrative fee 

will be assessed prior issuing this permit. In addition, a client use day will be assessed at 

the end of the calendar year based on the permittee’s use report. Client use fees are adjusted 

by the Regional Office every three years based on the Implicit Price Deflator Index (PDI). For 

law enforcement purposes, the permittee may be required to provide names and addresses 

of clients. Failure to submit required reports and payments could result in the issuance of 

citations and revocation of the permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from 

subcontracting clients with any other guide. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

E-72 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee or his or her designated assistant must accompany clients while on the 

Refuge. Permittee or assistant must be present within the permit area while clients are

engaged in activities authorized under this permit. Permittees with more than one permit 

area must be present within one of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge areas in which 

they are authorized to operate.

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft or persons. 

 The permittee’s operations plan, as amended and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, are hereby incorporated in their entirety as a special condition. All deviations 

from the operations plan and synopsis must receive prior written approval by the Refuge 

Manager or his/her designee. 

 Maximum overnight camp size will be 8 to 10 people, including guides and assistants. The 

Refuge Manager may restrict use and duration of some sites for overnight camping to 

prevent resource problems or conflicts. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-73 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

– Any other types of commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) 

Refuge Guide and Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 Motorboat operators must possess U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) licenses for all passengercarrying operations, if required by USCG regulations. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except for protection of life or property. 

Justification 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identifies compatible wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation as four of six priority public 

uses of national wildlife refuges. The law states that, when managed in accordance with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management, administration of these uses has been 

and is expected to continue to be generally compatible and that that priority public uses

should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning 

and management. The proposed O’Malley River bear-viewing program would clearly

enhance the opportunity for the public to participate in these activities while protecting 

wild Kodiak bears and other Refuge resources. 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of the guides and on the Service and 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game would ensure that these wildlife-dependent 

activities can occur without adverse effects to Refuge resources, other visitors, or 

subsistence activities. 

Supporting Documents 

Barnes, V.G. 2004. Personal communication with Bill Pyle, March 9, 2004, about effects of 

preferred alternative of draft revised Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan on brown bears. 

Barnes, V. G., and G. A. Wilker. 2000–2002. Assessment of the vulnerability of habituated 

bears to sport harvest in the Karluk Lake vicinity of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, 

Alaska. Pages T-1 to T-5 in Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Kodiak 

Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 240 pp. 

Sellers, R.A., and L.D. Aumiller. 1994. Brown bear population characteristics at McNeil River, 

Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):283–293. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kodiak, Alaska. 202 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Wilker, Greg. 2004. Personal communication with Mike Getman on June 28, 2004, about bear 

harvest at O’Malley River during the fall 2003 hunting season. 

Wilker, G. A., and V. G. Barnes, Jr. 1998. Responses of brown bears to human activities at 

O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ursus 10:557-561. 

E-74 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-76 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Other Public Uses 

Primary Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), plant gathering, rock collecting, natural resource collecting, camping, 

cross-country skiing, dog training (including field trials), dog sledding and ski jouring,

hiking and backpacking, pets, photography, video, filming, audio recording 

(nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), snorkeling or scuba diving, snowshoeing, 

swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), tree harvest (firewood). If any of 

these other public uses are performed for commercial purposes, a special use permit 

would be required before going into the field. For example, commercial photography, 

video or filming must have an Other Public Uses special use permit. 

Supporting Use: Fixed-wing aircraft 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-77 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates general public uses not covered in the other 

compatibility determinations, including camping, hiking, backpacking, firewood cutting, 

boating (motorized and nonmotorized), plant gathering (including berry picking), natural 

resource collecting, rock collecting, cross-country skiing, dog sledding, pets, beach use,

snowshoeing, photography, and other general outdoor recreation when the uses are not 

associated with one of the other uses evaluated elsewhere for compatibility. These uses 

could occur year-round; though most are most common in summer. The uses probably 

occur infrequently not in association with other uses. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage these 

uses. Management consists of Refuge staff contacting visitors on an opportunistic basis 

when in the field for other purposes. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

These activities are anticipated to have negligible effects on Refuge resources and other 

visitors, primarily because they occur so infrequently. For example, most berry picking 

occurs as a subsistence activity or by visitors engaged in another activity such as wildlife 

viewing, hunting, or fishing. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

No special use permit is required for non-commercial uses. 

A special use permit is required for commercial uses and would contain special conditions 

similar to those listed under commercially guided wildlife viewing, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

E-78 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-80 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Private Cabin and Temporary Camp Special Use Permits 

Primary Use: Uses (other)—Private cabin and temporary camp special use permits 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), 

fishing (guiding and outfitting), hunting (upland-game—guiding or outfitting), hunting 

(waterfowl—guiding or outfitting), hunting (other—guiding or outfitting), plant

gathering, rock collecting, natural-resource collecting, camping, hiking and 

backpacking, pets, photography, video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlifedependent, recreational—other), swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other),

photography (wildlife), wildlife observation (guiding or outfitting), fixed-wing aircraft, 

tree harvest (firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-81 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates five reserved land site permits: outfitter guide cabins at 

Campbell’s Lagoon, Spiridon Bay, and Deadman Bay; an outfitter-guide tent floor/cache 

on Karluk Lake; and a subsistence cabin in the northeastern arm of Uganik Bay. All the 

facilities have been in use for numerous years. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage these 

special uses. Administrative staff process paperwork associated with the permits, and 

field staff conduct periodic inspections to ensure compliance with terms of the special use 

permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Special conditions attached to each special use permit are designed to minimize the 

chances of adverse effects to bears and refuge visitors. All the structures have been in 

place for many years (15 years or more), thus any bear or other wildlife displacement 

that may have occurred has happened. Most bears using these areas are likely 

habituated to the presence of these structures and the activities that routinely occur in

and near them. The structures provide relatively secure storage for food, fish, game

meat, and other materials that might attract bears. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. Two commenters expressed concern about apparent

discrepancies between the discussion of cabin impacts on bears in this compatibility 

determination and the compatibility determination for private camps and cabins. This 

compatibility determination has been revised to clarify the potential impacts.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

E-82 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Note that the following special conditions for a special use permit for private cabin and 

temporary camp special use will be updated, if necessary, to comply with future stepdown plans. 

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Subject to available suppression resources, all permitted cabins will be protected from

wildfire to the extent possible. Human safety will receive the highest priority consideration 

by land Managers and fire-suppression personnel. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-83 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 A nonrefundable administrative fee will be assessed prior to issuing this permit for 

revocation of this permit. 

 This is a permit for the specific approved structure at a designated site. The structure may 

not be sublet or rented. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

– Commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) Refuge Guide and 

Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

 Additions or alterations to existing structures and construction of new facilities must have 

the Refuge Manager’s prior approval in writing. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

Justification 

These permanent and semipermanent facilities were evaluated in detail in the public use 

management planning process that found that impacts caused by their construction had 

already occurred and that continued use, at similar levels and times of year as in the past, 

would remain compatible. However, the public use management plan also found that 

allowing the development of new permanent and semipermanent private facilities or 

substantial expansion of the season of use or types of activities allowed at the existing 

facilities should not be authorized. New technologies for camping such as weatherport 

and bomb shelter tents provide excellent alternatives to fixed tent platforms and allow 

greater flexibility in operations. Management of outfitter-guide permits has changed 

E-84 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-86 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Public Use Cabins 

Primary Use: Outdoor recreation (other)—public use cabins 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), fishing (general), fishing (other), hunting (big game), hunting (other 

migratory birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant 

gathering, rock collecting, trapping, natural-resource collecting, camping, 

cross-country skiing, dog training (including field trials), dog sledding and ski jouring,

hiking and backpacking, pets, photography, video, filming, audio recording 

(nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), snorkeling or scuba diving, snowshoeing, 

swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), fishing (subsistence), gathering 

(subsistence), hunting (subsistence), trapping (subsistence), subsistence (other), 

photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest 

(firewood), 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water 

quantity within the refuge.” 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-87 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination looks at the Kodiak Refuge public use cabin program. Public use 

cabins are one- or two-room structures. Pit toilets and meat caches are located at the

cabins. These cabins provide an alternative to tent-camping for visitors participating in

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, hiking, and related outdoor 

recreation on Kodiak Refuge. Cabins also provide emergency shelter to anyone stranded 

near one of the sites. Cabins are available for reservation year-round, but only those

cabins on saltwater receive winter use. 

Seven cabins are currently available for reservation by the public as part of the Refuge’s 

public use cabin program. These cabins could be relocated if more desirable locations are 

identified. Two additional cabins could be built to replace public use cabins that have been 

removed from key bear concentration areas. Cabins on newly acquired lands could also

be considered for management as public use cabins. New cabins would only be added 

after consultation with interested citizens, appropriate public involvement, and National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis. Criteria such as the following would be considered in 

selecting new cabin sites and/or selection of cabins for addition to the public use cabin 

program: (1) availability of diverse recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, kayaking, and hiking; (2) solitude and isolation from other uses and facilities 

such as lodges and setnet sites; (3) ease of access both for users and for maintenance; and 

(4) prevention of adverse impacts to Refuge resources such as wildlife movement 

corridors and key wildlife use areas. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage the 

public use cabin program. Administrative staff manage the permit system and collect 

cabin fees. Maintenance staff conduct routine maintenance. Other staff periodically visit 

cabins to check on condition and use, usually incidental to other work in the areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Public use cabins have generally positive impacts on bears because Kodiak Refuge has

determined that the conditions and periods of public use have limited effects on bear 

behavior. 

Refuge cabins afford relatively secure temporary storage of food, garbage, and game 

meat. Cabin permits require proper use of these facilities, including removal of all food

and garbage at the end of each visit. Effectiveness is indicated by the absence of 

historical records of adverse bear–human incidents attributed to the cabin program. 

Adverse bear–human interactions occasionally occur in the Refuge back country and are

E-88 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

associated with temporary tent camps, especially those with game meat stored nearby

(Smith et al. 1989). 

Another positive impact of the cabin program is related to the visitor experience. Cabins

provide the most secure option for overnight use by visitors with limited experience 

camping in bear country. The combination of secure facilities and cabin permit 

requirements serve to educate visitors in appropriate back country bear-aware practices. 

Invasive plants could become established at cabin sites because of the frequent presence 

of visitors and existing vegetation and soil disturbance. Cabin sites would be relatively 

easy to monitor for the presence of invasive plants, and eradication efforts could be

undertaken prior to invasive plants spreading beyond the immediate vicinity. 

The cabin program could have serious adverse impacts on bears if cabins were sited in 

bear concentration areas. However, the criteria proposed for selecting cabins sites would 

ensure that cabins would not be constructed in bear concentration areas; if cabins on 

acquired lands were in bear concentration areas, they would not be converted to public

use. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. Two commenters expressed concern about apparent

discrepancies between the discussion of cabin impacts on bears in this compatibility 

determination and the compatibility determination for private camps and cabins. The 

Private Cabin and Temporary Camp Special Use Permits Compatibility Determination 

has been revised to clarify the potential impacts.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Other than in emergencies, occupancy of a public use cabin requires a cabin permit issued by 

the Refuge. No individual may occupy a Refuge public use cabin longer than 30 days (January

1 through March 31); 15 days (April 1 through May 15), and 7 days (May 16 through December 

31). During their visit, cabin users are required to store all food, garbage, and harvested fish 

and game in a manner to not attract bears; users must remove all food, garbage, and 

harvested fish and game at the end of their stay. 

A regulation will be proposed prohibiting camping within one quarter mile of a public use 

cabin under the revised comprehensive conservation plan. 

Justification 

Cabins have a long history of use on Kodiak Refuge. While cabins can concentrate visitor 

use, they also provide a relatively safe and secure place for visitors to store food, garbage, 

and harvested fish and game. Cabins on Kodiak Refuge can facilitate wildlife-dependent

use by visitors and minimize the physical impacts of camping; they can make human

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-89 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Reburial of Archaeological Human Remains per State and Federal Guidelines 

Primary Use: Use (other)—Reburial of archaeological human remains 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), camping, hiking and backpacking, photography, video, filming, audio 

recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), fixed-wing aircraft, cemetery

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

 

 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-91 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

The Refuge anticipates requests to rebury human remains eroding from recorded and 

unrecorded prehistoric sites and remains that have been removed from prehistoric sites. 

The inadvertent-discovery section of the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-601) requires that the land-management 

agency identify and notify the closest Native group and then, if requested, provide for the 

repatriation of the remains. With this in mind, the Refuge has prepared this 

compatibility determination to cover an expected average of one burial request annually

over the next 10 years. Each proposed burial and its proposed reburial location would

need to be approved by the Regional Historic Preservation Officer, who will ensure 

compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 prior to issuance of a 

permit for this activity. 

Reburial of repatriated human remains would take place near the place of discovery of 

such remains or near their original burial place. Each burial would involve a small 

excavation with hand tools. Impacts to Refuge resources would be negligible and shortterm, with no foreseeable long-term effects, and would not affect subsistence use of the 

Refuge. A copy of the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates and contents of the

burial site will be filed at Refuge headquarters and with the Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer. The remains should be buried with a modern object (e.g., coin, 

button—with date) to indicate it is a historical reburial. 

Availability of Resources 

Except for issuance of the permit, no Refuge resources would be needed to administer

use. All activities associated with use would be accomplished by the permittee. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Reburials would result in minimal and short-term impacts to Refuge resources, involving 

a few small-scale excavations with hand tools and then internment of the remains. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

Note that the following special conditions for a special use permit for Reburial of 

Archaeological Human Remains per State and Federal Guidelines will be updated to reflect 

changes, if any, due to step-down plans completed in the future. 

E-92 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed 

by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; 

aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; 

and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original 

permit application. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-93 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Conditions

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 Reburial of repatriated human remains will take place near the place of discovery of such 

remains and/or near the place of their original burial. 

 The permittee or permittees’ representatives will make the smallest possible excavation, 

using only hand tools. 

 The Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates and a list of the contents of the burial 

site will be filed at Refuge headquarters and with the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer within 30 days of burial. 

 Remains shall be buried with a modern object (e.g., coin, button, etc.—with date) to 

indicate that it is a historical reburial. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

Justification 

The proposed use is limited and short-term and thus will result in minimal impact to 

Refuge resources. This use is necessary for the Refuge to comply with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. It will not interfere with nor 

detract from the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the Refuge. 

Supporting Documents 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kodiak, Alaska. 202 pp. 

E-94 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-96 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Recreational Fishing 

Primary Use: Fishing (general and other) 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), hunting (big game), hunting (other migratory birds), hunting (upland 

game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant gathering, rock collecting, trapping, 

natural resource collecting, camping, hiking and backpacking, pets, photography, 

video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), swimming 

and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, 

fixed-wing aircraft 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-97 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Kodiak Refuge is renowned for its recreational fishing opportunities and provides 

excellent opportunities to catch a number of fish species. Angling opportunities include 

fishing for five species of Pacific salmon and steelhead, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and 

Arctic char. Recreational fishing on the Kodiak archipelago predates Refuge 

establishment and has been occurring on the Refuge since its establishment in 1941. 

Associated activities such as camping, backpacking, hiking, and other incidental uses are 

considered part of wildlife-dependent fishing activities. 

Recreational settings on the Refuge are remote and inaccessible by road. Traditional 

forms of access for all areas on the Refuge include fixed-wing aircraft, motorboats, 

nonpowered boats, hiking, and other nonmotorized means. However, the vast majority of 

visitors participating in the subject activities access the Refuge by commercial air taxis. 

The most common means of access by the relatively few recreational users not using 

commercial transporters is private aircraft and boats. 

Recreational fishing use patterns are estimated primarily from direct observation by

Refuge staff and from annual reports provided by air-taxi operators, who transport

nearly all recreational anglers to the Refuge. Air-taxi operators provide information on

primary activity, location, length of stay, group size, and related items. 

Most recreational fishing occurs from May through October. The annual number of 

visitor use days associated with recreational fishing for the last seven years varied from

2,722 in 1998 to 3,829 in 2003. During the same time, unguided recreational fishing varied 

from 1,355 use days in 1997 to 2,151 use days in 2002. Guided angling accounts for about

half of all Refuge recreational fishing and is evaluated in a separate compatibility 

determination. Recreational fishing accounts for slightly more than one-third of overall

annual public use on the Refuge. Annual recreational fishing effort in the overall Kodiak 

area has generally been stable over the last 10 or more years. Recreational fishing on the 

Refuge is anticipated to grow about 20 percent during the 15-year life of the revised 

conservation plan. 

The most popular destinations on the Refuge for unguided recreational fishing include 

the Akalura, Ayakulik, Brown’s Lagoon, Deadman, Dog Salmon, Horse Marine, Karluk, 

Little River, Spiridon, Uganik, and Zachar drainages. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage

recreational fishing at existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time primarily 

involves phone conversations, written correspondence, issuing permits for Koniag 

easement lands on the Karluk River, and personal interaction with visitors at the visitor 

center. There is also additional work entering activity data into a database for analysis. 

Field work associated with administering the program primarily involves conducting law 

enforcement patrols to increase visitors’ compliance with state and federal regulations 

and to foster respect for local residents’ activities and property. Refuge camps are

operated on the Ayakulik and Karluk Rivers during the king salmon fishing season (June

1 to July 15) for law enforcement purposes and to provide assistance to visitors to

minimize the potential for undesirable human-bear encounters and conflicts between 

E-98 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

visitors. Monitoring of recreational fishing is also performed through creel surveys and 

visitor studies on the more popular river systems (e.g., Ayakulik, Karluk, and Uganik).

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Comprehensive state and federal regulations continually evolve to respond to fishery 

management needs. Regulations combined with law enforcement by the state and Refuge 

personnel minimize impacts from the recreational fishing to fish and wildlife, other 

Refuge resources, and other Refuge users. Potential impacts to Refuge resources and/or 

other Refuge users are greatest at several of the more popular use areas such as the 

Ayakulik River. The presence of recreational anglers, as with other human presence, 

could displace bears from critical feeding areas. The O’Malley River area closure 

protects feeding bears at this sensitive area from adverse effects of angling and other

activities. The revised conservation plan would address these impacts through the stepdown management planning process. 

Recreational fishing activities result in minimal competition or interference with 

subsistence users and/or other Refuge users for limited number of resources or preferred 

campsite and use areas. However, both the Federal Subsistence Board and State Board

of Fisheries regularly adopt regulations in response to fish population levels and 

management needs to reduce impacts to these resources. By doing this, there is the 

continued opportunity for subsistence uses of these species by local residents. Numerous 

regulation changes have been made by these boards in recent years to address the 

Refuge’s fish and resource management needs. To address various concerns, the Refuge 

has also imposed permit restrictions on commercial transporters in recent years. The 

estimated harvest of fish resources is well within the limits established in Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game and Kodiak Refuge management plans. 

The vast majority of recreational anglers access the Refuge by commercial air taxis that 

predominantly land on lakes and rivers with float-equipped aircraft. Impacts associated

with transporter access are discussed in a separate compatibility determination specific 

to that use. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. There were comments recommending motorboat and aircraft access to

the refuge be restricted. As explained below, access by airplanes and motorboats for 

traditional activities is provided by ANILCA and has been found to be compatible. 

Should motorized transportation grow to levels where it interferes with Refuge purposes, 

the Refuge would take actions necessary to address compatibility concerns.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

No special use permit is required. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-99 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring will be carried out to ensure compliance with the following 

conditions to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

Visitors will also be strongly encouraged to comply with voluntary guidelines adopted for 

wildlife viewing and photography and associated activities.

Justification 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act) identifies compatible fishing as one of six priority public uses of 

national wildlife refuges. The law states that, when managed in accordance with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management, administration of these uses has been, 

and is expected to continue to be, generally compatible and that that priority public uses

should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning 

and management. The law also states that the Service should provide increased 

opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, 

particularly opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional 

outdoor activities such as fishing. 

Access by airplanes, motorboats, and nonpowered means for traditional activities, as 

provided by ANILCA and as currently regulated by the Service, have not materially 

interfered with or detracted from Refuge purposes. Should motorized transportation

grow to levels where it interferes with Refuge purposes, the Refuge would work with 

anglers and Alaska Department of Fish and Game to address impacts and resolve 

compatibility concerns. 

Recreational fishing is an activity that Congress intended to preserve when the Refuge

was redesignated by ANILCA. As stated previously, recreational fishing on the Refuge 

provides the public with high-quality, safe, and unique recreational fishing opportunities 

found few places elsewhere in the world. To reduce impacts to fishery resources and to 

provide the continued opportunity for subsistence uses of these species by local residents, 

both the Federal Subsistence Board and State Board of Fish regularly adopt regulations 

in response to fish population levels and management needs. These regulations provide 

adequate protection for the Refuge’s fishery resources, continued subsistence 

opportunities, and other Refuge purposes. 

Supporting Documents 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

E-100 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

E-102 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Recreational Hunting 

Primary Use: Hunting (big game, other migratory birds, upland game, waterfowl, other)

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), fishing (general), fishing (other), plant gathering, rock collecting, 

trapping, natural resource collecting, camping, dog training (including field trials), 

hiking and backpacking, pets, photography, video, filming, audio recording 

(nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), swimming and beach use, outdoor 

recreation (other), photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-103 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Recreational hunting is re-evaluated in this determination. Kodiak Refuge is famous for 

brown bear hunting. The Refuge also provides opportunities to hunt Sitka black-tailed 

deer, Roosevelt elk, and mountain goat. Recreational hunting predates Refuge 

establishment and has been occurring on the Refuge since its establishment in 1941. 

Associated activities such as camping, backpacking, hiking, and other incidental uses are 

considered part of recreational hunting. The majority of hunting has been for brown 

bear and Sitka black-tailed deer (the latter having been introduced in 1924). Roosevelt 

elk are hunted on Afognak Island, and mountain goats are hunted on Kodiak Island. 

Recreational hunting seasons on Kodiak Refuge begin with spring bear season from 

April 1 through May 15 annually. Deer season runs from August 1 through December 31. 

Goat hunting runs from August 20 through October 25 and November 1 through 

December 15. Fall bear season is from October 25 through November 30. Elk hunts are 

offered from September 25 through November 30, although not all areas of the 

archipelago are open to elk hunting at the same time. One brown bear may be harvested 

every four years, and one elk and one goat may be harvest annually. All bear, elk, and 

goat hunting is by registration or drawing permits. Deer hunters currently may harvest 

as many as to three deer annually. The state changes deer harvest limits based on the

size of deer populations.

Hunting for small game and waterfowl also occurs on the Refuge, as allowed by state 

regulations. Small-game and waterfowl hunting often occurs in conjunction with biggame hunts and fall fishing excursions. The number of recreational use days for smallgame and waterfowl hunting on the Refuge is unknown, but is minimal in comparison 

with big-game hunting recreational use days. 

Recreation settings on the Refuge are remote and inaccessible by road. Traditional

forms of access to the Refuge include fixed-wing aircraft, motorboats, and nonmotorized 

means. However, the vast majority of visitors access the Refuge by commercial air taxis 

or charter boats. The most common means of access by recreational hunters not using 

commercial transporters is private airplane or boat. 

Recreational hunting use is estimated primarily from direct observation by Refuge staff 

and annual reports provided by air-taxi operators, who transport nearly all recreational 

hunters to locations on the Refuge. Air-taxi operators provide visitor information, 

including primary activity, location, length of stay, and group size. 

In most years, recreational hunting constitutes more than half of all recreation use on the 

Refuge. Over the last seven years, hunting has averaged more than 4,000 use days per 

year. From 1997 to 2001, deer hunting varied from 3,287 use days in 1997 to 712 use days 

in 2000. The decline in hunting use over the period is directly related to a decrease in the 

deer population due to the severe winter of 1998–1999. Brown ear hunting for the same

time period ranged from a high of 2,086 use days in 1999 to a low of 1,329 use days in 

1997. Goat hunting ranged from a low of 206 use days in 2000 and a high of 303 use days

in 2001. Harvest figures presented in the next paragraph are for the entire archipelago 

and do not distinguish the specific harvest from the Refuge. All recreational hunting on 

Kodiak Refuge is under State of Alaska regulations. 

E-104 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

It is estimated that about 40 percent of deer harvest in the Kodiak Archipelago occurs on 

the Refuge. Kodiak Archipelago deer harvest during the last 10 years has ranged from 

an estimated 10,401 deer harvested in the 1994–1995 season to 2,491 deer harvested in 

the 2000–2001 season. Bear harvest in the archipelago has been relatively stable over the 

last 20 years with a 10-year average annual harvest of 160 brown bears from the 1990–

1991 to 2000–2001 harvest seasons. Alaska Department of Fish and Game attributes 

annual variations to weather and hunter participation. Bear are managed by Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game under the Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan, which was completed with full Refuge participation in 2002. 

Mountain goat harvest is managed by the State of Alaska using a permit hunting season. 

From the 1996–1997 hunting season through the 2000–2001 hunting season, mountain 

goat harvest in the archipelago has averaged 62 goats per year, ranging from 54 to 70 

goats harvested. Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists (VanDaele and Crye 

2002) believe that goats now occupy almost all suitable habitats on the Refuge and that 

the goat population is the maximum that can be sustained. 

Elk harvest from 1996 through 2001 has ranged from a low of 66 in the 2000–2901 season

to a high of 181 in the 1998–1999 season. This decline in harvest is related to a decline in 

population due to winter kill, according to Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(VanDaele and Crye 2002). 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage

recreational hunting activities at existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time 

primarily involves phone conversations, written correspondence, and personal interaction 

with visitors at the visitor’s center. There is also additional work entering activity data

into a database for analysis. Field work associated with administering the program 

primarily involves conducting law enforcement patrols to increase recreational hunter 

compliance with state and federal regulations and to foster respect for local residents’

activities and property. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Comprehensive state and federal regulations continually evolve to respond to wildlife 

management needs. Combined with law enforcement efforts by state and Refuge 

personnel, regulations minimize recreational hunting impacts to wildlife resources, 

Refuge users, and other Refuge resources. 

Recreational hunting may result in some competition with subsistence users and/or other 

Refuge users for the limited number of resources and preferred campsite and use areas. 

However, both the Federal Subsistence Board and State Board of Game regularly adopt 

regulations in response to wildlife population levels and management needs. These 

regulations reduce impacts to the Refuge’s resources and allow the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses of these species by local residents. Numerous regulation 

changes have been made by these boards in recent years to address the Refuge’s wildlife 

resource management needs. 

The estimated harvest of these wildlife resources is well within the limits established in 

various state management plans. Past impact evaluations and studies have focused 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-105 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

primarily on impacts to the brown bear and deer populations. Displacement of bears 

from favored feeding streams was demonstrated to be within acceptable limits. 

Refuge officers and State Troopers routinely patrol the Refuge to increase compliance 

with state and federal regulations. A majority of hunters access the Refuge by landing 

on lakes and rivers with float-equipped aircraft, minimizing impacts to Refuge habitat. A 

potential impact or threat associated with floatplane access is the introduction of invasive 

species carried on the aircraft floats. Although it is not known or proved to have occurred 

on the Kodiak archipelago to date, invasive species spread is being monitored. 

"According to a 2003 analysis conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic 

Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, recreational hunting on Kodiak Refuge 

contributes about $678,000 in payroll and 25 average annual jobs to the Alaska economy 

each year. Average annual jobs are calculated by dividing payroll by the average annual 

pay for a job related to the hunting industry (guiding and support services). Due to the 

seasonal nature of hunting, the number of jobs during peak periods is much greater than 

the annual average. Payroll figures are based on Refuge visitor numbers and estimated 

expenditures; they do not include hunting activities that occur outside the Refuge, 

although those activities may partially depend on Refuge wildlife and habitat resources." 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination. There were comments recommending motorboat and aircraft access to

the refuge be restricted. As explained below, access by airplanes and motorboats for 

traditional activities is provided by ANILCA and has been found to be compatible. 

Should motorized transportation grow to levels where it interferes with Refuge purposes, 

the Refuge would take actions necessary to address compatibility concerns.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

No special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Revision of the public use management plan will be used to 

identify specific management to ensure that this activity continues to remain compatible with 

Refuge purposes. This includes monitoring of wildlife-dependent recreation and other 

compatible activities. Findings from monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring will be carried out to ensure compliance with the following 

conditions to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

E-106 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

Visitors will also be strongly encouraged to comply with voluntary guidelines adopted for 

wildlife viewing and photography and associated activities. 

Justification 

All lands in the Kodiak Refuge are open to general public access except the O’Malley 

area, which is seasonally closed to the public from June 25 through September 25. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended by the Refuge

Improvement Act) identifies recreational hunting as one of six priority public uses of 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The law states that, when managed in 

accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, administration of 

these uses has been and is expected to continue to be generally compatible and that that 

priority public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses 

in refuge planning and management. The law also states that the Service should provide 

increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in 

traditional outdoor activities such as hunting. 

Access by airplanes, motorboats, and nonpowered means for traditional activities, as 

provided by ANILCA and as currently regulated by the Service, have not materially 

interfered with or detracted from Refuge purposes. Should motorized transportation

grow to levels where it interferes with Refuge purposes, the Refuge would work with 

hunters and Alaska Department of Fish and Game to address impacts and resolve 

compatibility concerns. 

Recreational hunting is an activity that Congress intended to preserve when the Refuge

was established by ANILCA. As stated previously, recreational hunting on the Refuge 

provides the public with high-quality, safe, and unique hunting opportunities found few 

places elsewhere in the world. To reduce impacts to wildlife resources and to provide the 

continued opportunity for subsistence uses of these species by local residents, both the 

Federal Subsistence Board and State Board of Fish regularly adopt regulations in 

response to wildlife population levels and management needs. These regulations provide 

adequate protection for the Refuge’s wildlife resources, continued subsistence 

opportunities, and other Refuge purposes. 

Supporting Documents 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Alaska hunting regulations effective dates July 1, 

2003–June 30, 2004, governing general, subsistence, and commercial uses of Alaska’s

wildlife. Juneau, Alaska. Viewed on April 20, 2004 at 

www.state.ak.us/adfg/wildlife/wildmain.htm. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. 240 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-107 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Residence Permit 

Primary Use: Residential 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized),fishing (general), fishing (other), hunting (big game), hunting (other 

migratory birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant 

gathering, rock collecting, trapping, natural resource collecting, pets, fishing 

(subsistence), gathering (subsistence), hunting (subsistence), trapping (subsistence), 

subsistence (other) 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-109 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates the retained occupancy residence special use permit. 

Since 1988, authorization has been granted to Jeanne Shepherd to occupy a residence 

located on Kodiak Refuge in the east arm of Uganik Bay. The permit authorizes the 

home and associated structures including a generator shed, outhouses, banya, 

smokehouse, drying shed, shop, tool shed, three greenhouses, a water box, a woodshed, 

chicken coop, duck coop, and four garden plots. This special use permit was issued to 

resolve a problem that resulted from a faulty survey. The house and related facilities 

were purchased in 1981 under the assumption that they were located on U.S. Survey 260. 

Subsequently, it was determined that the house and associated structures are located on 

Refuge lands. Negotiations between the owner and the Service resulted in a decision to

allow continued occupancy. Ms. Shepherd has demonstrated excellent compliance with 

all special conditions of her special use permit for more than 20 years.

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage this 

special use. Administrative staff process paperwork associated with the permits and field 

staff conducts periodic inspections to ensure compliance with terms of the special use 

permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Continued occupancy of the residence and associated facilities has potential to cause 

adverse bear–human encounters. Physical impacts from construction of the residence

and other facilities occurred when they was built. Special conditions attached to the 

special use permit are designed to minimize the chances of adverse effects to bears and 

other resources. The structures have been in place for more than 20 years; thus any bear 

or other wildlife displacement that may have occurred has happened. Most bears using 

these areas are likely habituated to the presence of these structures and the activities 

that routinely occur in and near them. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

Monitoring of the permit will be carried out to ensure compliance with the following conditions 

to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources.

E-110 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Subject to available suppression resources, all permitted cabins will be protected from

wildfire to the extent possible. Human safety will receive the highest priority 

consideration by land managers and fire-suppression personnel. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be on the premises at all times while exercising the 

privileges of the permit. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 A nonrefundable administrative fee will be assessed prior to issuing this permit. 

 Additions or alterations to existing structures and construction of new facilities must have 

the Refuge Manager’s prior approval in writing. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-111 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Scientific Research 

Primary Use: Research and surveys 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), environmental education (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized 

agents), environmental education (other), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff 

or authorized agents), fishing (general), fishing (other), plant gathering, rock

collecting, trapping, natural resource collecting, camping, cross-country skiing, hiking 

and backpacking, photography, video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent,

recreational—other), snorkeling or scuba diving, snowshoeing, swimming and beach 

use, outdoor recreation (other), scientific collecting, photography (wildlife), wildlife 

observation, fixed-wing aircraft. 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-113 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This compatibility determination addresses the full spectrum of uses associated with the 

scientific research on fish, wildlife, habitat, and other Refuge resources. It includes all 

means of access, lodging and facilities, and other elements identified in the research 

proposal. The scope of this determination includes research conducted by all agencies or 

entities other than the Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or in 

cooperation with the Service. Specific authorized means of access for all areas on the Refuge 

will be described in each special use permit. Potential means of access include fixed-wing 

aircraft, motor boats, nonpowered boats, hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. 

Potential lodging and facilities include tents, tent frames, weatherports, existing cabins, and 

caches. Most research would occur during spring, summer, and fall, but winter research is 

also possible. If any activities are performed for commercial purposes, a separate 

commercial use special use permit would be required before going into the field. For 

example, commercial photography, video or filming must have an Other Public Uses special 

use permit.

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage research 

activities at existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time primarily involves 

phone conversations, written correspondence, proposal review, and interaction with 

researchers. Field work associated with administering the program primarily involves 

monitoring researchers’ compliance with the terms of their permits.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The Refuge Manager will assist the applicant with obtaining appropriate collection 

permits for research involving fish and wildlife. Factors such as targeted research 

species, number of researchers, transportation modes, number of aircraft and amount of

aircraft use, fuel storage, garbage and human waste management, type and location of

lodging, and location of access points will determine the extent of impacts on the Refuge. 

Special conditions the Service imposes on scientific research and associated activities 

would ensure these activities would not have significant impacts on the wildlife resources; 

other Refuge resources such as water quality, soil, and vegetation; and other Refuge

users, especially subsistence users. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

E-114 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

A special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources.

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, contractors, 

aircraft pilots, and any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities 

allowed by this permit are familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee and permittee’s employees do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or 

lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working 

hours in person or by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed 

by this permit. 

 Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the

Refuge Manager with: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief/supervisor; 

aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these vehicles; 

and names of crew members, and (2) any changes in information provided in the original 

permit application. 

 Unless the permit is for archaeological work, in accordance with the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the disturbance of archaeological or historical 

sites, and the removal of artifacts are prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, 

or purchase of historical, ethnological, or archaeological specimens or artifacts is 

prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-115 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 Unauthorized fuel caches are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in compliance with 

regional Service fuel storage policy. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the party leader’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with a report of activities under this 

permit within 30 days of permit expiration. 

– If any activities are performed for commercial purposes, a special use permit for 

Other Public Uses would be required before going into the field. 

 This special use permit specifically does not authorize the following: 

– Construction of blinds, stands or any other structures 

– Baiting, feeding, harassing, herding, or any other activity that changes, or

attempts to change, normal behavior, this includes but is not limited to bears, fox, 

deer, and eagles 

– Commercially guided activities as described in attachment (a) Refuge Guide and 

Other Visitor Service Definitions. 

E-116 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 All aircraft being used in commercial operations must have 12-inch identification numbers 

in contrasting colors, which are readily visible. 

 Helicopter use must be specifically authorized and the transporter must have a valid 

special use permit from Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

 Motorboat operators must possess U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) licenses for all passengercarrying operations, if required by USCG regulations. 

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting 

seasons or for protection of life or property. 

 Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or 

harasses other Refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. 

Examples of prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or 

persons at less than 500 feet (unless landing) and parking aircraft or placing other objects 

on any landable area to restrict use by other aircraft of persons. 

 All information, reports, photos, data, collections, and observations obtained as a result of 

this permit must be accessible from the permittee at any time upon request by the Service 

at no cost, unless specific arrangements are made to the contrary. The Service recognizes 

the proprietary nature of scientific data and will respect the researchers' privileged 

position regarding first publication. These data may be used in resource management 

decisions by the Service prior to their publication, however. Proprietary data of 

commercial value will be treated confidentially upon request, but may also be used in 

management decisions. 

 Prior to implementing field work, the permittee must provide documentation that 

activities that involve an invasive procedure or that harm or materially alter the behavior 

of an animal under study, and the proposed procedures, have been reviewed and approved 

by a recognized Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) as required by

the Animal Welfare Act.

Justification 

Natural and social science information is necessary for the proper management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It is Service policy to encourage and support research

and management studies to provide scientific data that leads to decisions regarding 

management units in the refuge system. 

The Service will also permit the use of a refuge by other investigators for scientific

purposes when such use is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge is managed. 

Priority will be given to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats in their 

natural diversity. All proposed research conducted by other agencies or entities will be 

thoroughly evaluated prior to authorization and then monitored closely to ensure that the 

activities do not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the Refuge or

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Supporting Documents 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-117 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Snowmachines (Snowmobiles) 

Primary Use: Snowmachines 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), hunting (big 

game), hunting (upland game), trapping, natural resource collecting, camping, 

cross-country skiing, photography, video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlifedependent, recreational —other), snowshoeing, outdoor recreation (other), research, 

scientific collecting, surveys, gathering (subsistence), hunting (subsistence), trapping 

(subsistence), subsistence (other), photography (wildlife), wildlife observation. 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-119 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates use of snowmachines (snowmobiles) for access to Kodiak 

Refuge. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a snowmachines as “a self-propelled 

vehicle intended for off-road vehicle travel primarily on snow [and] having a curb weight

of not more than 1000 pounds, driven by track or tracks in contact with the snow and 

driven by a ski or skis in contact with the snow (50 CFR 36.32).” The Code of Federal 

Regulations also requires that snowmachines are only allowed during periods of adequate 

snow cover. Adequate snow cover is snow cover that will protect underlying vegetation 

from adverse effects. Snowmachine use occurs during winter and would continue to all 

accessible areas of the Refuge except for an area around Den Mountain, which would be

closed to snowmachine use to protect denning brown bears. 

Although the exact amount of snowmachine use on the Refuge is not documented, it is not 

believed to be substantive. Prior to passage of ANILCA in 1980, snowmachines were 

prohibited on Refuge lands by regulation. The relatively warm maritime climate and 

steep topography of Kodiak Island make the use of snowmachines at low elevations 

impractical during many winters. Some snowmachine use does occur at higher elevations 

and at lower elevations during snowy and cold winters. 

There is a recreational snowmachine club in the city of Kodiak. Club activities include 

some trips to high elevation areas from the Anton Larsen Road (off-Refuge) and 

occasional trips to Port Lions using a route that may include Refuge lands. 

Snowmachines have also been used occasionally to access high-elevation areas along the

northern Refuge boundary in the Terror Lake vicinity. Only two of the four villages 

bordering the Refuge have a past history of snowmachine use, according to information 

provided at public meetings for the original comprehensive conservation plan. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage this 

limited use. Monitoring can be conducted by talking with snowmachine club members 

and local residents and, during winter and spring, overflights of the Refuge conducted for 

other purposes. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Potential impacts of snowmachine use include disturbing underlying vegetation and 

wildlife. Denning bears are most susceptible to snowmachine disturbance. Denning bears 

disturbed by ill-advised or uninformed snowmachine use by just one individual could 

cause bears to abandon dens and newborn cubs incapable to travel (Jonkel 1980). The 

proposed seasonal closure of the Den Mountain area would protect denning brown bears 

in the area. These bears would continue to exhibit natural, wild patterns of activity and 

habitat use if the area is less accessible to snowmachine use. Snowmachine tracks have

been observed entering the Refuge near Viekoda River and traversing parts of Baumann 

Creek (Wilker 2004). However, this area was not recommended for seasonal closure

because denning habitat at Baumann Creek is comprised of cliffs and very steep terrain 

situated in upper slopes of a canyon. Though snowmachines can access the lower canyon 

floor and highlands above the canyon, physical barriers prevent penetration of denning 

habitat. Though snowmachine tracks have been observed within and adjacent to the Den 

Mountain area, none have been observed in the denning area of Baumann Creek. 

E-120 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination, however there were many comments about snowmachine use on the 

refuge. The Wilderness Society and the Defenders of Wildlife expressed concerns about 

snowmobile use and questioned why only one denning area was proposed for closure to 

snowmachine use. Additional information explaining that the bear denning area adjacent 

to Baumann Creek is not accessible by snowmachines was added to the impacts section of 

this compatibility determination. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

No special use permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring will be carried out to ensure compliance with laws and 

regulations and to minimize impacts on Refuge lands and resources. 

 The Den Mountain Area will be closed to snowmobile use to protect denning brown bears. 

 Snowmobile use is only allowed during periods of adequate snow cover as defined in 

regulation 50 CFR 36.2. 

Justification 

Snowmachines allow access for winter activities on the Refuge. The proposed closure to

snowmachine access to the Den Mountain area will protect the denning bears in this 

sensitive area from possible adverse effects due to snow machine use. Snowmachine 

access to other sensitive bear denning areas is unlikely. Regulations defining the size 

and weight of snowmachines coupled with the requirement that adequate snow cover be

present eliminate most potential for damage to habitat. The low levels of snowmachine

use on Kodiak Refuge would have negligible adverse effects on other wildlife and would 

allow the public to visit the Refuge during winter. 

Supporting Documents 

Jonkel, C. J. 1980. “Black, brown, and polar bears.” Pages 227–228 in Big game of North 

America: ecology and management. J. L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, eds. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-121 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: State of Alaska Management Activities

Primary Use: Uses (other)—State of Alaska management activities

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), environmental education (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized 

agents), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), fishing 

(general), fishing (other), plant gathering, rock collecting, trapping, natural resource 

collecting, camping, cross-country skiing, hiking and backpacking, photography, video, 

filming, audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), snorkeling or

scuba diving, snowshoeing, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), 

research, scientific collecting, surveys, photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, 

fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter access, tree harvest (firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-123 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This compatibility determination addresses routine management activities conducted by 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Bureau of Wildlife 

Enforcement State Troopers that are not cooperative projects with the Service. These

projects may not be encompassed by the Master Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska, signed March 13,

1982, and/or be law enforcement activities conducted by Alaska Bureau of Wildlife 

Enforcement State Troopers. This includes the following activities: fish and wildlife 

surveys conducted by boat, foot, or other means not restricted by regulation or policy; 

aircraft landings in support of aerial fish and wildlife surveys; vegetation and habitat 

classification and surveys; and law enforcement activities. 

This compatibility determination does not address predator management, fish and wildlife 

control (with the exception of animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property), reintroduction of 

species, non-native species management, pest management, disease prevention and control, 

fishery restoration, fishery enhancement, native fish introductions, non-native species 

introductions, construction of facilities, or any other unpermitted activity that could alter Refuge 

ecosystems. Separate compatibility determinations addressing specific proposals will be 

required for those activities. All management and research activities conducted by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game under a specific cooperative agreement with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to fulfill one or more purposes of the Refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission are not subject to a compatibility determination. 

Potential means of access include fixed-wing aircraft, motorboats, snowmachines, 

nonpowered boats, foot, snowshoes, and cross-country skis. Helicopter access is 

addressed in a separate compatibility determination. Potential lodging and facilities 

include tents, tent frames, tent platforms, weatherports, existing permitted cabins, and 

caches. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage activities 

at existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time (as many as 10 staff days per

year) primarily involves phone conversations, written correspondence, and personal 

interaction with state personnel regarding ongoing activities. Field work associated with 

administering the program primarily involves monitoring (when applicable) the state’s 

activities to ensure all activities remain compatible. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Because Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement 

personnel are trained professionals, the Service anticipates that routine law enforcement 

and fish and wildlife monitoring and management activities would have positive overall 

impacts on wildlife resources, other Refuge resources (such as water quality, soil, and 

vegetation), and Refuge visitors. These positive impacts would support Refuge purposes 

and goals and the Service mission. 

E-124 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: January 2016 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Action Memorandum 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

E-126 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Subsistence Activities

Primary Uses: Fishing (subsistence), gathering (subsistence), hunting (subsistence), and 

subsistence (other). 

Supporting Uses: Tree harvest (firewood), boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (humanpowered), boating (motorized), rock collecting, trapping, natural resource collecting, camping, 

cross-country skiing, dog sledding and ski jouring, hiking and backpacking, photography, 

video, filming, audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), snorkeling or 

scuba diving, snowshoeing, swimming and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), photography 

(wildlife), wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft. 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-127 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Subsistence activities addressed in this determination include hunting, fishing, firewood 

gathering, berry picking, and gathering of other plant materials (e.g., roots, wild celery, 

and grass). They also include airplane access and other associated means of transport 

such as snowmachines, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for such purposes, as allowed under ANILCA Section 811. 

Residents of the six villages (Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Karluk, Ahkiok, Port Lions, and 

Ouzinkie) located in or near the Refuge have lifestyles and economies that depend on 

subsistence resources. Kodiak city residents are also considered subsistence users under 

federal regulations. Subsistence activities are not just a way of obtaining food, but an 

important mechanism for maintaining cultural values such as kinship, community, 

respect for elders, hospitality, sharing resources, and the passing of values to younger 

generations. In addition, many residents in the area simply prefer the taste of traditional 

wild foods to that of commercially purchased foods. 

The mainstay subsistence food for the Refuge’s nearby communities is salmon, which is 

obtained by subsistence harvest as well as kept from the commercial catch. All five 

Pacific salmon species found in Alaska are used, although chinook, sockeye, and coho are 

preferred. Freshwater species—including rainbow trout, Arctic char, and Dolly 

Varden—are also used, but to a much lesser extent. Birds and their eggs are also 

subsistence foods used by local residents. Large mammals, especially deer and elk, are

important subsistence resources. Annual wild food harvests for Kodiak area communities 

average 272 pounds per person (Scott, et al. 2001). 

A few local trappers operate within the Refuge, harvesting beaver, river otter and other 

small fur-bearing mammals. The sale of these furs provides supplemental income to 

residents of some communities adjacent the Refuge. The average annual number of 

trapper-related visits and harvest numbers of furbearers occurring on the Refuge are not 

available, but the numbers are small because less than 10 trapping permits are issued 

annually on the Refuge. Trapping is evaluated in a separate compatibility determination. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage

subsistence activities at existing and projected levels. Management primarily includes 

conducting wildlife and public use studies and surveys specifically for the management of 

subsistence species, conducting harvest surveys in the local communities, and 

participating in the regulatory development process with the Federal Subsistence Board 

and State Boards of Fish and Game.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Fish and wildlife harvested by subsistence users at current and projected levels—in 

accordance with established state and federal regulations pertaining to season, bag 

limits, and methods of harvest—are not expected to have long-term impacts on the 

overall populations of Refuge fish and wildlife resources. State and federal biologists 

monitor fish and game populations, and state and federal regulatory bodies continually 

respond to management needs by adopting regulations to ensure the continued health of 

fish and wildlife populations. 

E-128 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to the resources from berry picking and other plant harvesting activities are 

relatively insignificant. Impacts to habitat caused by aircraft, boats, and foot travel are 

generally minimal. Much of the access by subsistence users is by boat, thereby causing 

very little impact to Refuge habitat. The number of aircraft landings on the Refuge by

subsistence users is relatively low, and those occur primarily on existing bodies of water 

using float planes. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Subsistence monitoring is carried out by staff of the Federal Subsistence Board. The 

Federal Subsistence Board designs subsistence regulations to insure protection of Refuge 

resources. 

Justification 

One of the purposes of Kodiak Refuge is to provide for continued subsistence uses by local 

residents, consistent with the other Refuge purposes of conserving fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats and fulfilling international treaty obligations with respect to fish and wildlife. 

ANILCA recognized that the continued opportunity for subsistence uses of public lands is 

critical to the physical, economic, traditional, social, and cultural existence of rural Native and 

non-Native residents of Alaska. ANILCA established a preference for subsistence users, stating 

that the taking of fish and wildlife on public lands for nonwasteful subsistence use is given 

priority over other consumptive uses. In times of scarcity, recreational use is limited first. 

Section 811 of ANILCA ensures that subsistence users can access public lands by 

snowmachine, motorboat, and other traditionally used means of transportation, subject to 

reasonable regulation. In conclusion, current subsistence activities occurring on the Refuge 

contribute to one of the purposes of the Refuge while not materially interfering with or 

detracting from the other purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Supporting Documents 

Scott, Cheryl, Amy Paige, and Louis Brown. 2001. Community Profile Database. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kodiak, 

Alaska. 202 pp. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-129 

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Use: Trapping 

Primary Use: Trapping 

Supporting Uses: Boating (electric and wind-driven), boating (human-powered), boating 

(motorized), fishing (general), fishing (other), hunting (big game), hunting (other 

migratory birds), hunting (upland game), hunting (waterfowl), hunting (other), plant 

gathering, rock collecting, natural resource collecting, camping, cross-country skiing, 

dog sledding and ski jouring, hiking and backpacking, photography, video, filming, 

audio recording (nonwildlife-dependent, recreational—other), snowshoeing, swimming 

and beach use, outdoor recreation (other), fishing (subsistence), gathering 

(subsistence), hunting (subsistence), trapping (subsistence), subsistence (other), 

photography (wildlife), wildlife observation, fixed-wing aircraft, tree harvest 

(firewood). 

Refuge Name: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Original authority was Executive Order 8857 (1941); modified by Public Land Order 1634 

(1958), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), and Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 1980) 

Refuge Purposes 

Executive Order 8857 established Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge “. . . for the purpose

of protecting the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears and other 

wildlife on Uganik and Kodiak Islands . . .” 

Section 303(5)(B) of ANILCA states the following: 

“The purposes for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be

managed include 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity 

including, but not limited, to Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions, and 

other marine mammals and migratory birds; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish 

and wildlife and their habitats; 

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 

(ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity 

within the refuge.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

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

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-131 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use 

This determination re-evaluates trapping furbearing animals on Kodiak Refuge under

federal subsistence and State of Alaska trapping regulations. River otter, red fox, and 

weasel are native mammals trapped. Of the introduced species, beaver, snowshoe hare, 

and red squirrel may be trapped throughout the Refuge, and marten may be trapped on

Afognak Island. By regulation (50 CFR 36.32(c)(1)(iii)), the Refuge requires each 

trapper to obtain a trapping permit. Trapping occurs during winter, with an average of

nine trapping permits issued annually 1994–1999. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate Refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to manage trapping 

on Kodiak Refuge. A few hours of staff time are involved in issuing trapping permits and 

collecting information supplied by trappers. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

State and federal trapping regulations are established to ensure healthy sustainable 

wildlife populations. Trappers themselves have little impact on the Refuge. Occasionally

a nontargeted animal could be harvested. No long-term adverse impacts on wildlife 

populations or other Refuge resources are likely to occur because of continuation of 

trapping on the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public comment was solicited concurrently with the revision of the Refuge’s

comprehensive conservation plan. No comments were received on this compatibility 

determination.

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

A trapping permit is required. 

The management direction provided in the revised comprehensive conservation plan for the 

Refuge will be implemented. Monitoring would be used to determine what additional 

management actions, if any, were needed to ensure compatibility. Continuing law enforcement 

and administrative monitoring of permits will be carried out to ensure compliance with the 

following conditions that are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on Refuge

lands and resources. 

E-132 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

Regional conditions 

 Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any Refuge-related

provision in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of any pertinent

state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate

revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all persons 

working under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants or contractors). Appeals of 

decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with 50 Code of Federal

Regulations 36.41. 

 Any problems with wildlife and/or animals taken in defense-of-life-or-property must be

reported immediately to the Refuge Manager, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the Alaska State Troopers. Animals taken must be salvaged in accordance with state 

regulations. 

 The permittee does not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or lands covered by the permit. 

 This permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager for 

noncompliance or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety, unusual resource problems). 

 The permittee shall notify the Refuge Manager during Refuge working hours in person or 

by telephone before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed by this permit. 

 In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the

disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are 

prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, 

or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 

 Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines must 

be located at least 150 feet from springs, lakes, and streams. All property of the permittee 

except for cabins and tent frames is to be removed from Refuge lands upon completion of 

permitted activities. 

 The construction of landing strips or pads is prohibited. 

 The use of motorized vehicles is prohibited on all Refuge lands. 

 The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, 

harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, 

except for takeoff and landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground

level. 

 The use of helicopters is prohibited. 

 Unauthorized caches of fuel or other supplies are prohibited. Fuel storage, if any, will be in 

compliance with regional Service fuel storage policy. 

Kodiak Refuge Conditions 

 Visitors will be required to comply with any temporary restrictions, emergency orders or 

other types of regulatory actions promulgated by the Refuge Manager to prevent resource 

problems or conflicts, in cases of emergency, public safety, or unusual resource problems. 

 The use of Native or State lands that have been conveyed (patented) is not authorized by

this permit. 

 Use of Native or State lands that have been selected but not yet conveyed is prohibited 

unless a letter of concurrence is submitted to the Refuge Manager prior to beginning any 

activities allowed by this permit. 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-133 
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations 

 A copy of this special use permit must be in the permittee’s possession at all times while 

exercising the privileges of the permit. 

 Cabins on Refuge lands shall not be used by the permittee without the permission of the 

Refuge Manager except in cases of dire emergency for survival purposes. 

 Food or garbage attractive to bears or other wildlife will be immediately disposed of. No

attractive nuisance for bears or other wildlife shall be created by food storage, improper 

disposal of garbage (includes of burying of garbage), fish smoking, salting, drying, or other 

uses. 

 Combustibles (paper, wood, etc.) may be burned, but all other debris, including cans, 

bottles, fuel containers, and any other noncombustible material shall be removed and 

disposed of off Refuge when departing camps. 

 The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with a report of activities, including the 

number of animals by species taken under this permit within 30 days of permit expiration. 

 Construction of cabins or other permanent structures is prohibited. 

Justification 

Trapping is a long-established use on the Refuge. Except for red fox, river otter, and

weasel, wildlife sought by trappers is not native to the Refuge. Both the State of Alaska 

and Federal Subsistence Board manage harvest of wildlife, native and non-native, to

ensure long-term sustainability of harvest. Most trapping occurs when there are few 

other visitors on the Refuge. Although pelts of animals trapped may be sold, trapping on 

Kodiak Refuge is not a major commercial venture. Trapping occurs either as a 

subsistence or recreational activity. The current level of trapping, or even a substantial 

increase in trapping activities, would have only negligible adverse effects on the 

resources of Kodiak Refuge because of State and Federal harvest management and the 

special conditions included in Refuge trapping permits. 

Supporting Documents 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 533 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Public Use 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kodiak, 

Alaska. 202 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 

E-134 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F 

Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix F 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan F-1 

Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights-of-Way within 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Easements Reserved by the 

Service over Private Lands 

under Sec. 17(b) of ANCSA 

Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to reserve public easements 

on lands conveyed to Native corporations to guarantee access to 

public lands or waters. These easements include linear easements 

across Native lands and site easements. Easement are listed by 

easement identification number (EIN). Figure F-1 displays these 

easements. 

Akhiok-Kaguyak, Incorporated 

SITES 

EIN 10a D9................................ One-acre site at northwest head of Jap Bay in T37S R28W, Sec. 15 

(USGS map Kaguyak D-6) 

EIN 20 D9 C6 L ........................ Two and one-half acre site on north (right) bank of Olga Creek in 

T36S R32W, Sec. 14, at outlet of Lower South Olga Lake (USGS 

map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 22 D9 C6 L ........................ Two and one-half acre site on south (left) bank of Olga Creek in 

T36S R32W, Sec. 14, at outlet of Lower South Olga Lake (USGS 

map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 24 D9 ................................. One-acre site at mouth of Olga Creek in T36S R31W, Sec. 19, at 

Lower South Olga Lake (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 26 C6 D9 L ........................ One-acre site on Olga Creek in T36S R31W, Sec. 17, at outlet of 

Upper South Olga Lake (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 29a D9................................ One-acre site on east shore of Olga Bay in T36S R30W, Sec. 17 

(USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 37a C4................................ One-acre site on east shore of Moser Bay in T36S R30W, Sec. 29, at 

unnamed creek (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 42a C5 C6 D1 D9 .............. 25-ft × 1000-ft site on east end of Moser Lake in T36S R31W, Sec. 

23 and 26 (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

PROPOSED TRAILS (25 feet wide) 

EIN 10 D9 ................................. Head of Jap Bay in T37S R28W, Sec. 15, at site EIN 10a D9 

southwesterly to refuge land (USGS map Kaguyak D-6) 
Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

F-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure F-1 17(b) easements and proposed RS-2477 routes on Kodiak Refuge 
Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan F-3 

EIN 23 D9 ................................. Mouth of Olga Creek at Lower South Olga Lake in T36S R31W, 

Sec. 19, at site EIN 24 D9 northerly and southerly to refuge land 

(USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 23a D9................................ Upper South Olga Lake in T36S R31W, Sec. 9, northwesterly 

parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS map Karluk A1) 

EIN 27 D9 ................................. Upper South Olga Lake in T36S R31W, Sec. 17, at site EIN 26 C6 

D9 L southeasterly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 29 D9 ................................. East shore of Olga Bay in T36S R30W, Sec. 17, at site EIN 29a D9 

easterly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 37 C4.................................. East shore of Moser Bay in T36S R30W, Sec. 29 at site EIN 37a C4 

southeasterly parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS 

map Karluk A-1) 

EIN 39 C5 C6 D1 D9 ................ North shore of Snug Cove in T37S R31W, Sec. 4, northerly to refuge 

land. (USGS map Trinity Islands D-1) 

RESTRICTED TO U.S. 

GOVERNMENT USE 

EIN 100 J................................... 225-ft radius around U.S. Coast Guard light at Cape Alitak in T38S 

R32W, Sec. 34 (USGS map Trinity Islands D-1) 

EIN 101 J................................... 25-ft-wide trail at Cape Alitak in T38S R32W, Sec. 34, at USCG 

light EIN 100 J, northeasterly to Sec. 27 at site EIN 102 J (USGS 

map Trinity Islands D-1) 

EIN 102 J................................... One-acre site on south shore of Alitak Lagoon in T38S R32W, Sec. 

27 (USGS map Trinity Islands D-1) 

EIN 103 J................................... 25-ft-wide trail at Cape Alitak in T38S R32W, Sec. 34, at USCG 

light EIN 100 J northerly to helicopter landing site EIN 104 (USGS 

map Trinity Islands D-1) 

EIN 104 J................................... One-acre helicopter landing site 600 ft north of USCG light EIN 100 

J in T38S R32W, Sec. 34 (USGS map Trinity Islands D-1) 

Koniag, Incorporated (includes villages of Karluk and Larsen Bay) 

SITES 

EIN 13a C6 D9 L....................... Ten-acre site on east (right) bank of Karluk River in T30S R30W, 

Sec. 31, at trail EIN 12 C6 D9 L (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 13b C6 D9 L ...................... Two and one-half acre site on west (left) bank of Karluk River in 

T30S R30W, Sec. 31 (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 20 C1 C6 D9 L................... Five-acre site on west (left) bank of Karluk River in T31S R30W, 

Sec. 33, at outlet of Karluk Lake (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 21 C1 C6 D9 L................... Fifteen-acre site on east (right) bank of Karluk River in T31S R30W, 

Sec. 33, at outlet of Karluk Lake (USGS map Karluk B-1) 
Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

F-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

EIN 29 C4 ..................................One-acre site on east shore of Sturgeon Lagoon in T31S R33W, Sec. 

12, at mouth of unnamed stream (USGS map Karluk C-2) 

EIN 30a D9 ................................One-acre site on west shore of Uyak Bay in T32S R28W, NW 

quarter of Sec. 32 (USGS map Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 34 C6 L...............................One-acre site on north (right) bank of Thumb River in T32S R29W, 

Sec. 31, at confluence with Karluk Lake (USGS map Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 39 C4 ..................................One-acre site on east shore of Karluk Lake in T32S R30W, Sec. 3, at 

mouth of Moraine Creek (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EXISTING TRAILS (25 feet in width) 

EIN 2d C6 ..................................South shore of Karluk Lake and south bank of O’Malley River in 

T33S R30W, Sec. 35, easterly to refuge land (USGS maps Karluk B1 and Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 11 D9..................................End of trail EIN 47 C4 in T30S R30W, Sec. 31, southwesterly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 12 C6 D9 L.........................Head of Larsen Bay in T30S R30W, Sec. 33, westerly to Karluk 

River in T30S R30W, Sec. 31, at site EIN 13a C6 D9 L (USGS map 

Karluk C-1) 

EIN 47 C4 ..................................West (left) bank of Karluk River in T31S R30W, Sec. 31, at site 

EIN 13b C6 D9 L southwesterly to beginning of trail 

EIN 11 D9 (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 100 C4 ................................Camp Island in T32S R30W, Sec. 25 and 36 (USGS map Karluk B1) 

PROPOSED TRAILS (25 feet in width) 

EIN 6 D9 L ................................West shore of Uyak Bay in T30S R29W, Sec. 8, westerly along left 

bank of Salmon Creek to refuge land (USGS maps Kodiak C-6 and 

Karluk C-1) 

EIN 7 D9....................................Larsen Bay airport in T30S R 29W, Sec. 32, southeasterly parallel to 

an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS map Kodiak C-6) 

EIN 8 D9....................................South shore of Larsen Bay in T30S R30W, Sec. 35, southeasterly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 9 D9....................................South shore of Larsen Bay in T31S R30W, Sec. 4, southeasterly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 11 D9..................................North shore of Larsen Bay in T30S R30W, Sec. 34, northwesterly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk C-1) 

EIN 17 C6 D9 ............................Outlet of Karluk Lake in T31S R30W, Sec. 33, at site EIN 21 C1 C6 

D9 L northerly and parallel to the east bank of Karluk River to T30S 

R30W, Sec. 31, at site EIN 13a C6 D9 L (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 18 C6 L...............................Outlet of Karluk Lake in T31S R30W, Sec. 33, at site EIN 20 C1 C6 

D9 L southwesterly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-1) 
Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan F-5 

EIN 18a D.................................. From proposed trail EIN 18 C6 L in T32S R30W, Sec. 7, 

southeasterly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 22 C6 D9 L ........................ West shore of Uyak Bay in T31S R29W, Sec. 15, southwesterly 

and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS map 

Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 24 D9 ................................. Mouth of Brown’s Lagoon in T31S R28W, Sec. 5, northeasterly to 

refuge land (USGS map Kodiak C-6) 

EIN 26 D9 ................................. East shore of Sturgeon Lagoon in T31S R33W, Sec. 12, at site EIN 

29 C4 easterly and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land 

(USGS map Karluk C-2) 

EIN 30b D9 ............................... West shore of Uyak Bay in T32S R28W, Sec. 32, at site EIN 30a D9 

westerly and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS 

map Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 32 C6 L .............................. West shore of Uyak Bay in T32S R29W, Sec. 13, southwesterly 

and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS map 

Kodiak B-6) 

EIN 35 C4.................................. West (left) bank of Sturgeon River in T31S R33W, Sec. 14, 

southerly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-2) 

EIN 36 D9 ................................. East shore of Karluk Lake in T32S R30W, Sec. 14, easterly 

and parallel to Cottonwood Creek to refuge land (USGS map Karluk 

B-1) 

EIN 37 D9 ................................. East shore of Karluk Lake in T32S R30W, Sec. 3, at site EIN 39 C4 

northeasterly to refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 38 D9 ................................. West shore of Karluk Lake in T32S R30W, Sec. 27, westerly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 40 C4.................................. Outlet of Karluk Lake in T31S R30W, Sec. 33, at site EIN 21 C1 C6 

D9 L southeasterly and parallel to Karluk Lake to T32S R30W, Sec. 

3, at site EIN 39 C4 (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

EIN 43 C4 C6............................ West (left) bank of Karluk River in T31S R30W, Sec. 18, westerly to 

refuge land (USGS map Karluk B-1) 

Old Harbor Native Corporation 

SITES 

EIN 13 D9 ................................. One-acre site at head of Midway Bay in T34S R25W, Sec. 16, at 

mouth of unnamed stream (USGS map Kodiak A-4) 

EIN 17 D9 ................................. One-acre site at head of Barling Bay in T34S R26W, Sec. 27, at 

mouth of unnamed stream flowing from the south (USGS map 

Kodiak A-5) 
Appendix F: Easements, Withdrawals, and Rights of Way 

F-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

PROPOSED TRAILS (25 feet in 

width) 

EIN 15 D9..................................Head of Barling Bay in T34S R26W, Sec. 27, at site EIN 17 D9 

northerly and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land (USGS 

map Kodiak A-5) 

EIN 18a D1 D9 C6 C4...............Head of Barling Bay in T34S R26W, Sec. 27, at site EIN 17 D9 

southwesterly and parallel to an unnamed stream to refuge land 

(USGS map Kodiak A-5) 

EIN 18d D9................................Head of Barling Bay in T34S R26W, Sec. 27, at site EIN 17 D9 

westerly and parallel to a tidal stream to refuge land (USGS map 

Kodiak A-5) 

EIN 27 D1 D9 C6 C4.................Head of Midway Bay in T34S R25W, Sec. 16, at site EIN 13 D9 

northwesterly and parallel to the east bank of an unnamed stream to 

refuge land (USGS maps Kodiak A-4 and Kodiak B-4) 

Uganik 

EXISTING TRAIL (25 feet in width) 

EIN 1a C5 ..................................West shore of Uganik Bay in T28S R26W, Sec. 7, at beach westerly 

to refuge land (USGS map Kodiak D-5) 

RS-2477 Routes 

The State of Alaska has identified the route commonly referred to as 

the “Portage Trail” (EIN 12 C6 D9 L) and believes it may be claimed 

as a highway under Revised Statute (RS) 2477, a section of the 

Mining Act of 1866. RS-2477 states that “the right-of-way for the 

construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public 

uses, is hereby granted.” In addition to specific routes, the State of 

Alaska also claims section line easements under RS-2477. RS-2477 

was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, subject to valid existing claims. All claims must be 

adjudicated, and rules for determining valid claims are still a matter 

of some dispute. See Figure F-1 for the location of the RS-2477 route 

on Kodiak Refuge. 
Appendix G 

Species Lists
Appendix G 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Species Lists This appendix contains a list of species for Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and a list of species with special designationsFish 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific lamprey Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout (resident) Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead trout Salvelinus alpinus Arctic char Salvelinus malma Dolly varden Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye salmon 

Scientific Name 

Oncorhynchus tshawtscha Chinook Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salOncorhynchus keta Chum saGasterosteus aculeatus ThreespiPungitius pungitius NinespinCottus alueticus Coastran

Birds * found nesting on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Gavia stellata Red-throated loon* Gavia arctica Pacific loon Gavia immer Common loon* Gavia adamsii Yellow-billed loon Podilymbus podiceps Pie-billed grebe Podiceps auritus Horned grebe Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe* Diomeda immutabilis Laysan albatross Diomeda nigripes Black-footed albatross Diomeda albatrus Short-tailed albatross Fulmarcus glacialis Northern fulmar Pterodroma inexpectata Mottled petrel Puffinus creatopus Pink-footed shearwater Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed shearwater 

Scientific Name C

Puffinus griseus Sooty shePuffinus tenuirostris Short-taileOceanodroma furcata Fork-taileOceanodroma leucorhoa Leach’s stPhalacrocorax auritus Double-crPhalacrocorax urile Red-faced Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic coArdea herodias Great blue Casmerodius albus Great egreAnser albifrons Greater wChen canagica Emperor gPuffinus bulleri Buller’s shChen caerulescens Snow gooBranata canadensis Canada go
App

G-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Scientific Name Common Name 

Branata bernicla Brant Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan* Aix sponsa Wood duck Anas strepera Gadwall* Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon Anas americana American wigeon* Anas platyrhynchos Mallard* Anas poecilorhyncha Spot-billed duck Anas discors Blue-winged teal Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Anas acuta Northern pintail* Anas crecca Green-winged teal* Aythya valisineria Canvasback Aythya americana Redhead Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck Aythya fuligula Tufted duck Aythya marila Greater scaup* Aythya affinis Lesser scaup* Somateria stelleri Steller’s eider Somateria fischeri Spectacled eider Somateria spectabilis King eider Somateria mollissima Common eider* Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin duck* Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter Melanitta fusca White-winged scoter Melanitta nigra Black scoter* 

Scientific Name C

Clangula hyemalis Long-taileBucephala albeola BuffleheaBucephala clangula Common Bucephala islandica Barrow’s Mergellus albellus Smew Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded mMergus merganser Common Mergus serrator Red-breasPandion haliaetus Osprey Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagleHaliaeetus pelagicus Steller’s sCircus cyaneus Northern hAccipiter striatus Sharp-shinAccipiter gentilis Northern gButeo jamaicensis Red-tailed Buteo lagopus Rough-legAquila chrysaetos Golden eaFalco sparverius American Falco columbarius Merlin* Falco rusticolus GyrfalconFalco peregrinus pealei Peregrine Lagopus lagopus Willow ptLagopus mutus Rock ptarmFulica americana American Grus canadensis Sandhill cPluvialis squatarola Black-bellPluvialis fulvas Lesser golPluvialis dominica Pacific go
App

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Charadrius mongolus Mongolian plover Charadrius semipalmatus Semi-palmated plover* Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Haematopus bachmani Black oystercatcher* Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs* Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper Heteroscelus incanus Wandering tattler* Heteroscelus brevipes Gray-tailed tattler Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Numenius tahitiensis Bristle-thighed curlew Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit Arenaria interpes Ruddy turnstone Arenia melanocephala Black turnstone Aphriza virgata Surfbird* Calidris canutus Red knot Calidris alba Sanderling Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris mauri Western sandpiper Calidris temminckii Temminck’s stint Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper* Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper 

Scientific Name C

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailCalidris ptilocnemis Rock sandCalidris alpina Dunlin Calidris ferruginea Curlew saCalidris himatopus Stilt sandpTryngites subruficollis Buff-breasPhilomachus pugnax Ruff Linmodromus griseus Short-billeLinmodromus scolopaceus Long-billeGallinago gallinago Common Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s pPhalaropus lobatus Red-neckePhalaropus fulicaria Red phalaCatharacta maccormicki South polaStercorarius pomarinus Pomarine Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic jStercorarius longicaudus Long-taileLarus pipixcan Franklin’s Larus ridibundus Black-heaLarus philadelphia BonaparteLarus crassirostris Black-tailLarus canus Mew gull* Larus delewarensis Ring-billeLarus californicus California Larus argentatus Herring guLarus thayeri Iceland guLarus fuscus Lesser blaLarus schistisagus Slaty-back
App

G-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Scientific Name Common Name 

Larus occidentalis Western gull Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull* Larus hyberboreus Glaucous gull Larus marinus Great black-backed gull Xema sabini Sabine’s gull Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake* Rissa brevirostris Red-legged kittiwake Sterna caspia Caspian tern Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern* Sterna aleutica Aluetian tern* Alle alle Dovekie Uria aalge Common murre* Uria lomvia Thick-billed murre* Cepphus columba Pigeon guillemot* Brachyramphus perdix Long-billed murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled murrelet* Brachyramphus brevirostris Kittlitz’s murrelet* Synthliboramphus antiquus Ancient murrelet* Ptychoramphus alueticus Cassin’s auklet* Cyclorrhychus psittacula Parakeet auklet* Aethia pusilla Least auklet Aethia cristatella Crested auklet Cerorhinca moncerata Rhinoceros auklet* Fratercula corniculata Horned puffin* Fratercula cirrhata Tufted puffin* Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Nyctea scandiaca Snowy owl Surnia ulula Northern hawk-owl* 

Scientific Name C

Strix nebulosa Great grey Asio flammeus Short-earrArgolius funereus Boreal owNyctidromus albicollis Common Selasphorus rufus Rufous huCeryle alcyon Belted kinSphyrapicus varius Yellow-beSphyrapicus ruber Red-breasPicoides pubescens Downy woPicoides villosus Hairy wooPicoides tridactylus Three-toed Colaptes auratus Northern fSayornis saya Say’s phoTyrannus tyrannus Eastern kiLanius excubitor Northern sPica pica Black-billCorvus caurinus NorthwestCorvus corax Common Eremophila alpestris Horned laTachycineta bicolor Tree swallTachycineta thalassina Violet-greRiparia riparia Bank swalPetrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swalHirundo rustica Barn swalParus atricapillus Black-capSitta canadensis Red-breasCerthia familiaris Brown creTroglodytes troglodytes Winter wr
App

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet* Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet Sialia currucoides Mountain bluebird Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked thrush* Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush* Turdus migratorius American robin Ixoreus naevius Varied thrush* Sturnus vulgaris European starling Motacilla flava Yellow wagtail Anthus spinoletta American pipit* Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler* Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler* Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler* Dendroica townsendi Townsend’s warbler Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler* Spizella arborea American tree sparrow Passerculus sandwinchensis Savannah sparrow* 

Scientific Name C

Passerculus iliaca Fox sparroMelospiza melodia Song sparMelospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s Zonotrichia albicollis White-thoZonotrichia querula Harris’s spZonotrichia luecophrys White-croZonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crJunco hyemalis Dark-eyed Calcarius lapponicus Lapland loEmberiza rustica Rustic bunPlectrophenax nivalis Snow bunPlectrophenax hyperboreus McKay’s Agelaius phoeniceus Red-wingEuphagus carolinus Rusty blacFringilla montifringilla Brambling Luecosticte arctoa Gray-crowPheucticus melanocephalus Black-heaPinicola enucleator Pine grosbLoxia curivrostra Red crossbLoxia leucoptera White-winCarduelis flammea Common Carduelis hornemanni Hoary redCarduelis pinus Pine siskin

Mammals

Scientific Name Common Name 

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel 

Scientific Name C

Castor canadensis Beaver Microtus oeconomus Tundra voVulpes vulpes Red fox 
App

G-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Scientific Name Common Name 

Ursus arctos middendorffi Brown bear Mustela erminea Short-tailed weasel Martes americana Marten (Afognak only) Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis Sitka black-tailed deer 

Scientific Name C

Oreamnos americanus Mountain Cervus elaphus roosevelti Roosevelt Rangifer tarandus Reindeer 

Marine Mammals

Scientific Name Common Name 

Enhydra lutris kenyoni Sea otter Eumetopias jubatus Steller sea lion Phoca vitulina Harbor seal Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whale 

Scientific Name C

Eschrichtius robustus Gray whalMartes americana Marten (AOdocoileus hemionus sitkensis Sitka blackOreamnos americanus Mountain Cervus elaphus roosevelti Roosevelt Rangifer tarandus Reindeer Eubalaena japonica North Pac

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species E=Endangered T=Threatened C=Candidate Short-tailed albatross (E) Steller’s eider (T) Spectacled eider (T) Kittlitz’s murrelet (C) Northern sea otter (SW Alaska population) (T) Steller sea lion (E) Humpback whale (E) Fin whale (E) Sei whale (E) North Pacific right whale (E) 

State of Alaska Endangered Species Short-tailed albatross Humpback whale Right whale (now classified as North Pacific State of Alaska Species of Special ConSteller’s eider Spectacled eider Gray-cheeked thrush Townsend’s warbler Blackpoll warbler Sea otter (Northern sea otter) Steller sea lion Harbor seal
Appendix H 

Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix H 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-1 

1. Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

The following discussion provides additional detail on the landacquisition program on Kodiak Refuge. Figure 3-2 depicts the 

acquisition program refugewide. Figures H-1 through H-4 depict, on 

Refuge maps, the large-parcel acquisition program with each Native 

corporation. 

1.1 Summary of the AkhiokKaguyak, Inc., Large Parcel 

Acquisition (Figure H-1) 

1.1.1 Acquisition 

The United States, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) as 

its agent, and Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. (AKI), signed an Agreement to 

Purchase Lands and Interests in Lands on May 23, 1995. The 

agreement, funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee 

Council using EVOS restoration (civil) funding, called for the 

acquisition of AKI lands by the United States for inclusion into the 

protection of Kodiak Refuge. Through a series of five closings, AKI 

sold a total of 70,938 acres in fee surface estate for inclusion into 

Kodiak Refuge and protected an additional 72,375 acres with a 

conservation easement. The United States acquired all AKI lands on 

the northern and southeastern shoreline of Olga Bay, as well as all 

AKI lands on the Aliulik Peninsula, except those lands surrounding 

Kaguyak and nearby bays. AKI transferred all rights to the property 

sold to the United States, except a right conveyed to the State of 

Alaska, via conservation easement, to ensure the property remained 

undeveloped. 

In addition to conveying the previously described lands, AKI also 

conveyed a conservation easement to the United States that protected 

the remaining AKI lands on the Aliulik and Moser peninsulas. This 

easement included numerous provisions outlined subsequently. 

1.1.2 Conservation Easement 

This easement ensures that the conservation values of the protected 

lands will be maintained in perpetuity. AKI maintains title and 

ownership of these lands; however, management of the lands will be 

consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, legal mandates, etc., 

that govern Kodiak Refuge. As landowner, AKI maintains many 

rights to the land and has some latitude in its management. The terms 

of the easement are summarized in the following subsections. 

Rights of the Service 

 To enter the protected property in order to achieve the purposes 

and enforce the terms of the easement. 

 The right, but not the obligation, to restore natural resources and 

services injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure H-1. Overview of acquisition program in Akhiok-Kaguyak area 

 To prevent any activity on, or use of, the protected property that 

is inconsistent with the purpose of the easement, including the 

right to assess, monitor, and police AKI’s use of the easement 

lands and to limit such use, if necessary, to achieve the purposes 

of the easement. 

 To conduct fish, wildlife, and habitat surveys and research using 

customary techniques. 

 To construct and operate one weir site and one sonar site, and 

related facilities, for the purposes of fish and wildlife 

management and general monitoring of ecosystem health; 

establishment, by the Service, of any additional weir or sonar 

sites and related facilities requires written consent from AKI. 

 Establish as many as three seasonal camps for research or 

management purposes: the camp sites should be selected after 

consultation with AKI; these camps may be in different locations 

each year; additional camps and sites may be established with 

written consent from AKI. 

 To enforce all applicable state and federal fish, wildlife, and 

Refuge System statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-3 

 To take all reasonable steps to ensure that privileges and rights 

of AKI are protected and preserved, including limiting or 

denying access that might interfere with AKI’s rights. 

Rights of AKI (the Grantor)

 To place conditions on noncommercial public use and access to 

the protected property by issuing land use permits for a fee of not 

more than 125 percent of that charged by the Department of 

Interior elsewhere in the United States. 

 Issuance and denial of land use permits from AKI shall be made 

on the basis of standards and criteria determined, jointly by the 

Service and AKI, to be compatible with the purposes of this 

easement. 

 Exclusive right to control all commercial access to and use of the 

protected property. This exclusive right includes the right to 

conduct, authorize, permit, charge use fees for, control, limit, or 

exclude all commercial operations on or using the protected 

property. 

 Exclusive right to construct, maintain, use, and lease cabins and 

related structures—not to exceed 500 total square feet per site—

for compatible fishing, hunting, ecotourism, recreation, or 

similar purpose. No more than six cabin sites may be established 

and maintained at any one time. 

 To invoke an emergency closure, not to exceed 30 days, of all or 

a portion of the protected property in the event that permitted 

access is incompatible with any of the purposes of this easement. 

Public Access and Use

This easement does not convey to the public the right to enter the 

protected property for any purpose whatsoever. However, the parties 

agree to permit public access to and use of the protected property for 

hunting, fishing, and other natural land–based recreation 

opportunities consistent with policies, laws, and regulations 

governing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Such access is 

conditional upon the issuance of a permit by AKI. 

The parties intend that the Service will use its available legal 

authorities to provide law enforcement and trespass control and 

assistance to the Grantor (AKI) in relation to the permitted public 

access and use under this easement, subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds, available personnel, and the right of agency 

discretion. 

Prohibited Uses

The following uses of the protected property are prohibited unless

the Service determines the use to be necessary for either Refuge or 

conservation research or management of the protected property, or 

for conveying information to the public to protect public safety or 

natural resources. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Construction of buildings, fixed or improved camping 

accommodations or mobile homes, fences, billboards, or signs 

(other than those signs for boundary, trespass, direction, or 

general information) 

 Operation of all-terrain vehicles or other motorized land 

conveyances—not in use on the property as of April 20th, 1995—

determined by the Refuge manager to injure conservation values 

of the property, consistent with restrictions on Refuge lands 

 Changing of the topography or the removal, destruction, or 

cutting of trees or plants except for local subsistence or 

medicinal uses 

 The use of biocides except as necessary to control or remove 

nonnative fish, wildlife, or plants 

 The manipulation or alteration of natural water courses, shores, 

marshes, etc., that affects the water purity on the protected 

property. 

 At no time is the introduction of nonnative fish, wildlife, or 

plants allowed. 

 Dumping trash, garbage, or other offensive materials at any time 

Rights of the State of Alaska

To enforce compliance by the Grantee and/or Grantor with the terms 

of the prohibited uses, the State of Alaska has the right to enter upon 

the protected property to monitor compliance with the prohibited 

uses, provided prior notice is given to the Refuge manager and to 

AKI. 

Refuge and AKI Coordination Requirements

 Standards and criteria for the issuance or denial of land use 

permits will be jointly determined to be compatible with the 

purposes of the easement. These standards and criteria shall 

include provisions to control permitted public access in a manner 

that will not interfere with AKI’s exclusive commercial control. 

These standards and criteria shall include the amount, type, 

location, and timing of access to and use of the protected 

property and the reasonableness of the fee charged. The parties 

will meet at least biannually to review and revise the standards 

and criteria as necessary. These standards and criteria must be 

approved by the Refuge manager. AKI has the right to appeal an 

adverse decision. 

 New cabin sites will be selected in consultation with the Refuge 

manager, and new construction will take place only when the 

Refuge manager has determined that the location is compatible 

with the purposes of this easement. Should a cabin and site be 

abandoned, AKI must promptly restore the site to a natural state 

that meets the satisfaction of the Refuge manager. 

 Seasonal campsite locations used by the Service for research and 

management purposes will be selected after consultation with 

AKI. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-5 

1.2 Summary of the Old Harbor 

Native Corporation 

Large Parcel Acquisition 

(Figure H-2) 

1.2.1 Acquisition 

The United States, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) as 

its agent, and Old Harbor Native Corporation (OHNC) signed an 

Agreement to Purchase Lands and Interests in Lands on May 23, 

1995. The agreement, funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) 

Trustee Council using EVOS restoration (civil and criminal) funding, 

called for the acquisition of OHNC lands by the United States for 

inclusion into the protection of Kodiak Refuge. Through two 

closings, OHNC sold a total of 28,431 acres in fee surface estate for 

inclusion into Kodiak Refuge and protected an additional 3,000 acres 

with a conservation easement. The United States acquired all OHNC 

lands within Kodiak Refuge, except for small parcels at the head of 

Barling Bay and in the immediate vicinity of the village of Old 

Harbor. Upon transferring these lands, OHNC reserved an easement 

for subsistence access for residents of Old Harbor, a conservation 

easement conveyed to the State of Alaska to ensure the property 

remained undeveloped, and a reversionary right to take effect if the 

lands ever cease to be managed for Refuge or conservation purposes. 

1.2.2 Conservation Easement 

This easement ensures that the conservation values of the protected 

lands will be maintained in perpetuity as a wildlife refuge. 

Management of the lands will be consistent with applicable 

regulations, statutes, legal mandates, etc., that govern Kodiak 

Refuge. As landowner, Old Harbor maintains rights to the land and 

its management. Specific details of these rights and the rights of the 

Service as the Grantee described in the easement are discussed in the 

following subsections. 

Rights of the Service

 To enter the protected property in order to achieve the purposes 

and to enforce the terms of the easement 

 The right, but not the obligation, to restore natural resources and 

services injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

 To prevent any activity on, or use of, the protected property that 

is inconsistent with the purpose of the easement. 

 To conduct fish, wildlife, and habitat surveys and research using 

customary techniques; this includes the right to establish and 

operate fish weirs and sonar sites and related facilities with 

written consent from OHNC. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure H-2. Overview of acquisition program in the Old Harbor area 

Rights of Old Harbor (the Grantor)

 The right to exclude others from entering or engaging in any use 

of the protected property, except as otherwise provided for in 

this easement 

 The right to unlimited subsistence use of the protected property 

in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and 

regulations 

 The right to enforce the prohibited uses described in this 

easement 

Prohibited Uses

The following uses of the Protected Property are prohibited unless

the Service, in consultation with OHNC, determines the use to be 

necessary for either Refuge or conservation research or management 

of the protected property, or for conveying information to the public 

to protect public safety or natural resources: 

 Construction of buildings, fixed or improved camping 

accommodations or mobile homes, fences, billboards, or signs 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-7 

(other than those signs for boundary, trespass, direction, or 

general information) 

 The construction or maintenance of foot trails or paths 

 Operation of all-terrain vehicles or other motorized land 

conveyances, not in use on the property as of April 20, 1995, 

determined by the Refuge manager to injure conservation values 

of the property consistent with restrictions on Refuge lands 

 Changing of the topography or the removal, destruction, or 

cutting of trees or plants except for local subsistence or 

medicinal uses 

 The use of biocides except as necessary to control or remove 

nonnative fish, wildlife, or plants 

 The manipulation or alteration of natural water courses, shores, 

marshes, etc., that affect the water purity on the protected 

property 

 At no time is the introduction of nonnative fish, wildlife, or 

plants allowed. 

 Dumping trash, garbage, or other offensive materials at any time 

With written authorization and compatibility determination by the 

Refuge manager, OHNC may undertake activities on the protected 

property that are otherwise prohibited. 

Public Access and Use

No specific rights or implied intent for public access is described in 

this easement. 

Rights of the State of Alaska

To enforce compliance by the Grantee and/or Grantor with the terms 

of the prohibited uses, the State of Alaska has the right to enter upon 

the protected property to monitor compliance with the prohibited 

uses, provided prior notice is given to the Refuge manager and to 

OHNC. 

1.3 Summary of the Koniag, 

Inc., Large-Parcel 

Acquisition, Phase 1 (Figure 

H-3) 

1.3.1 Acquisition 

The United States, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) as 

its agent, and Koniag, Inc. (Koniag) signed an Agreement to 

Purchase Lands and Interests in Lands on November 9, 1995. The 

agreement, funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee 

Council using EVOS restoration (civil and criminal) funding, called 

for the acquisition of Koniag lands by the United States for inclusion 

into the protection of Kodiak Refuge. Through a series of four 

closings, Koniag sold a total of 59,426 acres in fee surface estate for 

inclusion into the Kodiak Refuge. Upon transfer, Koniag reserved an 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

easement for subsistence access for residents of Karluk and Larsen 

Bay and reserved a conservation easement conveyed to the State of 

Alaska to ensure the property remained undeveloped. An additional 

56,860 acres (primarily in the Karluk and Sturgeon river drainages) 

were protected with a temporary nondevelopment easement that 

extended, with numerous amendments, until October 15, 2002. 

1.3.2 Nondevelopment Easement 

This easement ensures that the conservation values of the protected 

lands will be maintained for a period of time to allow Koniag and the 

United States to negotiate a more permanent arrangement for the 

protection of the property. The Koniag board of directors was not 

interested at that time in selling the land, but was interested in 

allowing future negotiations. Management of the lands were to be 

consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, legal mandates, etc., 

that govern Kodiak Refuge. As landowner, Koniag retained rights to 

the land and its management. Specific details of these rights, and the 

rights of the Service as the Grantee described in the easement, are 

discussed in the following subsections. 

Prohibited Uses by Grantor (Koniag, Inc.)

 To sell or lease the property to any entity other than the Grantee 

or its assigns 

 Construction of any additional improvements other than the 

existing cabins on the site 

 Having more than three seasonal camps along the Karluk and 

Sturgeon rivers 

 Construction of any roads or changing of topography by any 

method 

 Removal, destruction, or cutting of trees or plants—except for 

local subsistence or medicinal uses—or the use of biocides 

except as necessary to control or remove nonnative fish, wildlife, 

or plants 

 The manipulation or alteration of natural water courses, shores, 

marshes, etc., that affects the water purity on the protected property 

 The dumping of trash, garbage, or other offensive materials at 

any time 

U.S. (Grantee) Access Rights

 Right to conduct fish and wildlife research with Grantor’s 

permission 

 Right to monitor the protected property to ensure compliance 

with the terms of the easement 

Rights of the Public

No rights of access are conveyed to the public with this 

nondevelopment easement. 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-9 

Figure H-3. Overview of acquisition program in Koniag, Inc., area 

1.4 Summary of the Koniag, 

Inc., Large-Parcel 

Acquisition, Phase 2 (Figure 

H-3) 

On July 31, 2002, representatives for the Service, Koniag, Inc. 

(Koniag), and the State of Alaska (via the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game [ADF&G]) signed the Master Agreement for the 

Protection of Certain Lands and Resources that ensures the 

protection and guarantees public access to nearly 59,000 acres of 

Koniag-owned land in western Kodiak Refuge. The agreement is 

very complex and is summarized in the following subsection. 

1.4.1 Conservation Easement 

The parties have signed a conservation easement, involving the 

Koniag lands, that protects the Karluk River, Karluk Lake, and 

Sturgeon River drainages from development for a period of 10 years 

beginning October 15, 2002, with an additional 10-year period for 

renewal at the option of Koniag. At the initiation of this time period, 

the Service deposited funds from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) 

restoration fund into a special interest-bearing account. Those funds 

will accumulate interest for the 10 years the conservation easement is 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

in effect. An annual management fee will be taken from this fund 

and paid to Koniag. 

At the end of the initial 10-year term of the conservation easement, 

Koniag shall have the option to (1) sell the property to the United 

States for the amount of money resting at that time in the special 

account; (2) renew the conservation easement for a second 10-year 

period; or (3) return the lands to full management by Koniag. If 

Koniag chooses to allow the easement to die without renewing it, the 

funds in the special account will return to the EVOS Trustee Council 

for habitat protection (land acquisition). Should Koniag choose to 

sell at that time, or at any anniversary of the renewal, it would take 

possession of the funds in the special account in return for signing a 

deed transferring the property to the United States. 

As a part of the agreement, Koniag has agreed that it will take any 

additional Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

entitlement it may have from somewhere outside the boundaries of 

Kodiak Refuge. 

The conservation easement provides unlimited access to the Service 

and ADF&G for fish, wildlife, and habitat monitoring and research. 

It allows free public access for all purposes permissible on Kodiak 

Refuge. While most of the Koniag lands within the Refuge are open 

to unlimited recreation use, a free permit system will be initiated for 

public use of Koniag lands within one-half mile of Karluk Lake and 

River. In order to preserve fish and wildlife habitat and to provide 

quality recreation experiences for visitors, some limits will be 

established on the number of visitors allowed between June 10 and 

July 15 each year. The initial limit for daily permits during this 

period is set at 70, with 40 percent guaranteed to guided river users 

and 40 percent guaranteed to nonguided river users. Studies to 

evaluate habitat sustainability, resource capabilities, and quality of 

experience will determine future permit limits. 

Koniag will retain the right to manage its five existing cabins and to 

issue permits for all revenue-producing visitor services for fish and 

wildlife recreation along the Karluk River. No additional cabins may 

be built unless a corresponding number of existing cabins is 

removed. The Service will assume the permitting for commercial 

visitor services on the remainder of the Karluk lands (unless Koniag 

chooses to do it). 

Koniag retains the right to operate a bear-viewing operation in the 

Thumb River drainage of Karluk Lake. Koniag’s land in the Thumb 

Lake area will be closed to public use; however, the existing 17(b) 

one-acre site easement in the area will remain open to public use. 

This easement does not allow public recreation or access to other 

Koniag lands in the area. Its uses are restricted to camping not to 

exceed 24 hours and change in mode of transportation. Koniag also 

retains the right to operate one seasonal camp along each of the 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-11 

Karluk and Sturgeon rivers. Client numbers are limited, and 

helicopter access is prohibited. 

A three-person management group consisting of one representative 

each from the Service, Koniag, and the State of Alaska will discuss 

issues related to and coordinate management of the Koniag lands. A 

cooperative agreement between Koniag and the Service will allow 

limited public use of Koniag lands downstream (outside) of the 

Refuge boundary, including the right to fish on the lower Karluk 

River and to camp for one night at one of three designated campsites. 

Along with the conservation easement, the parties also signed the 

Camp Island Limited Development Easement. This agreement will 

allow Koniag to develop a six-acre site on Camp Island in Karluk 

Lake with a lodge and visitors facilities. The lodge and other 

facilities will be limited to not more than 30,000 square feet in 

aggregate and will be limited to not more than 28 clients, plus 

necessary staff, per day. This limitation on client numbers will be 

increased to 40 guests after year 10. Client use of the property will 

be limited to fish, wildlife, archaeological, or other wildlandsoriented activities. Jet skis, airboats, and helicopters are prohibited. 

Further, boat motors are limited to 100 horsepower. 

The management of the Koniag lands within the Refuge is not 

intended to be static. Public demands and the concerns of the 

management group will continue to provide challenges and 

opportunities for increased use by the public for recreation and 

subsistence activities. 

1.5 Summary of the Afognak 

Joint Venture Large-Parcel 

Acquisition (Figure H-4) 

The United States, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) as 

its agent, State of Alaska, and Afognak Joint Venture (AJV) signed 

an Agreement to Purchase Lands and Interests in Lands on 

November 20, 1998. The agreement, funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council using EVOS restoration (civil and/or 

criminal) funding, called for the acquisition of AJV lands by the 

State of Alaska and the United States for inclusion, in part, into the 

protection of Kodiak Refuge. Through a series of three closings, 

AJV sold approximately 5,491 acres in fee surface estate for 

inclusion into the Kodiak Refuge; about 559 acres were included in 

Alaska Maritime Refuge. Additional lands purchased from AJV were 

transferred to the State of Alaska for inclusion in Afognak Island 

State Park. No conservation or nondevelopment easement on other 

lands was included as part of this acquisition. The United States 

acquired the eastern side of Blue Fox Bay and the lands west of 

Waterfall Lake. Both parcels were outside the existing boundaries of 

Kodiak Refuge but were added to the Refuge pursuant to the 

provisions of Section 103(b) of ANILCA. AJV transferred all rights 

to the property sold to the United States, with the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service (Service) as its agent, except a right conveyed to the 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

H-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

State of Alaska via conservation easement to insure the property 

remained undeveloped and a reservation of all cultural artifacts and 

the right to explore for such artifacts. 

In March 2004, the United States, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (Service) as its agent, the State of Alaska, and Koniag, Inc., 

signed an agreement that provides for Koniag to sell the subsurface 

under the AJV lands to the State of Alaska and the United States. 

That agreement, also funded by EVOS civil funding, will cause the 

merger of the subsurface and surface estates on Afognak Island to 

the United States and to the State of Alaska and will complete the 

acquisition of lands initiated when the governments bought the 

surface from AJV. 

Figure H-4. Overview of acquisition program with Afognak Joint Venture 
Appendix H: Land Acquisition Program within Kodiak Refuge 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan H-13 

1.6 Summary of Small-Parcel 

Conservation Easements 

with the State of Alaska 

These easements are intended to preserve and protect the 

conservation values of the protected lands in perpetuity. These 

easements cover small-parcel acquisitions that were acquired by 

Kodiak Refuge with Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) restoration 

funds. This is a summary of the easements; the reader should not 

assume that all aspects of the easements are discussed here. 

1.6.1 Rights of the State of Alaska (Grantee) 

The state is entitled to enforce the terms of the restrictive covenants. 

Prohibited Uses of the Protected Property

The following uses of the protected property are prohibited unless

the Service determines the use to be necessary for either Refuge or 

conservation research, management of the protected property or for 

conveying information to the public to protect public safety or 

natural resources: 

 Construction of buildings, fixed or improved camping 

accommodations or mobile homes, fences, billboards or signs 

(other than those signs for boundary, trespass, direction, or 

general information) 

 Changing of the topography or the removal, destruction, or 

cutting of trees or plants except for local subsistence or 

medicinal uses 

 The use of biocides except as necessary to control or remove 

nonnative fish, wildlife, or plants 

 The manipulation or alteration of natural water courses, shores, 

marshes, etc., that affect the water purity on the protected 

property 

At no time is the introduction of nonnative fish, wildlife, or plants 

allowed. Dumping trash, garbage, or other offensive materials is 

prohibited at all times. 

Other small-parcel acquisitions are discussed in section 3.1.2 in 

Chapter 3. 
Appendix I 

Preparers 
Appendix I

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers of the Kodiak Refuge Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Name Expertise/Function Degree(s) Experie

Refuge Staff Samantha Bartling Recreation Management BS—Natural Resources Management 2 Refuge ManagemJay Bellinger Refuge Management BS—Wildlife Management 33 Refuge ManagemDonald (Tony) Chatto Fisheries Biology BS—Fisheries and Wildlife Management 27 Fisheries ManagJean-Marie Epping Recreation Management BS—Parks and Recreation Administration 

BS—Early Childhood Development 

21 Recreation Mana

Tony Fischbach Wildlife Biology BS—Molecular Biology 

MS—Ecology 

4 Marine Mammal M1 Wildlife Biology 

Tracy Fischbach Wildlife Biology BS—Biology (wildlife emphasis) 3 Wildlife Biology 

4 Refuge Managem

Michael Getman Refuge Management BS—Wildlife Management 8 Wildlife Managem

21 Refuge Managem

Leslie Kerr Refuge Planning and 

Management 

BLA—Landscape Architecture, Loeb Fellow in Advanced Environmental Studies (Harvard), Fellow (ASLA), Registered Landscape Architect (State of Montana) 

31 Planning and Re

Abbey Kucera Public Use BS—Ecology; Land Use Planning 

MS—Geography 

26 Habitat Analysis 

Lecita Monzon Permits 14 Administrative TJames (Butch) Patterson Public Use BA—Economics and Art 27 Pilot Beth Pattinson Fisheries Biology 8 Fish and Wildlife William Pyle Wildlife Biology BS—Biology 

MS—Wildlife Science 

17 Wildlife Biologi

Robert Stovall Subsistence, Wildlife BS—Management Biology 10 Subsistence BiolGareth K. VanHatten Fishery Biologist MS—Fisheries 20 Fisheries Biology Greg Wilker Wildlife Biology, Law 

Enforcement 

AAS—Natural Resources Law Enforcement 14 Bear Research 

6 Law Enforcement 

Denny Zwiefelhofer Wildlife Biology (Avian), 

Endangered Species 

BS—Wildlife Management/Biology 28 Wildlife Biology 
Appendix I: Preparers

I-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehe

Region 7 Planning Staff Stewart Allen Social Science, Social 

Analysis, Economic Analysis 

BA—Psychology. BA—Journalism, MA—Social Psychology, PhD—Recreation Management 

20 Social Aspects oNatural Resources M

Chuck Ardizzone Wildlife Biology BA—pre–Vet Medicine, MS—Terrestrial 

Ecology, PhD—Wildlife (candidate) 

4 Planning 8 Wildlife Managem

Rob Campellone Natural Resources Planning MS—Forest Resources Management 11 Natural Resource

Management 

Helen Clough Planning, NEPA, Public Use BA—Anthropology 16 Refuge Planning 

6 Public Land Mana

Brian Glaspell Social Science PhD—Forestry/Wilderness and Recreation 

Management 

10 Social Science R

Mikel Haase Planning Team Leader BA—Environmental Design 

MS—Forest Resources 

27 Natural Resource 

Karen L. Lew Technical Writing and Editing BA—Humanities 33 Writing and EditKaren Murphy Natural Resource Planning BS—Wildlife Biology 

MEnvMgnt—Resource Ecology 

15 Wildlife Biologyand Planning 

Kenneth W. Rice NEPA, Policy and ANILCA 

Compliance 

MS—Wildlife Management 32 Resources Mana

Region 7 Fisheries and Ecological Services Jim Larson Fisheries Management BS—Fishery Management 

MS—Natural Resources 

25 Fisheries Biology 6 Refuge Planning 

Mary Price Fisheries Biology and 

Management 

BS—Environmental/Systems Biology 16 Fisheries Biology 

State of Alaska John Crye Liaison with State of Alaska; 

ADF&G 

AA—Environmental Science BS—Fisheries Management 

9 Wildlife Managem

Brandon McCutcheon Liaison with State of Alaska; 

DNR 

BS—Natural Resource Management 8 Resource Manage

Brad Palach Liaison with State of Alaska; 

ADF&G 

BA—Justice 21 Fish and Wildlife 

Bruce Talbot Liaison with State of Alaska; 

DNR 

BS—Wildlife Management MS—Natural Resource Planning 

23 Planning and Pol
Appendix J 

Mailing List 
Appendix J 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan J-1 

Mailing List 

ALASKA STATE 

GOVERNMENT

Alaska Board of Fisheries

Alaska Board of Game

Alaska Department of Fish & Game

Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources

Alaska Department of Public Safety

Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public 

Facilities

Alaska Division of Tourism

Alaska State Parks

Bering Straits Coastal 

Management Program

Division of Governmental 

Coordination

Office of Environmental Policy & 

Office of the Governor

State Historic Preservation Office

BIG-GAME GUIDES

A & L Outdoor Adventures

Adams Guiding Service

Classic Hunts

Commodores Guide Service

Cooper Landing Fish Camp

Dodge Outfitters

Exclusive Alaskan Hunts

Fair Chase Hunts

Fejes Guide Service

Highlander Guide Service

Kichatna Guide Service

Kodiak Guides

Kodiak Sports & Tour

Kodiak Treks

Lake Country Lodge

Last Frontier Guiding & Outfit, The

Lazer's Guide Service

Milleur's Guide Service

Mt. Spirit Adventures

Munsey's Bear Camp

Nin Ridge Guides

Outdoor Enterprises

Peterson's Hunting & Fishing

Rohrer's Bear Camp, Inc

Sitkalidak Lodge & Safaris, Inc

Spiridon Bear Camp

Timberline Outfitters

Trident Charters and River 

Adventures

Ugashik Lakes Lodge

Ultima Thule Outfitters

Wild Alaska Trophy Outfitters

BUSINESS, INDUSTRY

4 W Air

A & M Fisheries

AAA Alaska Outfitter's, Inc

Akhiok Charters

Alaska Adventures Unlimited

Alaska Air Carriers Association

Alaska Angler Publications

Alaska Bush Sports

Alaska Draggers Association

Alaska Drift Boaters

Alaska Fresh Seafoods, Inc.

Alaska Ground Fish Data Bank

Alaska Legal Services

Alaska Oil And Gas Association

Alaska Rainbow Lodge

Alaska Rainbow Unlimited

Alaska Research Company

Alaska Resource Analysts

Alaska SealLfe Center

Alaska Trophy Outfitters

Alaska Trophy Safari

Alaska Village Electric Cooperative

Alaska West Air

Alaska Wilderness Expeditions

Alaska Wilderness Outfitting Co.

Alaska Wilderness Recreation & 

Tourism

Alaska Wildland Adventures

Alaska's Konyag Country

American Wildlands

Amook Island Lodge

Andres Airways, Inc.

ARCO Alaska Inc

ARCO Coal

ARCO, AP-4161

Arctic Engineering

Arctic Treks

Associated General Contractors of 

Alaska

Ballards Farm

Bear Country

Bechtel Group, Inc

Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot

Branham Adventures

Broken Point Fisheries

Cannery at Zachar Bay, The

Capitol Information Group

Chasse et Peche

Chignik Airways, Inc

Chip Cove Fisheries

Conoco, Inc

Cub Air

Cultural Dynamics

Cy's Sporting Goods

Dave Duncan & Sons

Denali View B&B & Raft 

Adventures

Eagle Adventures

Entrix, Inc

Environmental Audit Incorporated

Equinox Wilderness Expeditions

Eruk's Wilderness Float Tours

Exxon Company USA

Falls Creek Environmental

Fishing Unlimited Lodge

Float Alaska Raft Rentals

Forsi Consulting Group

GCI

Glacier Guides, Inc

H.C. Price Co

Halliburton Geophysical Services

Highlands Holding Company

Highline Air

Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell

HWW Consultants

Island Adventures

Island Air Service

Jake's Alaska Wilderness Outfitter

Janlynn Corporation

Jim Air

Karluk Lodge

Kemppel, Huffman, and Ginder

Kenai Peninsula Tourism

Ketchum Air Service, Inc

King Salmon Sportsmen's Lodge

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc

Kodiak Adventures

Kodiak Air Service

Kodiak Island Charters

Kodiak Island Convention & 

Visitor’s Bureau

Kodiak Island Hospital

Kodiak Safaris, Inc

Kodiak Treks

Kodiak Western Charters

Koncor Forest Products

KRA Corporation Fish & Wildlife 

Reference 

Lake Becharof Bible Camp

Larsen Bay Lodge, Inc.

Lockhart Construction

Lynx Enterprises, Inc

Many Rivers Alaska Maritime 

Enterprises

Maritime Helicopters

Meadow Properties, Inc.

Mountaineer Investigations & 

Security, Inc.

Murphy Oil USA

Mythos Expeditions Kodiak

Natural Resource Conservation

Nature Alaska Tour

New Venture Ltd.

Newhalen Lodge

Northern Alaska Environmental Ctr

Olga Bay Lodge, Inc

Peninsula Airways

Pennzoil Exploration 

Phillips Petroleum Co

Plumber & Pipefitters

Point Adventure Lodge

Port Lions Lodge

Rainbow King Lodge, Inc

Resource Analysts

Seabird Fisheries

Seahawk Air

Shadow of the Bear

Shaska Ventures, Inc

Sholiton Enterprises

Siwash Safaris, Inc

SJM Biological

Sky Trekking Alaska

Snug Cove Fisheries, Inc

Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse & 

Miller

Spirit of Alaska
Appendix J: Mailing List 

J-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Sport Fishing Safaris of Alaska

Springer and Associates

Starlite, Inc

Stephan Braund and Associates

Stewart's Fly Shop

Szabo Marine Services

Telonics, Inc

Terragon North Consulting

The Farmers Bank

Tikchik Narrows Lodge

Toklat Photography

True North Adventures

Union Texas Petroleum 

Corporation

United Fishermen’s Marketing 

Association

Unocal Alaska Region

Uyak Bay Fisheries, Inc

VECO Corporation

Washington Fish & Oyster 

Company

Wilderness Air

Willard’s Farm

Willard's Moose Lodge 

COUNCILS, COMMITTEES,

COMMISSIONS, BOARDS

Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory 

Committee

Bristol Bay Subsistence Advisory 

Council 

Citizens Advisory Committee 

(Kodiak Archipelago 

Conservation & Management 

Plan) 

Intergovernmental Planning 

Group(Kodiak Archipelago 

Conservation & Management 

Plan) 

Kodiak Fish & Game Advisory 

Committee

Kodiak/Aleutian Island Federal 

Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Council 

Land Resources Committee

Matanuska Valley Fish & Game 

Advisory Committee

Middle Nenana River Fish & Game 

Advisory Committee

Nevada Division of Wildlife

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council

Northwest Arctic Subsistence 

Advisory Council

Southwest Regional Fish & Game 

Council

Tennessee Wilderness Action 

Council

ELECTED OFFICIALS 

(BELOW STATE LEVEL)

Akhiok City Council

Aleutians East Borough

Bristol Bay Borough

City and Borough of Sitka

City of Akhiok 

City of CLarks Point

City of Craig

City of Kodiak

City of Mekoryuk

City of Ouzinkie

City of Port Heiden

City of Ruby

City of Scammon Bay

Dillingham Police Department

Kenai Borough Coastal District

Kodiak Island Borough

Lake & Peninsula Borough

Larsen Bay City Council

Municipality of Anchorage

North Slope Borough

Old Harbor City Council

Ouzinkie City Council

Port Lions City Council

Southwest Alaska Municipal 

Conference

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Admiralty National Monument

Alaska Army National Guard

BLM—Division of Realty

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Chugach National Forest

Elmendorf Natural Resources 

Office

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Aviation Administration

Katmai National Park & Preserve

Kenai Fjords National Park

Minerals Management Service

National Conservation Training 

Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Park Service

NOAA/National Marine Fisheries 

Service

NOAA/NMFS Habitat Protection

Office of the Secretary, DOI

RuralCap

U.S. Arctic Research Commission

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard Support Center

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of The Interior

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency R-10

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Government Printing Office

USGS/EROS Field Office

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

Canadian Wildlife Service

Government of the Northwest 

Territory

Government of Yukon

LIBRARIES

Akiachak School/Community 

Library

Akiak School/Community Library

Alaska State Library

Anchorage Law Library

ARLIS

Carnegie Museum of Natural 

History

Holmes Johnson Memorial Library

Ninilchik Community Library

Rasmuson Library

Seattle Public Library

Z.J. Loussac Library

MEDIA

Alaska Angler Publications

Alaska Magazine

Alaska Public Radio Network

Anchorage Daily News

Associated Press

Bristol Bay Times

Fishing & Hunting News

Juneau Empire

KBBI AM 890 Homer

KFSK Public Radio

KIMO 13 News

KJNP Radio

KNBZ Radio

Kodiak Daily Mirror

KSKA Public Radio

KVOK Radio

Petroleum Engineer Magazine

Seattle Times

Seward Phoenix Log

United Press International

WERU-FM

Wolf Magazine

NATIVE (BUSINESS,

ASSOCIATION, TRIBAL 

GOVERNMENT) 

Afognak Joint Venture

Akhiok Tribal Council

Alaska Federation of Natives

Allakaket Village Council

Alutiiq Museum

Bristol Bay Native Association

Copper River Native Association

Iliamna Village Council

Karluk IRA Council

Kasigluk Traditional Council

Kodiak Area Native Association

Larsen Bay Tribal Council

Leisnoi Tribal Council/Woody Is 

Tribal Council

McGrath Native Village Council

Native Village of Afognak

Native Village of Akhiok

Native Village of Larsen Bay

Native Village of Nunapitchuk (IRA)

Native Village of Old Harbor

Old Harbor Tribal Council

Ouzinkie Tribal Council

Port Lions Traditional Tribal 

Council

Ruby Traditional Council

Uganik Trading Company

Village of Quinhagak IRA Council

Woman's Bay Community Council 
Appendix J: Mailing List 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan J-3 

NATIVE CORPORATIONS 

(REGIONAL OR VILLAGE)

Afognak Native Corporation

AHTNA Incorporated

Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc

Akiachak Limited

Aleut Corporation

Anton Larsen Incorporated

AWRTA

Ayakulik, Inc

Becharof Corporation

Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation

Chitina Native Corporation

Chugach Alaska Corporation

Chugachmiut, Inc

Cook Inlet Region, Inc

Dineega Corporation

Doyon Limited

Koniag, Inc.

Kuitsarak, Inc

Kuskokwim Corporation

Kwethluk Incorporated

Natives of Kodiak, Inc

Old Harbor Native Corporation

Ouzinkie Native Corporation

Sealaska Corporation

Shuyak Incorporated

St. Mary's Native Corporation

Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc

Tozitna Limited

Uyak Incorporated

ORGANIZATION OR 

ASSOCIATION

Alaska Center for the Environment

Alaska Chapter Wilderness Watch

Alaska Conservation Foundation

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

Alaska Outdoor Council

Alaska Professional Hunters 

Association

Alaska Public Lands Information 

Center

Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Albemarle Environmental 

Association

Alliance for Survival

American Wildlands

Anchorage Audubon Society

Animal Protection Institute

Animal Rights Foundation of 

Florida

Annette Island Natural Resource 

Center

Appalachian Mountain Club

Big Horn Audubon Society

Biodiversity Legal Foundation

Blue Mountain Audubon Society

Boone & Crockett Club

Bristol Humane Society

CIAA

Congressional Sportsmen's 

Foundation

Council for Historic Preservation

Defenders of Wildlife

EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund

East Jersey Trout Unlimited

Environmental Defense Fund

Foundation of Biological Research

Friends in Unity With Nature

Friends of Admiralty Island

Friends of Animals, Inc

Fund for Animals

GA Chapter Safari Club 

International

International Association of Fish & 

Wildlife Agencies

Izaak Walton League Of America, 

Inc.

Knik Canoers and Kayakers

Kodiak Audubon Society

Kodiak Brown Bear Trust

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce

Kodiak Historical Society

Kodiak Island Sportsman 

Association

Kodiak Regional Aquaculture 

Association.

Kodiak Soil & Water Conservation

Lazzeroni, Inc.

Marshall State Wildlife Area

Massachusetts Audubon Society

N.S.R.A.A.

National Association of 

Commercial Photographers

National Audubon Society

National Parks & Conservation 

Association

National Rifle Association

National Trappers Association, Inc

National Wildlife Federation

National Wildlife Refuge 

Association

Nebraska Audubon Council

Northern SE Regional Aquaculture 

Outdoor Writers Association of 

America

PCFFA

Penn State Park Service

Resource Development Council for 

Alaska

Safari Club International

Safari Club International AZ 

Chapter

Safari Club International ID 

Chapter

Safari Club International Kansas 

City 

Safari Club International, Central 

WA Chapter

Sierra Club

Society of American Foresters

Southeast Conference

Sportsmen Association

The Fund for Animals

The Humane Society of the United 

States 

The Izaak Walton League of 

America, Inc

The Wilderness Society

The Wildlife Legislative Fund of 

America

Trans-Species Unlimited

Trout Unlimited

Trustees For Alaska

United Fishermen of Alaska

URS Corporation

WAYA

Wild River Audubon Society

Wilderness Watch

Wildlife Federation of Alaska

Wildlife Forever

Yellowstone Valley Audubon

SCHOOLS

Alaska Pacific University

Anna Tobeluk Memorial School

Anthony Andrews School

Atka School

Colorado State University

Cordova High School

Envir & Nat Resource Institute

Haines Borough Schools

Houghtaling Elementary

Institute of Arctic Biology

Kodiak Island Borough School 

District.

Lake and Peninsula School District

Memorial University

Meshik School

New York Board of Education

NOLS

Quinhagak High School 

Sand Point School

Soldotna Elementary School

South High School

Temple University

Tustemena Elementary School

UAA ISER

UAF 4-H Youth Development

University of Alaska Anchorage

University of Alaska Fairbanks

University of Alaska Southeast

University of Copenhagen

University of Idaho

Water Resources Center

Williams College Mystic SeaPort

INDIVIDUALS

David & Jeannie Adams

Terry Adlam

Brad Aga

Jacob Aga

Marlene Aga

Paul Agostine

Karen Ailor

Tyler Allen

Gene Allison

Alex Ambrosia

Brad Ames

Richard Ames

Deanie Anderson

Floyd Anderson

Jacqui & Lane Anderson

Michael Anderson

Morris Anderson

Nolan Anderson

Robert Anderson

Stosh & Claudia Anderson

Patrick Andrewvitch

Steve Andrus

Craig Applin

John J. Ardison

Richard Ashford

David Athons
Appendix J: Mailing List 

J-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

James A. Atkins

Roger W. Aulabaugh

Ed Aullane

Alan Austerman

Stan Austerman

W. Ayers

Joseph D. Babski

Chris Bach

C.E. Bagley

Bonnie Baize

Mia Baker

Donald Bale

Wade & Sherry Ball

Ben Ballenger

Mary Banaszak

Lee S. Bandurant II

Gene Barnum

Robert & Shirley Batdorf

James L. Baum

Michael Bavers

Wendy Beck

David L. Becker

Tammy Beckwith

Jay Bellinger

Barbara Bennett

Linda Benton

I.G. Bergee

Karl E. Berggren, Jr.

Michael Bernard

Richard Berns

Neal R. Bertram

George Bickel III

Weston Bieres

Wayne Biessel

R.B. Birchell

Bill Bissett

Joe Black

Robert E. Blake

Sheila Block

Suzanne Block

Leroy Blondin

Tim Blott

H.J. Bock

Kevin Boden

Ralph Bomonti

Tim & Lisa Booch

Dan Boone

Steven Borell

Victor and Tanya Bosknofsky

Ryan Boudreau

Clifford & Jean Bove

Marie Brady

Andrew Brandel

James Branham

Dan Brase

Richard Brewer

Kris Brewster

Phil Briggs

Harold Brink

Phil Brna

Becky Brock

Larry Brock

Ron Brockman

Charles H. Brodzki

Gerald Brookman

Dave Brown

Tina Brown

Elizabeth Bryer

Arlette Budwig

Pete Buist

Edmond Burgan

Beth Burrows

Martin W. Burton

Dan Busch

Robert J.S. Bushell

William Butler

Bill Caldwell

Jim Campbell

Richard Campbell

Niceto A. Canete

David Capjohn

Brad Carlquist

Deb Carlson

Michael and Lisa Carlson

Stan Carlson

Alan Carlton

Dick Carstens

Joseph C. Carvalho

Larry Casey

J. Cass

James Caswell

Brent Cathey

Dave Caylor

Paula Cenami

George Chamblee

Tony Chan

Lori Chapman

James Charlesworth

Bill Cheney

Paul A. Chervenak

Sharon Chestnutt

Zack Chichenoff

Mark A. Chihuly

Cinda Childers

Charles Christensen

Randy Christensen

Harold Christensen, Sr.

Freddie Christiansen

Wesley J. Christiansen

Chester C Clark

Thomas Classen

L.A. Clever

Mitchell Cline

Allen Cocanower

Kenny Cochran

Clarence Coe

Randy Coe

Michael Colavito

Michael & Kathy Cole

Susan Collacchioni

Michael Collins

Tom Collopy

Valerie Connor

Fleur Constantino

Cheryl Coonrod

Marion Cooper

Debra Corbett

Kim Cornwell

Matt Corriere

Linda Couey

Dennis Dean Cox

Matt Cox

William Cox, M.D.

Fred Coyle, Jr.

Terry & Cormaria Cratty

James E. Crawford

Robert Cress

John Crisco

James B. Crisp

Lawrence Croft

Drew Crook

Noel P Crosby

Muriel B. Crouch

Frank Crute

John Crye

James Dahl

Guy E. Dalgren

Denise D'anne

Brie Darr

Paul Dau

Sheree Daugherty

Thomas J. Davan

Jack Dean

Karry Delaney

Douglas Deplazes

Mary Derstine

Barry Devol

Robert E. Devol

Donna Dewhurst

Margaret & Bob Dewolfe

Janet M. Dicang

C.L. & Nola Dickens

Kathy Dillard

Frank A. Dinello

Norman Dodier

Michael Donovan

Dan Dorman

Mike Drydan

Liz Dubbe

Don Dumm

Stan Duncan

Sarah Dunlap

Paul Dunlevy

Barbara Dupris

Joseph A. Dygas

Erwin Dykstra

Sandra Earle

Cara Eastman

Andy Eaton

Glen Eaton

Hank Eaton

Marv Ebnet

Ted Edenstrom

William Edlund

Jonathan Edwards

Sterling & Roberta Eide

Janet Einfalt

Bryan Ellsworth

David K. Eluska

Mike Eluska

Valerie Engell

Edward L. Engle

Jim Enright

Walter Erickson

Ken Escher

Chuck Evans

Thomas Eveland

Thomas L. Everitt

Linda Falcone

Darrell Farmen

William Fell

Mike Fenton

Murray Fenton

Darwin Fields

Wallace Fields

Andy Finke

Shawn Finn

Brad Fisher

Lee E. Fisher

William Fitzgerald
Appendix J: Mailing List 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan J-5 

Malcolm Fleming

John Florentino

Beth Foglesong

James A. Ford

Samatha Ford

Dave Foreman

Amanda M. Fors

Lisa Frederick

Nelson Fredrickson

Helmut Friedlaender

Bernard Friel

William Fritts

William Fulton

Lewis Gardon

George L. Gatter, Sr.

Dale Gaugler

Richy Gease

Tim Geer

Guy D. George

Bob Gerl

Robert Gerlach

Lorie Gernold

Lydia Giglio

Barbara Girdler

John Given

Dave Glamann

Jesse Glamann

Keith P. Globis

Herb Goldstein

Thomas P. Good

Harvey Goodell

Ken & Kelly Goodwin

Richard J. Gordon

Dr. Nicholas Grabavoy

Bradley J. Granum

Dave Gratias

Pat Gravel

Gen Graves

Christopher J. Gregg

Richard Guthrie

Keith B Guyer

Dennis & Cathy Haas

John Hancock

Suzanne Hancock

Thomas E. Hancock, Jr.

Alfred Hanghey

Diane Hankins

Paul Hannan

Edie & Jim Hanscom

Donald Hansen

Eric Hansen

Michael R. Hansen

Doug Hanson

Brian Hardiman

Laura Hardin

Robert Hardy

James Hark

Stephens Harper

Joe Harrington

Terry J. Hartle

Tom Hartman

Margaret Hartzell

James Hathorne

Roger A. Heath

Alison Hedberg

Nora Heglin

Adam Hehl

Leonard Helgason

Matthew Hemmer

Tisha Henderson

Willie Hendrichs

Jack Hepler

Bill Herbelin

Karen Herget

Trisha Herminghaus

Katherine Hilk

John Hill

Nancy Hillstrand

Lucy Hinde

Bill Hinkle

Fred Hirschman

Jeff Hirsh

Esther S. Hixson

Clint Hlebechuk

Ronald Hocking

Sallie Hogg

Karl B. Holfeld

BJ Hollenbeck

Bill Holliday

Eva L. Holm

Laurie Holman

Douglas Hopkins

Steven E. Horn

Michael P. Horstman

Andrew Houg

James Houk

Eric Howard

Duane Howe

Syd & DeVon Huffnagle

Roy Hugie

Allen R. Huling

Eleanor Hung

Robert Hunt

Steve Hunt

Charles W Hunter

Mrs Frank Hutton

Ric Iannolino

Richard Idler

Jim Inzer

Ben & Karen Iris

Lura B. Irish

Arnold Israelson

Chris Israelson

Dave Jackson

Dell D. Jackson

Laura Jacobs

Jane Jacobson

Patricia Ann & James Jacobson

Judy Jaeger

Melissa Jahnke

Maverick Jaillett

Robert James

Carl Jappe

Susan Jeffrey

Carol A. Jensen

Dale E. Johnson

Danny A. Johnson

Jack Johnson

Karen Johnson

Beverly M. Jones

Dave Jones

George Jones

Jim & Margaret Jones

Nancy Jones

Brad Josephs

Ron Kahlenbeck

Lynnda Kahn

Loren Karro

Mike Kasterin

Robert Katelnikoff

Michele Keck

Lori & Jim Kedrowski

Leo & Dorthy Keeler

Charles G. Keim

Lisa Kelly

Kennedy

Sarah Kenney

Chris Kent

Joan W. Kent

Elizabeth Keppner

Michael Kerwood

Randy Kilbourn

Jack King

Joseph King

Robert King

Sami King

Robert Kinville

P Knors

Ronald A. Kober

Charles Konigsberg

Walle & Verda Koning

Chris Kosinski

Leo Kouremetis

Steve Krause

Jan & Lisa Kremmer

Carrie Krewson

Morris Krigbaum

Mr & Mrs Krimm

Mark & Susan Krizer

Freddie Krukoff

Arnie Kubiak

Joseph D. Kurnik

Donald Kyer

Alan & Dani La Cruze

Julian Lackey, Jr.

Greg LaCombe

Vaun Ladent

Gerald Lafolluthew

James Lambert

J. Howard Lammons

Daniel D. Lamoreus

Suzanne Lamson

Daniel Lancaster

Lorraine Lane

James Lansing

Dennis LaRoche

Mark Larsen

Greg Larson

Katie Larson

Carol Lather

William Lazarock

Clements H. Lean

Jeff & Vivianne Ledoux

Hong Lee

Karen D. Lee

Millie Lehrmann

Jeff Leitner

David J. Leonard

Robert Leonnig

Daniel J. lerch

Ken Lester

Barbara Levine

Jim Levine

Larry Lewis

Keri J. Liberty

Yvonne Liebelt

Ron Lind

John Lindeman

Darrell Allen Lindgren

Andrew Lindquist
Appendix J: Mailing List 

J-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Richard Link

David Little

Lolene Little

Douglas W. Littlejohn

Phillip Locker, Jr. DDS

Lani Lockwood

Tyler Loken

Kathie Lopez

Gregory A. Lopez, Jr.

Ann Lorber

Karen Loutensock

Lloyd K. Lovin

Harry Ludwig

Carmen J. Lunde

Andrew Lundquist

John P. Lyman

Richard MacIntosh

Louise Macleod

Bronwyn M. Madison

Samuel Michael Madrid

Ed Mahoney

Phil Majerus

Mike Makar

Herman Malutin, Jr.

Kirstin Marsh

David Lee Marshall

Jill Martel

Valerie Martin

Joseph E. Mason

Ole A. Mathisen

Terry Maul

Denise May

Jack Mays

Barbara McCane

Gary McCarter

Chris McCarthy

James B. McClellan

Tom McCollum

Sid McCullough

Michael E. McDaneld

Laurence McDaniel

Robert A. & Sandra McGarry

Candy Lee McGuire

Mike McKee

Richard McKinny

Joanne McNeil

Jeffrey A. Meagher

Austin F. Meekin

Charles Mercer

John Merrick

Victor Messerli

Rick Metzger

Charlotte Meyer

Doreen Miao

Mr & Mrs Middlemiss

Anne Miller

Pamela A. Miller

Matthew Moir

Donald Molde

Wallace & Leanna Monceaux

Joe Moore

Keith Moore

R. Phillip Moore

Roger D. Morris

David Morrison

Norman J. Mullan

M. Mummert-Crawford

Leonard Mundorf

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Jo Murphy

Robert Murphy

Nelle Murray

Chris Myrick

Marie Nash

Dr. Patrick Nearing

Wes Nedrow

Bob Nelson

Bruce W. Nelson

Ruth & J Nelson

Steven W. Nelson

Stan Ness

James Nestic

Ed C. Newberg

Hiram Newcomer

Mark Newman

Gretchen Nicholson

Les Nicolini

Russell Nogg

Dena Norman

Mike Nugent

Don O'Boyle

Kevin O'Brien

Mike Oexner

Fred O'Hearn

Terry Ohman

Mark E. Olsen

Marty Olsen

Angela Olson

Craig Olson

John Olson

Sid Omlid

F. Patrick O'Reagan

Tom O'Reilly

Keith Organ

Craig H. Ostman

Aaron Oswalt

Reed Oswalt

Sandra Otto

Kim Ownby

Mike Pagano

Milton Pagano

Sandra Page

Alex Panamaroff

Paul Panamaroff

Allen Panamaroff, Sr.

Lawrence Papp

Glenn T. Parr

Mark Parr

Pamela Parsons

Fred Patterson

Jim Patterson

Rich Pawlak

Susan Payne

Thomas Pearson

Mary Peatterson

Kevin Pedersen

Mr & Mrs Pelech

Mitchell Pestrikoff

Nicholas Pestrikoff

John R. Peters, Sr.

Robert A. Petersen, M.D.

Gary C. & Stacie S. Peterson

Howard Peterson

Timothy Peterson

William Peterson

William W. Peterson

Frank R. Peterson, Sr.

James Petluska

Sharon Phillips

Edward Phillips, Sr.

Gary Pinard

D. Pingree

David C. Pleasant

Diane Pleschner

Bettye Plyler

John Poan

Carol Podraza

Bill Poland

Jeffery Poor

Gary Porter

Walter Potthast

Mark Powers

Gary Price

Kevin Proescholdt

Chris Provost

Jim Purdy

Tom Quick

Scott Quist

Cynthia Radcliffe

Dennis Randall

M. Louise Randel

Ed Randolph

Tyler Randolph

Karol Raymer

Pete Raynor

Donna Reed

Brett Reid

Dana Reid

Robert K. Reiman

Bob Reynolds

Katie Rich

Stanton Richardson

Jim Richie

S.D. Rickard

Francis Rifugiato

James E. Riley

William Ritchie

Steve Rittenhouse

Peggy Robel

Fred Roberts

Kathleen Roberts

Pete Roberts

Stephen W. Roberts, Sr.

Paul Robinette

Steve & Judy Robinson

P. Roemer

Doug Roffers

George Rogers

John Rogers

Robert R. Rogers

Charlotte Rollins

Karl Romig

Joanna Roop

Bill Rose

David Roseneau

Kurt Rotter

Gary Rozelle

Barbara Rudio

Cheryl Rykacgewski

Regina Savchuk

Dr. Otis Schleyer

Paul Schmidt

Barbara Schmitt

Gordon Schoepfle

Jody R. Schoonover

Steve Schrof

Susan Schulmeister

Helen Schulz

Max Schwab

Douglas Schwartz
Appendix J: Mailing List 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan J-7 

Joshua Scott

Chris Scranton

Mark R. Seidl

Jerome Selby

Bob Sept

George Shanagin III

Arnold Shaul

Barry Shaw

Al Shelton

Kent Sherman

John Shima

Arnold Shryock

Dave Shuckman

Gail Siemen

Sean Sigler

Becky Sill

Mitch & Judy Simeonoff

Veronica Sims

Donald Sisson

Don & Beverly Sitten

Allan Skinner

Kelvin Skonberg

Jacob Skretting

Jeffrey B. Slaughter

George Slavelis

Glenn Smeltzer

Eric Smith

Stan Smith

Steve Smith

T. Smith

Joseph H Snyder

Don Soileau

Rebecca Sonchele

Ramon D. Sparlin

Jim S. Spehler

Randy Spivey

Ann Squartsoff

Fred Squartsoff

Herman Squartsoff

John Squartsoff

Virginia Squartsoff

Mike Stacy

Allen Stasiewski

Bradley G. Stevens

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Doug Stewart

Jeffery T. Stewart

Roland Stickney

Jewel I. Stogner

Clifford & Bella Stoll

Annette Stone

Reed Stoops

Keri A. Stout

Kathi Strawa

Debbie Strong

T. Sullivan

Tracy Sundberg

Trayci Swartling

Cynthia Sweeney

John Tyler Swiss

Bruce Talbot

John Tappenberg

Taylor

David N. Taylor

Ivan Taylor

Jim Teeny

Garland Teich

Steven Thaw

Sam Theis

Jennifer Thiermann

John R. Thomas

Kevin Thomes

Dorothy Thompson

Gary Thompson

Linda Throop

William Tobin

Lee Todd

Robert S. (Steve) Todd

John N. Tolliver

Paul Torrence

James Towers

Jeffrey Towner

Bob Tracey

Megan Travis

Frank Tretikoff

Nick & Sally Troxell

Tim Troyer

Will Troyer

Hans U. Tschersich, M.D.

Raymond Tucker

Jean Turner

Paul Turner

Edward H. Turton

Vicki Twohy

Alice J. Tysinger

Carol Udd

Judith Ungermann

Henrietta Vaden

Jim Van Raden

Charlotte Van Winkle

Charles Vandergaw

L. Vanmeter

Anita Vanronk

Kyle Vansloten

Salvador Vasquez

Gale K. Vick

Paul Vick

Vita

Linda Vrem

Dale Wagner

David Waite

Kelly Wakefield

Wendy Waldheim

Antoinette Walker

Tom Walker

M.L. Wall

Stephen Walrath

Willard H Wamsganz

Al Ward

Gary L. Ward

Hal Ward

Kennan Ward

Tim Ward

Mark Warhol

Roland C Warnecke

Robert Weber

William Weidemoyer

Jeff Welch

Daisy West

Edward West

Pat West

Danny Whatley

Marie Car & Joshua White

Jack Wick

Jacob Wick

Randall Wilk

James K. Wilkens

Donald Williams

Henny Wilson

Charles Winegarden

Philip Winslow

Mark Withrow

Myrna Wnerth

Dana M. Wolfe

Dennis & Jessica Wolfe

Stanley Wolrich

Kelly Wood

Kenneth J. Wood

Steven Woodman

Connie L. Workman

Karen Wuestenfeld

Laquita Yatsik

M. Yerkes

Mike York

John Young

The Honorable Don Young

Jo Yount

John Zabielski

Ken Zafren

E. Zahn

Robert Zeller

Thomas V. Zimmerman, Jr.

Lori Zirkle

Sarah Zurflueth

Ralph Zusman
Appendix K 

Response to Comments
Appendix K 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-1 

1. Introduction 

This appendix summarizes comments received in response to the 

Draft Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan Revision (Draft Plan) in writing and provided at 

public meetings. The first section provides a general overview of the 

comments. The second section provides responses to substantive 

comments. Full text of comments and detailed notes from public 

meetings are available on file at Kodiak Refuge headquarters. 

Thirty-four written comments were received: 27 from Alaska and 

seven from outside Alaska. Agencies and organizations commenting 

included the State of Alaska, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Kodiak Island Convention and Visitors Bureau, Kodiak 

Regional Aquaculture Association, Kodiak Unified Bear 

Subcommittee, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Defenders of Wildlife, 

National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness 

Society. Twenty-four individuals, including five guides and two air 

taxi operators, commented. Public meetings in Kodiak, Anchorage, 

Port Lions, and Old Harbor were attended by 24 people. 

2. Summary of Public 

Comments 

There were numerous positive comments. The State of Alaska 

commended the Service stating, “We believe this document will 

become an important benchmark for future collaborative planning 

processes.” The Wilderness Society said, “We commend the Service 

for its strong conservation measures overall in the Preferred 

Alternative.” 

2.1 Alternatives 

Most comments on alternatives supported Alternative D, the 

Service’s Preferred Alternative. Many reviewers preferred 

Alternative D with some change. The Kodiak Regional Aquaculture 

Association “strongly” supported Alternative A because of salmon 

rehabilitation for depressed stocks and salmon production 

supplementation to natural production primarily through accessing 

underused salmon rearing habitat such as barrier lakes. 

Some reviewers supported the reduction in the amount of moderate 

management while the State commented that “[t]his proposal is not 

specifically discussed or analyzed.” “The State is concerned that this 

change could lead to significant restrictions on the commercial 

fishing industry that uses a portion of the Refuge coastal uplands in 

support of their activities. Areas that could be affected . . . include 

the 7 Mile Beach and Spiridon Bay area within Uyak Bay, among 

other locations.” 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-2 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2.2 Management of Camping 

Areas 

Some commented that while there may be justification for improved 

campsites in some areas, these improvements should only be 

implemented when there is adequate staffing to ensure that they are 

removed on schedule. One person said he saw no need to prohibit 

camping close to public cabins or administrative cabins. Another 

person commented that providing “campgrounds” would invite 

inexperienced users to attempt an adventure in bear country. 

2.3 Public Use Cabin Program 

Most expressed support for the public use cabin program. One 

individual indicated a preference for abolishing the cabins. Sierra 

Club requested “. . . a moratorium on new cabin construction until 

Congress reviews potential additions to the Wilderness and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Systems.” The State prefers development of the public 

use cabin system to meet public demand, without establishing limits 

on the number of cabins allowed. Some reviewers expressed 

concerns about impacts on bears and other resources. EPA stated that 

the EIS should identify potential new cabin sites, potential impacts of 

construction on wildlife, construction methods and mitigation 

measures to avoid impacts. One individual commented that proposed 

cabin construction costs were too low and that the Service should 

charge a higher fee for cabins. 

2.4 Protection of Bear 

Concentration Areas 

Protection of bear concentration areas received the greatest number 

of comments of any topic. Many expressed concern about voluntary 

guidelines. Most reviewers did not seem to understand that under the 

preferred alternative, voluntary guidelines could be augmented by 

regulations if necessary. A typical comment, “Our primary concern 

is that impact on the bears does not seem to have priority over impact 

on the public . . . voluntary guidelines for public use in areas of high 

bear concentration sounds good on paper and will be popular with 

the public, but voluntary guidelines will only affect those who 

choose to follow these guidelines and will have no effect whatsoever 

on those who don’t.” 

Some reviewers expressed concern that more information on how 

bear concentration areas would be managed was not provided in the 

plan, “This draft has been five years in the writing and yet no 

definitive management plan other than develop voluntary 

guidelines.” A couple of people commented that because these areas 

have received an inordinate amount of attention, re-opening them 

could prove disastrous for bears and their habitat. Several suggested 

closing all bear denning areas to snow machine use. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-3 

Some provided specific recommendations about management of bear 

viewing including suggesting areas to open and requesting that we 

consider modes of access and access points, group size, and 

increased airplane traffic and flight patterns. “Connecticut Creek, 

Humpy Cove, 7 Rivers, and O’Malley should be reopened to 

commercial operators. Lower Dog Salmon should be reopened to 

use, though it should be restricted to [avoid] commercial aircraft 

landing in close proximity to the bear’s feeding area, possibly 

causing unsafe conditions and interfering with feeding bears.” 

Some commercial operators commented that visitors should be able 

to view brown bears on Kodiak Island, not have to travel to other 

areas such as Katmai. Both air taxi operators supported air taxi bear 

viewing. A few reviewers recommended closing bear viewing areas 

to hunting, while another commented, “I believe bear hunters and 

bear viewers can comfortably co-exist.” Some recommended 

maximizing the economic value to local residents by using local 

guides. One reviewer indicated that if additional restrictions are 

needed, he was generally against restricting commercial operators 

first over the general public. 

2.5 O’Malley Bear Viewing 

There were many comments about O’Malley bear viewing. At the 

Anchorage and Kodiak public meetings, this topic was the focus of 

much of the discussion and refuge staff were asked many questions 

about how the preferred alternative would be implemented. Some 

supported the preferred alternative. Several commented that they saw 

no need for bear viewing at O’Malley. “To allow wildlife viewers 

egress and ingress, in and out of sensitive areas on a daily basis, at a 

critical time of the year, and to allow people to trample natural 

habitat and plants, to disrupt diurnal rhythms of bears and other 

animals, are things that blatantly contradicts the very purpose the 

Kodiak Refuge had been created and managed for over six decades.” 

“There are other places to view bears outside of Kodiak Refuge.” 

“As an alternative to allowing bear viewing here, why not encourage, 

even assist Koniag’s viewing endeavor at the Thumb River area?” 

The Sierra Club recommended opening O’Malley to bear viewing 

under a government-run program similar to the 1992 program but 

first reopening it on a tentative, experimental basis before 

committing to a full-fledged program involving long-term 

concession contracts. An air taxi operator suggested opening 

O’Malley for some sort of “day use” activities. If aircraft noise is a 

major concern, consider requiring landing down the lake and using 

skiff access to the river viewing area. An individual said we do not 

need intensively managed bear viewing program on Kodiak – 

preferring a more primitive type of experiences. The Wilderness 

Society commended the Service for proposing to implement a well 

thought-out bear viewing program in O’Malley Creek and said, “We 

believe O’Malley Creek is an excellent location for a well-managed 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-4 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

bear viewing program, and encourage the Service to move ahead 

with this proposal.” 

The Kodiak Island Convention and Visitors Bureau and several 

guides commented that the Service should look to the private sector 

first for running bear viewing operations prior to developing agencyrun operations. “The Federal Government shouldn’t be providing a 

service that the private sector is well qualified to provide.” “There 

seems to be no thought of subsidizing hunting trips on Kodiak.” 

“Why would the government consider using taxpayer dollars to 

compete with private industry to offer bear viewing trips for less than 

market value?” 

2.6 Wilderness and Rivers 

The State commented that they appreciate “that the Service is not 

using the CCP revision process to re-evaluate wilderness 

recommendations under ANILCA 1317(a).” They also commented, 

“We recognize that the Kodiak Refuge contains wilderness values 

that must be considered in this planning document, pursuant to 

ANILCA Section 304(g). The State supports Service management 

actions that fully consider all refuge values, and that maximize the 

range of public uses available on the refuge. Since Kodiak Refuge 

has no formal designated Wilderness, we generally do not support 

actions that appear to give wilderness values a higher priority to the 

detriment of other resources, values and uses.” 

The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, and several individuals 

requested that the Service identify suitable wilderness lands and 

provide a range of wilderness recommendations in the alternatives 

for analysis in the revision process. They commented that lands had 

been added to the refuge since the original recommendations had 

been made. Some commented that the original recommendations 

were “flawed.” The Sierra Club recommended the Service “[r]etain 

the Special River Management category in the final Revised CCP.” 

2.7 Other Comments 

There were comments on management of introduced species and 

their effects on refuge wildlife and habitats. There were comments 

about fisheries management, including effects to fisheries from 

public use and introduction of native fish to areas where they have 

not previously occurred. The Wilderness Society commented at 

length about motorized and mechanized vehicle use, including 

recommending that recreation use of snowmachines be prohibited. 

The National Wildlife Federation urged the Service to include a 

discussion of climate change in the plan and to include a specific 

climate change goal in its goals and objectives. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-5 

3. Response to 

Substantive Comments 

This section responds to those comments considered substantive. By 

substantive, we mean comments that point out errors in the 

document, disagree with our conclusions, or otherwise merit a 

response. If there was any question on whether a comment merited a 

response, we provided a response. Comments provided by 

governments and organizations are so noted. 

3.1 Alternatives 

Comment 1: Cascadia Wildlands Project commented that the 

alternatives “do not reflect a reasonable range. They do not each 

represent a clear management direction or philosophy. It is not clear 

why management components were arranged among the alternatives 

the way they were.” 

Response: The range of alternatives is relatively narrow because the 

plan is a revision of an existing plan and focuses on identifying the 

need for change in management. The planning team clustered the 

actions proposed in each alternative according to what seemed 

logical. All alternatives were designed to meet the purposes of 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, achieve the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and achieve refuge goals. The alternatives 

were also developed to address the issues identified in section 1.6 of 

this document.

Comment 2: The Wilderness Society commented that “[t]he draft 

CCP indicates the Service is moving toward voluntary guidelines for 

public use of bear concentration areas. All alternatives except the no 

action alternative include these voluntary guidelines. It is unclear 

why the Service is moving away from regulations and toward 

voluntary guidelines in this plan. We do not believe the draft CCP 

sufficiently clarifies the reasoning behind this management direction, 

and we would like to see greater clarification.” 

Response: All action alternatives provide for beginning with 

voluntary guidelines, yet retain the option to adopt regulations if 

necessary. Beginning with voluntary guidelines gives us an 

opportunity to test management strategies, determine if they will 

work, and fine-tune our management before we undertake a rulemaking process. They also allow us to rapidly respond to changes in 

circumstances or new information. Regulations could be adopted if 

voluntary use guidelines are not effective under all of the action 

alternatives (B, C, and D). Also see the discussion on 

“Implementing Management of Bear Concentration Areas under the 

Preferred Alternative (section 2.10.2) and the response to comment 

number 13 are addition discussion of the rationale for using 

voluntary guidelines instead of or prior to adopting regulations.

Comment 3: The State of Alaska commented about the reduction in 

Moderate Management under preferred Alternative D. “Over 30,000 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

acres of mostly coastal areas are proposed to be changed from 

Moderate to Minimal Management. This proposal is not specifically 

discussed or analyzed. We request articulation of the rationale for 

this change.” 

Response: We have modified the proposed reduction in Moderate 

Management category acreage in the preferred alternative 

(Alternative D). All areas located on the Refuge’s west coast between 

Zachar Bay and Viekoda Bay (including Uganik Island) currently 

managed under the Moderate Management category (Alternative A) 

have been removed from the lands proposed for Minimal 

Management in the preferred alternative. This includes the general 

area used by the set net fishery in this area, excluding the heads of 

bays. 

Seven-mile Beach and the area within Uyak Bay would continue to 

be proposed for management under the Minimal Management 

category. These lands include parcels formerly owned by Koniag, 

Inc. and other private parties. They were reacquired for the Refuge 

using Exxon Valdez Oil Spill restitution funds. All parcels acquired 

using this funding source carry a conservation easement which 

prohibits facility construction and certain other uses and is most 

consistent with the Minimal Management category. 

Similarly, the coastal lands on the south side of the Refuge—from 

Akhiok eastward and northward to Kiliuda Bay—that were 

reacquired using Exxon Valdez Oil Spill restitution funds also carry 

this conservation easement. These reacquired lands include parcels 

that were conveyed to Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc. or Old Harbor Native 

Corporation prior to completion of the 1987 Conservation Plan as 

well as other parcels that were conveyed subsequent to completion of 

the Plan, most having been managed under the Moderate 

Management category prior to conveyance. Other refuge lands along 

the coastline have been managed under the Moderate Management 

category since the 1987 Plan was approved. The Refuge is proposing 

under both Alternatives C and D (the Preferred Alternative) to 

classify all their lands in this area under the Minimal Management 

category thus providing for consistent management direction that is 

consistent with the conservation easement on the reacquired lands. 

Comment 4: The State of Alaska requested “. . . an analysis of 

potential effects [resulting from the reduction in Moderate 

Management] on community-based economic activities such as 

mariculture or ecotourism development (trails, caching of rental 

boats, etc.)”. 

Response: We do not see a need to evaluate effects of potential 

economic activities. As explained above, conditions on conservation 

(non-development) easements held by the State of Alaska prohibit 

any development on these acquired lands.
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-7 

Comment 5: “The State is concerned that this change could lead to 

significant restrictions on the commercial fishing industry that uses a 

portion of the Refuge coastal uplands in support of their activities. 

Areas that could be affected by this action include the 7 Mile Beach 

and Spiridon Bay area within Uyak Bay, among other locations.” 

Response: Revising the Moderate Management zones (as described 

in comment 4) alleviates this concern, except for Seven Mile Beach, 

the area within Uyak Bay and areas in the Aliulik Peninsula and 

Deadman Bay areas. These areas were acquired using Exxon Valdez 

Oil Spill restitution funds. All parcels acquired using this funding 

source carry a conservation easement which prohibits any 

construction. The Minimal Management Category best 

accommodates these conservation easements. 

Comment 6: The State of Alaska commented that “[c]hanging these 

areas from moderate to minimal management reduces the Refuge’s 

flexibility to react to changing needs and developments associated 

with adjacent land and resource managers. In our view, current 

refuge policy already unnecessarily restricts the ANILCA protected 

on-shore commercial fishing support activities. The more stringent 

management regime of minimal management as characterized on 

page 2-77 may further restrict these activities, even though the shorebased activities may be authorized in both management categories. 

Without additional analysis and assurances that the change in 

management categories will not further restrict legitimate, ANILCA 

protected uses of the uplands, we cannot support this action.” 

Response: The Moderate Management Zone has been modified in the 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D), as addressed in section 2.1.

3.2 Management of Camping Areas 

Comment 7: Several individuals and the Kodiak Island Convention 

and Visitors Bureau commented on proposed management of 

camping areas. Comments included: 

• Prohibit installation of latrines, electric fences and food storage 

containers as mitigation techniques for campers. If these are 

necessary “then there are too many humans in the area and the 

appropriate response should be to reduce the amount of low 

priority users and visitors to the refuge. Sport hunting, 

recreational camping, biking, and hiking are examples of low 

priority uses.” 

• Do not approve of adding electric fences, latrines, and food 

storage containers. “Camping facilities are unnecessary and 

compromise the quality of the wilderness.” 

• Improving underdeveloped camping areas will benefit the public, 

but, depending on where they are located, create additional 

impact on the bears. 

• “While there may be justification for improved campsites in 

some areas, these improvements should only be implemented 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-8 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

when there is adequate staffing to ensure buildings and/or 

structures are removed on schedule. This has been a problem on 

the Ayakulik – an otherwise excellent program.” 

• Providing campgrounds “would invite inexperienced users to 

attempt an adventure in bear country.” 

Response: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

requires Kodiak Refuge to give priority consideration to six priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

environmental interpretation – if they are determined to be 

compatible with refuge purposes. (See section 3.3.7 of this document 

for detailed discussions of these activities.) Compatibility 

determinations for these activities are found in Appendix E. 

Solitude and other wilderness values can be experienced throughout 

the Refuge. Visitors seeking these experiences need only avoid the 

seasonal concentrations of activity that coincide with the various 

salmon runs (see Wilderness Values discussion in section 4.1.3 of 

this document for a discussion of potential effects on wilderness 

values). Kodiak Refuge proposes to place temporary electric fences, 

temporary latrines, and portable bear resistant food containers only 

when and where use levels warrant,(e.g. the Ayakulik River at Bare 

Creek and at the nearby refuge administrative campsite. 

The protective measures proposed in heavy use areas are not 

expected to change the number of visitors; rather they would help 

reduce the effects of visitation. The measures, taken on the Ayakulik 

with no discernable change in numbers of visitors, will be considered 

elsewhere to protect bears from becoming food-conditioned and thus 

more susceptible to defense of life or property kills and to protect the 

habitat from the effects of visitor behavior including abandoned food 

and garbage, scattered human waste, and litter, including toilet 

paper. 

Disposal of human waste in concentrated areas of seasonal use also 

has an impact on archeological sites. Many of today’s high use areas 

have, in fact, been used for at least 7,500 years. Remnants of 

prehistoric villages occur in the form of numerous structure 

depressions and middens. Visitors seek privacy in these depressions, 

digging “cat holes,” leaving organic waste, and large volumes of 

litter (cumulatively), e.g., toilet paper. 

3.3 Public Use Cabin Program 

Comment 8: Three individuals commented that they support the 

possibility of adding some new public use cabins. One added, “If 

appropriate, I would like you to consider adding cabins on both 

Akalura Lake and Red Lake.” New cabins should not be located in 

sensitive bear habitat. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-9 

Response: The Refuge has removed cabins from bear habitat where 

conflicts occurred and will not consider placing new cabins in such 

sites. A variety of sites could be considered for placement of cabins 

(e.g. sites which would provide visitors opportunities to hunt, fish, 

and view wildlife, but would not interfere with key wildlife areas). 

Each potential site would go through a rigorous review to determine 

its appropriateness. Also see responses to other comments in this 

section..

Comment 9: The Environmental Protection Agency commented that 

“[t]he EIS should identify potential new cabin sites. Without such 

information it is not possible to determine the potential impacts of 

new cabins.” The EIS should also discuss potential impacts of 

construction on wildlife” and “identify what method would be used 

to construct new cabins and what mitigation measures would be 

implemented to avoid impacts on bears and other wildlife 

populations.” 

Response: The Conservation Plan provides direction for, and 

addresses in general, new and existing cabin sites. The Conservation 

Plan provides general guidance that will be followed up by several 

detailed step-down plans (see section 2.2.19) including a public use 

cabin plan which will describe the cabin site selection process 

(summarized in section 2.9.2 of this document). Site selection will 

also be consistent with criteria identified in the compatibility 

determination for public use cabins in Appendix E. Prior to 

construction of new public use cabins, relocation of existing public 

use cabins, or conversion of acquired private cabins to public use, 

the appropriate level of compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act will be completed. No additions or modifications to the 

public use cabin program will occur outside that process. 

A generic public use cabin site (described under Public Use Cabins 

discussion in section 3.3.7 of this document) would include a cabin 

(approximately 12 foot by 20 foot), a small bear-proof meat cache 

building for temporary storage of food, garbage, and harvested fish 

and game, and an outhouse. Less than 500 square feet of habitat 

would be lost or significantly damaged. Cabin sites would not be 

located in or adjacent to key wildlife areas. We would minimize the 

impact of cabins on bears by implementing the same construction 

and public permit conditions as we have used at cabins for the last 

20 years. Visitors would be required to read and agree to special 

conditions on cabin permits. These conditions provide guidelines and 

requirements for proper storage and removal of food, garbage, 

human waste, and harvested fish and game. Also see responses to 

other comments in this section. 

Comment 10: The Sierra Club recommended that a moratorium be 

placed “on new cabins pending Congress’s review of potential 

additions to the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers systems. 

Cabins, by concentrating public use at the cabin sites and 

surrounding lands, and through the associated use of motorized 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-10 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

access, tend to reduce the quality of wilderness and wild river 

experiences.” 

Response: The record of decision for the original Comprehensive 

Plan (USFWS 1987) recommended about 1.08 million acres for 

wilderness designation. This recommendation will remain in effect 

until Congressional action is taken or the Conservation Plan is 

amended to modify or remove it. 

In Alaska, cabins can be constructed in designated wilderness areas 

under section 1315(d) of ANILCA. The presence of public use cabins 

on the refuge does not by itself impair eligibility of the area to be 

designated wilderness. The effects of cabins on wilderness values are 

discussed under Wilderness Values in Section 4.1.3 of this document. 

New cabins would be added only after consultation with interested 

citizens, appropriate public involvement, and National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis. Criteria such as the following 

would be considered in selecting new cabin sites and/or selection of 

cabins for addition to the public use cabin program: (1) availability 

of diverse recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, kayaking, and hiking; (2) solitude and isolation from other 

uses and facilities such as lodges and set net sites; (3) ease of access 

for users and for maintenance; and (4) prevention of adverse 

impacts to refuge resources such as wildlife movement corridors and 

key wildlife use areas. Directions found under Minimal Management 

would apply to further reduce impacts to refuge resources. Also see 

other responses to comments in this section. 

Comment 11: An individual with over 24 years of building 

experience on Kodiak, including quite a bit of remote construction, 

stated that “I think the operating and construction costs are under 

estimated in your tables.” 

Response: Cabin construction costs were based on actual costs from 

2000, adjusted for inflation. Estimates include use of refuge vessel 

and plane for material transport with construction performed by 

refuge personnel whose labor costs were not included in the total. 

The $30,000 figure is an average cost. Cabin location will have a 

significant effect on costs (e.g., Is the site on the coast or a 

freshwater lake? How far is it from Kodiak?) Specific site locations 

for new cabins were not identified in this plan so actual cabin costs 

can not be precisely determined at this time. The above factors were 

also used to estimate operating costs.

Comment 12: An individual commented, “I don’t think the Refuge 

charges an adequate fee for use of cabins to cover operating and 

construction costs and thus subsidizes users and competes unfairly 

with private enterprise.” 

Response: The daily rental rates for Forest Service cabins in Alaska 

vary from $25 to $45. Refuge cabins are similar in size to those in 

nearby Afognak State Park which are rented at $35 per night. One 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-11 

difference is that firewood and cooking utensils are provided with 

Afognak State Park cabins, but not with refuge cabins. Based on this 

comparison, refuge fees are comparable to cabins rented by other 

agencies. The last cabin fee increase occurred on January 1, 2000 

when the fee was increased from $20 per night to $30 per night 

during the peak seasons of spring, summer, and fall.

3.4 Protection of Bear Concentration Areas 

Comment 13: Several individuals and the Cascadia Wildlands 

Project expressed concern that voluntary guidelines would not work 

and were not sufficient to protect bears. 

Response: We believe that the management process and use of 

voluntary guidelines proposed for protection of areas where bears 

concentrate on streams are reasonable and sufficient. The proposed 

process, detailed in section 2.10.2 of this document, would 

encourage continued public input, test voluntary guidelines to 

evaluate operational adequacy, and provide a means for correcting 

problems, should any arise, either through modification of guidelines 

or establishment of regulations. 

Proposed use of voluntary guidelines is consistent with 

recommendations of the Bear Plan (ADF&G 2002). In particular, 

recommendation number 188 advised the Refuge to use the minimum 

management tool required to ensure protection of bears and the 

public who use bear concentration areas. 

Our experience indicates that voluntary guidelines can work when 

properly considered, advertised, and implemented, such as they have 

at Frazer Fish Pass, where bear viewing has occurred on Kodiak 

Island over the last 20 years. More recently voluntary guidelines 

have been effectively used to manage perceived crowding on the 

Ayakulik River during the chinook fishery. Federal and state 

managers must continue to monitor compliance and effectiveness of 

voluntary guidelines. If compliance problems develop despite our 

best efforts, managers are in a much better position to seek a 

permanent regulation because they have demonstrated that less 

restrictive measures have not worked. 

Finally, we expect full compliance with guidelines by commercial 

operators because guidelines would be mandated as a condition of 

their permits to use the Refuge. These commercial operators are also 

among the Refuge’s best ambassadors by modeling appropriate 

behavior and thus encouraging unguided users to comply with 

voluntary guidelines. 

Also see response to comment 2 in section 3.1.1 of this appendix.

3.5 O’Malley Bear Viewing 

Comment 14: Two individuals expressed doubts about the plan’s 

estimates of demand for bear viewing opportunities. One of the 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-12 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

individuals noted that refuge records reported in the Draft Plan show 

a 25 percent decrease in wildlife viewing visits to the Refuge since 

2000. Both individuals suggested that there is no established or 

pressing need to open O’Malley River for a bear viewing program at 

this time. 

Response: The estimates of wildlife viewing visitor numbers printed 

in chapter three of the Draft Plan may appear to suggest that 

participation in wildlife viewing is flat or declining; however, these 

numbers are not appropriate estimators of demand for bear viewing 

opportunities. Wildlife viewing is a notoriously difficult activity to 

track because visitors often engage in viewing in combination with 

other activities such as fishing. Refuge estimates of wildlife viewing 

use only include visitors whose primary activity is viewing; the 

estimates do not capture viewing use that may occur in conjunction 

with some other primary activity. In addition, participation in bearviewing on the Refuge may currently be constrained by the seasonal 

access closures at O’Malley River and other areas. In written 

comments on the Draft Plan, one Kodiak air taxi operator noted: 

The reason Kodiak [bear-viewing] use is not growing is 

not because more of the public does not want to see Kodiak 

bears on Kodiak Island (emphasis added). ...[O]perators 

choose Katmai Park over Kodiak because if there are no 

bears in our first choice of landing spots...we don’t have to 

tell our clients, ‘Sorry, we can’t show you any bears today 

because all other areas on Kodiak Island are closed to 

commercial use (in the case of O’Malley, any access).’ 

As the preceding quotation suggests, there is substantial and 

growing demand for bear viewing opportunities, despite refuge 

estimates that seem to suggest flat or declining participation. An 

assessment conducted by USFWS staff in 2002 (Allen and Collins 

2002) concluded definitively that there is sufficient demand to reopen O’Malley River for a structured bear-viewing opportunity. That 

conclusion is now supported by more recently published findings at 

both the national and regional levels. The National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, conducted 

every five years since 1955, showed that wildlife viewing was the 

fastest growing form of wildlife-associated recreation in the country 

in 2001 (study results were issued in October 2002). In the Alaska 

Board of Game’s Bear Conservation and Management Policy 

published in 2004 (2004-147-BOG), the Board states: “Public 

interest in bears has increased dramatically in Alaska during the 

past decade...The interest exceeds the opportunities provided now by 

such established and controlled sites as McNeil River, Pack Creek, 

Anan Creek, Wolverine Creek and Brooks Camp” (p.3). Finally, the 

same air taxi operator quoted above also noted in written comments 

that bear viewing has grown from less than one percent of business 

12 years ago, “...to over 20% of our gross revenue this past [2004] 

season.” 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-13 

Comment 15: The same two individuals expressed concern about a 

potential government-run viewing program at O’Malley River 

competing with private industry. One of the individuals cited Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 to support the 

argument against a government run viewing program. The other 

individual suggested that government provision of a bear viewing 

program is “clearly outside the scope of the Refuge mission” and that 

such a program would amount to an unfair subsidy for bear viewing. 

Response: OMB Circular A-76 is a Federal government directive 

that establishes policy and procedures for determining whether 

commercial activities should be performed by private entities or inhouse by the government. The circular states that the government 

“shall not carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or 

service if the product or service can be procured more economically 

from a commercial source.” At O’Malley River, it is not clear that a 

commercial source could provide the same bear viewing opportunity 

that the Refuge could, nor is it clear that a private commercial 

viewing program would be more economical than a government-run 

program. 

In bear viewing and similar recreation activities, the “product” that 

people purchase is a particular combination of physical, biological, 

and social setting elements combined with management inputs. At 

O’Malley River, most of the important setting elements (physical 

landscape, bears, use regulations, and law enforcement to keep it all 

in place) would continue to be protected and provided by the Refuge, 

regardless of who runs a viewing program. However, the public face 

of industry and government-run programs would differ substantially: 

Under a private industry scenario, bear viewing guides and 

interpreters would be private company employees while under a 

government-run scenario, uniformed refuge employees would guide 

and supervise visitor use. In this way, government and industry 

viewing products would be quite different and not necessarily 

substitutable for one another. In their inventory and analysis of 

Alaska bear-viewing opportunities, Allen and Collins (2002) noted 

that, while there are several existing and planned commercial 

viewing programs on Kodiak Island, there are no government-run 

programs available. 

Even if private industry could provide the kind of viewing 

opportunity that is currently unavailable on Kodiak Refuge, it is not 

clear that a commercial program would be more economical to 

administer than an in-house (government run) program. As noted 

previously, core resource management and law enforcement 

activities associated with re-opening O’Malley River would be 

conducted by the Refuge, regardless of who runs the viewing 

program. Some of these activities might reasonably be conducted as 

collateral duty by refuge employees working as guides and 

interpreters at a government-run viewing program. On the other 

hand, any cost savings associated with having private industry run a 

viewing program would likely be offset by the need to maintain 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-14 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

refuge biological monitoring and law enforcement presence at 

O’Malley River, and by the cost of administering a bid and permit 

system for selecting one or more private bear-viewing contractors. 

Due to uncertainties regarding the exact nature of the viewing 

product desired by visitors and the relative costs of administering 

commercial and government-run viewing programs, the O’Malley 

viewing program under the preferred alternative (Alternative D) 

would combine refuge-supervised use with commercially-guided use. 

See Commercial Wildlife Viewing in section 2.10.2 of this document 

for a description of the proposed combined program. 

With respect to the concern about an unfair bear-viewing subsidy, 

Kodiak Refuge supports both bear hunting and viewing activities and 

related visitor services through biological, law enforcement, and 

permit programs that protect bears and their habitats. Visitor 

services, whether they are provided by the Refuge or by private 

industry, do not fully recoup the cost of managing the resources they 

depend on, and they are neither expected nor required to do so.

Comment 16: An individual asked as an alternative to allowing bear 

viewing at O’Malley, “. . .why not encourage, even assist Koniag’s 

viewing endeavor at the Thumb River area?” 

Response: We do not consider the Thumb area as a viable substitute 

for the bear viewing program proposed at O’Malley River. In 

contrast to the proposed O’Malley program, Koniag, Inc. controls 

all public access and usage of the Thumb area. Additionally, the 

level of bear use at Thumb is lower and less prolonged than use at 

O’Malley. In conclusion, we believe that dual operation of Thumb 

and O’Malley viewing programs would provide the public with a 

greater range of options for acquiring a quality viewing experience. 

The Refuge has a long tradition of working with Koniag on its bear 

viewing program at Thumb River. A primary guide who operated 

their program in the 1990s was initially trained in the refuge-run 

bear viewing program at O’Malley River. Most of the successful 

operational standards implemented in the O’Malley program were 

later instituted by Koniag in its Thumb program. As required by 

provisions of the Koniag Conservation Easement Agreement in 2002, 

the Refuge and Koniag officials have periodically consulted 

regarding re-establishment and operation of their viewing program 

at Thumb River.

Comment 17: An individual expressed concern that bears routinely 

subjected to viewing become habituated to human presence and the 

same bears also figure into the same population that is open to sport 

hunting. 

Response: Please refer to our extended discussion of viewing and 

hunting relationships under Bear Viewing in section 3.2.3 and under 

Brown Bear Populations in section 4.1.2 of this document. In sum, 

we believe that vulnerability of neutrally habituated bears to harvest 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-15 

currently is low and will remain low in the future despite a 

forecasted increase in bear viewing activity on the Refuge. Reasons 

follow. Though the number of places used for bear viewing would 

increase, viewing activity would have limited influence on bears. 

Relatively few animals would habituate to routine, non-threatening 

human activity because it would be restricted to an access trail, 

viewing site, and small part of a concentration area. Duration of the 

use at most of these areas is also limited to a matter of a few weeks 

based on the timing of the various salmon runs. Selection of new 

viewing sites would be limited to sites which provided good 

opportunities to view bear family groups and subadults. Because 

these sites would not include areas normally frequented by adult 

males, disturbance or habituation of this population segment would 

be minimized. 

Due to limited human activity, scope of habituation would be limited 

to relatively few bear groups that routinely encountered people. Bear 

groups most likely to become habituated would include females 

accompanied by cubs (protected from harvest by regulation), and 

subadults (whose small size makes them less attractive as trophy 

animals). Other factors contributing to survival of adult females 

would include continued conservative harvest quota and hunter 

emphasis on selection of adult males for harvest. Finally, we believe 

that habituated bears probably face increased risk of hunter harvest 

only if they encounter hunters near the habituation site during the 

hunting season. Because of shifting habitat use it is unlikely that 

bears habituated by summer viewing operations would use these 

same places during fall and spring hunting seasons. We would 

therefore expect them to react as any non-habituated bear would—to 

flee upon first detection of human presence. Should on-going 

monitoring of bear harvest indicate that a hunter harvested a 

habituated bear, we would consider the need to impose harvest riskreduction measures detailed by Barnes and Wilker (2000). 

3.6 Wilderness 

Comment 18: The Wilderness Society and other respondents 

requested that the Service identify suitable lands and make a range of 

wilderness recommendations within the alternatives in the CCP 

revision process. The Wilderness Society stated that “both existing 

and potential future designated wilderness is a resource and a value 

of the refuges which must be addressed. The Service’s laws and 

policies require that wilderness reviews be conducted as part of the 

CCP process. . . . Further, under the Wilderness Values section of the 

draft CCP, there is discussion of 175,000 acres that have been 

acquired by the Service and added to the Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge since the initial planning cycle in the 1980’s (p 3-114).” An 

individual commented that the wilderness recommendations “made 

in 1987 are badly flawed in the sense that some unique, Wildlands 

vital to bears, ecosystem, and wilderness management” have been 

excluded: “Alilulik Peninsula, the area south of Olga Bay, the area 

west of Red River flats, the area south of Seven Mile Beach, Little 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-16 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

River Peninsula and Uganik Island.” Explain why these lands were 

not included. 

Response: Sections 1.6 (Table 1-1) and 2.5 of the plan include our 

rationale for not conducting wilderness reviews. After a thorough 

review of the planning requirements in Sec. 304(g) of ANILCA and 

the Refuge System planning policy, we determined that until the 

wilderness review policy was complete we would best meet the 

ANILCA requirements by identifying the special values of the refuge 

and clearer direction for how the refuge will be administered to 

protect these values without conducting a wilderness review.

Comment 19: The Wilderness Society commented, the Draft CCP 

also states that “[c]urrent and proposed management direction 

provides adequate protection for all wilderness values (p.2-109). 

However, we do not fully agree with this statement. In reviewing the 

minimal and wilderness management categories in the management 

template (pgs. 2-83 to 2-105), it is clear that the management 

direction for the activities listed below is more restrictive in 

wilderness than it is in minimal management.” Activities mentioned 

included Aquatic Habitat Modifications, Helicopters, Radio Repeater 

Sites, Geophysical Exploration and Seismic Studies, Core Sampling, 

and Other Geophysical Studies. They are concerned “. . .particularly 

in light of the fact that wilderness is not being reviewed in this 

planning cycle, no wilderness recommendations are being made, and 

there is no designated wilderness on the Refuge.” 

Response: Although this plan does not include any additional 

wilderness recommendations, the 1.08 million acre recommendation 

from the 1987 Conservation Plan will remain as the Service’s 

recommendation for Kodiak Refuge. As such, these lands (as well as 

most other refuge lands) would be included in the Minimal 

Management category. Regional Service policy (per Section 1317 of 

ANILCA) is to not manage lands recommended for wilderness 

designation as Wilderness unless and until Congress takes action on 

the proposal. As the Minimal Management category “is designed to 

maintain the natural environment with very little evidence of humancaused change,” there is little potential for impacts to wilderness 

values should any of the activities identified be proposed and 

authorized. In addition to being under Minimal Management, before 

these activities could be authorized, site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be required, identifying any potential impacts to wilderness 

values. 

Comment 20: “The State questions the applicability in Alaska of the 

primitive recreation description that states ‘Primitive recreation is 

nonmotorized . . .’ ANILCA recognized the unique conditions in 

Alaska, and provided for the continuation of motorized use within all 

CSUs in Alaska, including wilderness. We suggest striking 

‘nonmotorized’ from the primitive recreation description.” 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-17 

Response: This comment confuses a discussion of wilderness values 

with management direction found elsewhere in the document. Section 

102 of ANILCA clearly states that “The terms ‘wilderness’ and 

‘National Wilderness Preservation System’ have the same meaning 

as when used in the Wilderness Act”. The meaning of “primitive 

recreation” is clear in the history and purposes of the Wilderness 

Act, and in the Act’s explicit general prohibition on the use of motor 

vehicles and motorized equipment. ANILCA allows for continued use 

of specific types of motor vehicles for traditional activities, and 

motorized surface transportation traditionally used for subsistence. 

The Wilderness Act allows for the continued use of aircraft and 

motorboats in Wilderness areas where those uses had previously 

become established. However, these legislative special provisions do 

not change the meaning of primitive recreation provided in the 

Wilderness Act for the purposes of describing wilderness values. In 

order to address the apparent confusion we have revised the 

discussion to recognize the nonconforming uses provided for in 

ANILCA. 

3.7 Rivers and Other Waters 

Comment 21: Federal Jurisdiction over Waters within the Refuge: 

The State of Alaska disputes the Service’s contention that waters 

within pre-Statehood withdrawals were always reserved for the 

Federal government at the time of statehood. They commented, “We 

appreciate the footnote on page 1-14 [of the Draft Plan] that 

recognizes this legal dispute. We request similar clarifications in 

other portions of the [Draft] plan (pages 2-37, 2-40, and 3-1) that 

report on these assertions.” 

Response: The Service recognizes the position of the State of Alaska 

regarding this issue. However, the federal position on jurisdiction of 

waters within Kodiak Refuge (all of which were within pre-statehood 

conservation withdrawals) is that the United States owns the large 

majority of submerged lands beneath navigable and nonnavigable 

waters within the boundary of the Refuge. Language discussing this 

issue has been changed to reflect the federal position, which includes 

the results of the 2005 Glacier Bay Supreme Court decision.. 

Comment 22: Several conservation organizations and individuals 

asked, “Why no review or consideration of potential wild and scenic 

river designation?” The Sierra Club commented, “Eliminating 

consideration of six refuge rivers for potential inclusion in the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System is contrary to the requirements of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act. The Act requires federal land management 

agencies, as they initiate or revise land management plans, to 

evaluate the rivers under their jurisdiction for eligibility as potential 

additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Rivers found to be 

eligible (qualified under the criteria of the Act) must be identified as 

such in the plans, whether or not the agencies recommend any of the 

eligible rivers as suitable for addition to the System.” 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-18 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Response: Sections 1.6 (Table 1-1) and 2.5 of the plan include our 

rationale for not conducting wild and scenic river reviews. After a 

thorough review of Section 304(g) of ANILCA planning requirements 

and Refuge System planning policy we determined that we would 

best meet the ANILCA requirements by identifying the special values 

of the refuge without conducting a wild and scenic rivers review. The 

Service is not pursuing formal wild and scenic river eligibility study 

of rivers beyond those identified in Section 604 of ANILCA, none of 

which are located on Kodiak refuge. 

Comment 23: The Sierra Club recommended that we “retain the 

Special River Management category in the final Revised CCP.” They 

also suggested we “[d]esignate the Karluk, Sturgeon, Dog Salmon, 

Ayakulik, Spiridon and Uganik rivers as Rivers with Exceptional 

Values to be protected under the Special River Management 

prescriptions as set forth in Table 2[-4]. Revise the base budget and 

staffing needs to account for the additional staff and funds needed to 

prepare six river management plans.” They provided several 

comments about the Special River Management category. 

“In justifying the purging of the category, the Draft Revised CCP 

(Draft) claims that ‘This category varies only slightly in management 

direction from the Minimal Management category.’ (2-114). This 

claim is not supported by Table 2, which compares the differences 

between the two categories as each is applied to various refuge uses. 

(2-115). In every instance, Special River Management offers more 

security for outstandingly remarkable rivers and adjacent riparian 

lands than does Minimal Management. Under the latter category, 

five of the six uses are ‘permitted’ while one ‘may be permitted’ if 

compatible (hydroelectric projects). Under Special River 

Management, four of the six uses ‘may be permitted,’ one is ‘not 

permitted’ (hydroelectric projects), and one is ‘permitted.’ (2-114). 

There is a vital difference between ‘permitted’ and ‘may be 

permitted.’ The latter provides the agency with authority to deny use 

temporarily or permanently if necessary to safeguard critically 

important habitats or other important river and riparian values; the 

former drops this administrative discretion, unnecessarily making it 

more difficult for the Refuge to afford the rivers and riparian areas 

the protection they deserve . . . the Refuge confesses that in the 17 

years since the 1987 CCP went into effect, no river management 

plans have been completed and no river boundaries established. (2-

114). Were any plans begun, and if so, why have they not been 

completed?” 

Response: Elimination of the Special River Management category 

does not remove the potential for development of river management 

plans for the Karluk, Sturgeon, Ayakulik, and Dog Salmon rivers (or 

other refuge rivers) if it is determined that such plans are necessary 

to protect the values of these rivers. Should plans be developed, any 

modifications to the current management direction for these areas 

would be made as a part of the river management planning process. 

Studies were undertaken in the early to mid 90s to determine whether 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-19 

any river management plans were needed; it was determined that 

none were needed at that time. 

3.8 Introduced species 

Comment 24: The State of Alaska commented that they “understand 

that, unlike most refuges in Alaska, the Kodiak Refuge contains an 

unusually high number of intentionally introduced species, and that 

some of these introduced species could cause undesirable impacts.” 

They expressed concern “that part of the plan appears to overemphasize possible impacts without sufficient documentation or the 

recognition that some species are now considered an integral part of 

the Refuge fauna (see pages 3-29 and 30). For example, while Sitka 

black-tailed deer are a non-native species introduced to the Kodiak 

Archipelago approximately 80 years ago [in 1924] prior to the 

creation of the Refuge, they have adapted well, become widespread 

and are now an integral part of the recreational and subsistence 

values of the area.” 

Response: Note revisions to discussion of Invasive Plants and 

Influence of Introduce Fauna in section 3.2.1 of this document. 

3.9 Fisheries 

Comment 25: An individual expressed concern that recreational 

fishing will greatly increase within the Refuge and cause negative 

impacts. “Negative impacts on streambeds due to increased travel 

could be harmful to redds (steelhead in particular, due to their 

preference of riffle areas with small gravel substrate) where a 

majority of fishing and stream crossing occurs. Negative impacts to 

cut banks due to increased bank travel as well could be detrimental 

to juvenile populations of all species. Deterioration of cut banks 

could also reduce resting areas for mature fish and make them more 

susceptible to depredation by birds of prey and bears.” 

Response: While it is true that increasing the number of people 

visiting certain limited areas could affect habitat, State and Federal 

managers are employing a number of strategies to keep this from 

happening. For example, on the Karluk River a permit system was 

established per the conservation easement with Koniag, Inc. which 

helps us manage this fishery and any related impacts on habitat. A 

registration permit is now required year-round to help the refuge 

monitor use. During the peak of the chinook salmon season, use is 

capped at 70 anglers per day. Additional monitoring is also required 

to ensure this level of use can be sustained and to consider potential 

mitigation methods if required. A visitor satisfaction survey has also 

been conducted over a several year period and satisfaction with the 

fishery is reported as high. 

Similarly, on the Ayakulik River during the chinook season, refuge 

and state managers working in concert with a stakeholder group 

chartered by the local fish and game advisory committee have 

implemented a number of voluntary guidelines to minimize impacts. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-20 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

These voluntary guidelines include no camping zones at several 

popular fishing holes, as well as group size and length of stay 

recommendations. State and federal managers collaborated on a two 

year survey and creel census to document public reaction to the 

voluntary guidelines and get ideas about user preferences as to 

management strategies. For now the voluntary guidelines are 

achieving the desired result and visitor satisfaction is high. 

Monitoring continues at a reduced level. If and when these types of 

actions are no longer effective, state and federal managers will be in 

an excellent position to jointly seek regulations making the 

appropriate guidelines permanent. 

It is also fortunate that the timing and location of the various angling 

“hot spots” within the Refuge keep any one system from being used 

continuously. This allows the habitat to recover. 

Comment 26: The State of Alaska commented, “The CCP does not 

address the rationale for the change relating to species introductions 

as described on page 2-118, Table 2-5, Fish and Wildlife species 

introduction. The State does not object to eliminating the option to 

introduce species from outside the refuge (native species from 

elsewhere in North America), however we believe the new, more 

restrictive policy represented on this page goes too far. Specifically, 

we object to new management direction that would no longer allow 

the introduction of locally native fish species (native to the refuge) 

where it could be biologically justified in accordance with NEPA 

and a compatibility determination. We base our view on Section 

304(e) of ANILCA, which states that fishery enhancement is an 

allowable management practice where compatible and in accord with 

sound fisheries management principles, and with similar direction 

under Section 5(4) of the Refuge Improvement Act. Limiting such 

localized introductions removes the flexibility of the Service and the 

State to consider enhancement projects, which could be highly 

successful in the development of fisheries resources such as the 

Frazer, Spiridon and Hidden Lake projects. We therefore request the 

final plan allow for consideration of the introduction of locally native 

fish species if such an introduction meets all state and Service 

criteria for scientific acceptability.” 

Response: Table 2-5 has been revised to better reflect the differences 

between current and proposed management related to 

introduction/reintroduction of fish and wildlife species and better 

reflects current scientific understanding of population genetics. See 

response to comment 27. 

Comment 27: The State also commented, “We also note that the 

language on page 2-118, Table 2-5, Fish and Wildlife species 

introductions [of the Draft Plan], is more restrictive than the 

narrative management direction on page 2-60 for Fisheries 

Enhancement. The first paragraph on page 2-60 would allow 

enhancement projects, including the stocking of barren lakes, access 

to barren spawning areas and the construction of hatcheries and other 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-21 

enhancement actions. The proposed management alternatives in B, 

C, and D would prohibit those activities. Based on the rationale in 

the above paragraph, we request the Table on page 2-118 reflect the 

management approach on page 2-60.” 

Response: Table 2-5 has been modified to clarify management 

direction changes related to introduction of fish and wildlife species. 

Introduction of native fish species within a refuge drainage into 

areas where they have not occurred historically may now be allowed 

in Minimal Management areas, not just under Moderate 

Management. If populations are reduced or threatened, 

introductions may be allowed based on site-specific NEPA analysis 

and a determination that the action is compatible. 

3.10 Motorized and Mechanized Activities 

Comment 28: The Wilderness Society commented, “It is unclear to 

us from the Draft CCP whether the Service is proposing to allow 

snowmachines and other motorized travel for traditional activities 

only, as is authorized by Section 1110(a) of ANILCA, or if they will 

be allowed for recreational activities as well. We strongly encourage 

the Service to prohibit recreational use of snowmachines and ORVs 

within the Refuges. The Service must clarify specifically what types 

of motorized use are being allowed on the refuges and for what 

purposes. In doing so, it should prohibit recreational use of 

snowmachines and ORVs.” 

Response: With the exception of allowed uses as specified in sections 

811 and 1110 of ANILCA (see section 2.2.13), off-road/all-terrain 

vehicle use “may be allowed” only on designated routes or areas or 

by special use permit (43 CFR 36.11(g)(1)) in a very small 

percentage of the refuge (that area designated as Moderate 

Management). No routes or areas of the Refuge have been 

designated for such use and no special use permits have been issued 

to date which authorize such use. 

Snowmachine use, as authorized by ANILCA in 1980, would be 

allowed to continue. Under current management, the entire Refuge is 

open to snowmachine use during periods of adequate snow cover. 

With the exception of a proposed closure in the Den Mountain area to 

protect denning bears, the Refuge will remain open to snowmachine 

use. Current and projected use of snowmachines within the Refuge 

does not demonstrate the need for additional regulations at this time, 

but should use increase to levels thought to be detrimental to refuge 

resources, measures to further regulate snowmachine use would be 

initiated. For additional discussion see the final compatibility 

determination for snowmachine use (Appendix E). 

Comment 29: The Wilderness Society commented, “Until the 

Service defines traditional activities, the agency must clarify that 

snowmachine and powerboat use is allowed on the Refuges for 

traditional activities as authorized under ANILCA Title XI or for 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-22 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

subsistence as authorized under ANILCA Title VIII. The rulemaking 

process for defining traditional activities adopted for snowmachine 

use in the Old Park of Denali must be followed by all Alaska federal 

land managing agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. The Draft CCP deviates from this planned approach. We 

believe that the Service should not authorize recreational 

snowmachine or powerboat use, as is done in the DEIS, until the 

Service defines traditional activities for the Refuges in a separate 

rulemaking process.” The Defenders of Wildlife provided similar 

comments. 

Response: The proposed plan would restrict snowmachine use in the 

one area of the Refuge where it could result in unacceptable adverse 

effects. Title XI of ANILCA allows snowmachines for traditional 

activities. Compatible public recreational activities are allowed on 

Alaska refuges under 50 CFR 36.31(a). We have not defined 

traditional as it applies to this refuge, however we have found 

snowmachine use to be a compatible use at current levels (see 

Appendix E). 

Comment 30: The Wilderness Society is “concerned that the Service 

is not taking steps to appropriately limit motorized access for 

authorized traditional activities. The Draft CCP indicates that in the 

Preferred Alternative, the landing of airplanes and the use of 

snowmachines and motorized boats would not be restricted except 

for some specific seasonal closures (p. 2-145). We question this 

blanket, open approach. Rather than simply allow unlimited 

motorized access throughout the refuge, the Service should carefully 

limit or phase out certain uses, where appropriate, of motorized 

access in the Refuges. At an absolute minimum, the traditional 

motorized modes allowed shall be subject to reasonable regulations 

designed to protect the natural and other values of the refuge. 

Further, the compatibility standard must be applied to all 

transportation activities. 

“Additionally, where appropriate, the USFWS should consider 

limitations or the phasing out of certain uses, not simply allowing 

motorized access throughout the Refuges. The traditional motorized 

modes allowed under Section 1110 of ANILCA should not exceed 

the levels that existed at the time ANILCA was passed. This 

limitation is stated very clearly in the legislative history: 

“Even in wilderness, access by airplane and motorized boat may be 

permitted at existing levels of intensity. (Sen. Rep. No. 96-413 p. 

247)” 

The Defenders of Wildlife commented they recognize “the need for 

air taxis to access remote areas within the refuge. We commend the 

Service decisions to eliminate helicopter air taxis and seasonally 

restrict access to ecologically sensitive areas. We are concerned 

however with the maintenance of the status quo in allowing 

unrestricted numbers of trips, recreation clients, and numbers of air 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-23 

taxi operators. With a predicted visitor volume increase of 20-30 

percent over the 15-year life of the plan, Defenders feels it is 

irresponsible to continue this myopic policy. While promoting 

greater public access is important, the “wildlife first” Service 

mandate needs to take precedence. The Service should evaluate 

where the responsible threshold for air taxi volume lies to ensure this 

use remains compatible with the refuge mission and goals. 

Prevention of invasive species transfer should also be examined. An 

evaluation coupled with a proactive, forward looking management 

plan is the appropriate course of action for this use.” 

Response: Current and projected use of airplanes and motorboats 

within the Refuge does not demonstrate the need to regulate their use 

at this time (see section 3.3.7 of this document). The Refuge would 

follow the regulatory process, as described in 50 CFR 36.42, if use 

increased to levels that we thought would be detrimental to resource 

values of the Refuge. 

Inventories and monitoring for invasive species are recommended in 

this plan (see Objectives 1.4, 1.5, and 6.1, as well as discussions 

under section 2.2.10 [Weed Control] and section 3.2.3 [Invasive 

Plants and Invertebrates]). A plan of action will be developed 

immediately upon confirmation that an invasive species is present on 

the Refuge. 

Comment 31: The Defenders of Wildlife “applauds the Service’s 

proposed closure of Den Mountain but feels the Service has not gone 

far enough. . . . The DEIS says that denning bears are most 

susceptible to snowmobile disturbance. Snowmobile use by just one 

individual could cause bears to abandon dens and newborn cubs 

incapable of travel (Jonkel 1980). Defender’s feels this is an 

avoidable and highly undesirable consequence of snowmobile use. 

Given President Roosevelt’s designation of Kodiak Refuge ‘to 

protect the natural feeding and breeding ranges of the brown bears 

and other wildlife’ the issue of bear disturbance is of paramount 

importance in maintaining this charter.” 

The Wilderness Society “strongly supports the goal of developing 

baseline information and understanding of snowmachine use on the 

Refuge. . . . should be done prior to opening any bear den 

concentration areas to snowmachine activities. Under the current 

plan, two areas are closed to snowmachine use due to bear denning 

activity -- Baumann Creek (2,240 acres) and Den Mountain (2,820 

acres). However, the Preferred Alternative closes only the latter of 

these areas -- Den Mountain. Thus, the Service intends to open a 

potentially sensitive bear denning area to snowmachine use without 

prior understanding . . . of the potential levels of use. This appears to 

be an arbitrary decision, and thus we cannot support it. Given the 

potential sensitivity of denning brown bears to snowmachine use, it 

seems prudent for the Service to better understand the levels of use 

on the Refuge prior to opening Baumann Creek to snowmachines. 

Further, the explanation given for why the Service intends to open 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-24 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Baumann Creek area to snowmachine use is that Baumann Creek is, 

‘less accessible to snowmachine use. However, snowmachine tracks 

have been observed entering the Refuge near Viekoda River and 

traversing parts of Baumann Creek’ (p. 4-8). This is of concern to us 

because every year bigger, better snowmachines are built that 

penetrate faster and farther into wild areas that previously had been 

off limits to these machines. We do not believe the Service has 

adequately assessed the risks involved with this decision, and, . . . 

strongly encourage the Service to maintain this closure, at a 

minimum until the Service has a better understanding of levels of 

snowmachine use on the Refuge. Finally, it is unclear from the Draft 

CCP if the Den Mountain area will be closed by regulation or by 

voluntary guideline only (p. 2-145, 146). The Service needs to clarify 

this in the Record of Decision (ROD). We strongly urge the Service 

to close the Den Mountain area by regulation, not voluntary 

guideline.” 

The Environmental Protection Agency commented, “While the EIS 

states that accessibility to the Baumann Creak area is limited due to 

its physical setting, it also states that snowmachine tracks have been 

observed in the area. Bears are most vulnerable to disturbance in 

winter. As stated in the EIS, even a single event of disturbance by a 

snowmachine could cause abandonment of dens. The EIS should 

discuss potential impacts of snowmachine use in bear denning areas 

including the Baumann Creek area and identify mitigation measures 

as necessary.” 

Response: The entire Refuge is, and has been since 1980, open to 

snowmachine use when adequate snow cover is present. The two 

denning areas described in Alternative A have yet to be closed 

through regulation. In general, frequently inadequate snow cover 

limits snowmachine usage and access on Kodiak Island, including 

access to and on the Refuge. 

The Refuge carefully evaluated management needs regarding 

protection of denning Kodiak bears. We reviewed results of denning 

studies and consulted extensively with ADF&G officials who 

conducted the Terror Lake study and monitored ongoing 

snowmachine use of the region. For reasons stated in the discussion 

of Bear Concentration Areas under section 3.2.3 of this document, 

we concluded that Den Mountain should be closed by regulation to 

snowmachine use, consistent with an earlier recommendation 

(USFWS 1993.) In contrast, we concluded that closure of the 

denning area in Baumann Creek was not warranted. 

Unlike at Den Mountain, denning habitat at Baumann Creek is 

comprised of cliffs and very steep terrain situated in upper slopes of 

a canyon. Though snowmachines can access the lower canyon floor 

and highlands above the canyon, physical barriers prevent 

penetration of denning habitat. Though snowmachine tracks have 

been observed within and adjacent to the Den Mountain area, none 

have been observed in the denning area of Baumann Creek. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-25 

Effectiveness of implemented protection practices would be 

informally monitored via routine refuge and State Trooper winter 

patrols. Additionally, we would encourage air taxi operators to 

contact the Refuge if they observe snowmachine use within either 

Den Mountain or Baumann Creek denning areas. Evidence of snow 

machine use within the Den Mountain denning area would trigger a 

law enforcement investigation and prosecution of perpetrators if they 

were caught. Evidence of snow machine use of the Baumann Creek 

denning area would trigger site-specific monitoring, and a reevaluation of the need to institute additional protection measures 

potentially including closure by regulation. 

3.11 Other Comments 

Comment 32: Cascadia Wildlands Project commented, “Subsistence 

should be a primary value.” They asked, “What is the impact of the 

recent rule change regarding federal management of subsistence in 

marine waters of the refuge?” 

Response: Provision of opportunities for subsistence use is a refuge 

purpose and will continue to be one of the primary goals of Kodiak 

Refuge. Certain marine waters surrounding the Kodiak Archipelago 

are under the jurisdiction of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge; federal subsistence fishery management responsibilities for 

these marine waters lie with the Kodiak Refuge Manager. There is 

no change in either the areas managed, or in the role of the Kodiak 

Refuge Manager, due to the recent rule changes. 

Comment 33: Global Climate Change: National Wildlife Federal 

urges the Service “to include a discussion of climate change” in the 

plan “and to include a specific climate change goal in its goals and 

objectives.” They suggested as a refuge goal, “Increase our 

knowledge of climate change impacts on Refuge fish and wildlife 

populations, their habitats, their interrelationships and incorporate 

the anticipated effects of climate change into Refuge management 

decisions.” 

Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service is pursuing several avenues 

to address global warming. For example, we are coordinating efforts 

at the national and regional level with the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Global climate change was one of four major topics addressed at a 

national workshop in 2004 (Future Challenges Workshop) and a 

regional workshop held in Anchorage in June 2005. Discussion 

focused on identifying ways the Service and USGS can focus 

management and research on this issue. Where appropriate, 

management and research recommendations from these workshops 

will be incorporated into refuge operations. For specifics, see 

http://www.fws.gov/science/FCWorkshopNCT0808.html. Locally, the 

Refuge would work with researchers studying the effects of global 

warming. Objective 6.3 in Section 2.1 would contribute to 

understanding how refuge plant communities may be influenced by 

climate change. Also, we recently completed, in cooperation with 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-26 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ADF&G and other partners, a comprehensive land cover map of the 

Kodiak Archipelago (see section 3.2.1 of this document). We expect 

this state-of-the-art map to serve as a key tool for evaluating the 

potential long-term influence of global warming on vegetation types 

at a landscape scale. 

Comment 34: Private Cabins: The State of Alaska requested 

“consideration to allow private recreational use of permitted 

commercial use cabins within the Refuge. Currently, under 50 CFR 

36.33, recreational uses of commercial use cabins is not permitted. 

Traditionally, many commercial use cabins were used by visitors for 

recreational activities such as hunting and fishing when not in use for 

their permitted commercial activities. Reviving such use would allow 

dispersal of recreation, reduce potential for bear conflicts and 

promote safety during the more inclement months on Kodiak 

Island.” 

Response: During the development the State’s Kodiak Archipelago 

Bear Conservation and Management Plan, a recommendation was 

presented to consider allowing recreational use of commercial 

cabins on the Refuge. The Citizens Advisory Committee, who 

prepared the Plan, evaluated this topic and declined to include it as 

a recommendation in the Plan. An important factor in their decision 

was that to comply with Department of Interior regulations, the 

cabins would have to be made available to the general public if they 

were opened to visitors for recreational activities, just as refuge 

public use cabins are. Commercial cabin permittees expressed 

opposition to the opening of their facilities to the general public and 

the recommendation was dropped. For these reasons we have not 

included the requested action in any alternative. 

This comment is correct in that 50 CFR 36.33 prohibits recreational 

use of commercial cabins. Region 7’s Cabin Management Policy on 

National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska also prohibits this. 

Comment 35: Cascadia Wildlands Project requested that the Service 

“please pursue the $100 million re-opener on the Exxon civil 

settlement, for unforeseen adverse consequences to the Refuge.” 

Response: Whether or not these additional funds are sought is a 

decision which will be made by the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, 

not the Refuge or the Service. 

Comment 36: Statewide Management Direction: The Wilderness 

Society stated that they submitted lengthy comments regarding the 

Statewide Management Template in their comments on the Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof Draft CCP and incorporate those comments by 

reference. “Overall, we continue to have concerns regarding many 

issues related to the template, and encourage the Service to use the 

Template with a degree of caution. It appears as though the Service 

has used some caution with respect to the template for the Kodiak 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-27 

Draft CCP. We commend you for your judicial use of the Template 

in this Draft plan.” 

Response: Modifications to the statewide management direction have 

been made as a result of your comments. Any specific changes to this 

management direction as applied to Kodiak Refuge made in response 

to your comments are reflected in the Final Revision of the Kodiak 

Conservation Plan. Specific responses to your comments are 

included with those comments. 

Comment 37: Several members of the public questioned the 

economic values described in the Plan for bear hunting, bear 

viewing, and the Refuge as a whole. Two individuals suggested that 

bear hunting is undervalued in the Plan and one individual suggested 

that bear viewing is undervalued compared to hunting. One 

individual disagreed with statements in the plan referring to 

negligible effects of the Refuge on the Kodiak Island Borough 

Economy and requested that the “full economic value” of the Refuge 

be included in the final plan. 

Response: The Plan contains a description of the economic 

significance of Kodiak Refuge (Section 3.3.4). Economic significance 

is a measure of the total number of jobs and the total household 

income generated by refuge management expenditures, visitor 

expenditures, and expenditures for harvest and other uses of refuge 

resources. Jobs and income generated by the Refuge were estimated 

by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University 

of Alaska Anchorage (ISER). The full report on the economic 

contribution of Kodiak Refuge, titled “The Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge: Economic Importance” (Goldsmith et al. 2003) is available 

from ISER. 

Estimates of economic significance are based on actual spending by 

refuge visitors and others who use refuge resources; they do not 

include consumer surplus (the amount consumers would be willing to 

pay above what they actually paid), option or existence values, or 

other such components frequently included in “total value” 

estimates. As a result, estimates of the value of refuge activities or 

resources reported elsewhere may appear to be higher than 

estimates of economic significance that are reported in the Plan. 

The vast majority of the economic significance of the Refuge can be 

attributed to commercial fish harvesting and processing—activities 

that partially depend on spawning and rearing habitats within the 

Refuge. The economic impact of these activities with the Kodiak 

Island Borough was estimated at nearly 800 annual jobs (average) 

and $59 million in payroll (in 2000). In comparison, the economic 

impact of recreational hunting (including bear hunting) was 

estimated at just over 19 annual jobs (average) and about $506,000 

inannual payrol, while non-consumptive uses (including bear 

viewing) were estimated to produce about 5 jobs and $101,000 

annually. It is important to note that estimates of the significance of 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-28 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

hunting and non-consumptive uses are based on on-site refuge 

activities; if off-refuge bear-hunting and viewing activities were 

considered in the calculations, then estimates would likely be higher. 

While the economic contributions of refuge bear hunting and viewing 

activities to the Kodiak economy are important, they are dwarfed by 

the jobs and income produced by commercial fishing and processing. 

Therefore, changes to the economic significance of bear hunting or 

viewing would have only minor effects on the overall economic 

significance of the Refuge. And, on the scale of the Kodiak Borough 

and Alaska statewide economies, these effects would be negligible. 

The plan does not propose any management actions that would affect 

the economic significance of commercial fishing or processing, 

therefore the likely economic effects of proposed refuge management 

actions were determined to be negligible (as stated in Chapter 4). 

Comment 38: The Environmental Protection Agency commented 

that “language regarding impacts of bear habituation is confusing. 

The EIS states that human-bear encounters would cause short-term 

displacement and long-term habituation, resulting in minor long-term 

impacts. Specifically, it states, ‘over time, bear use would increase to 

current levels as management measures took force and bears 

neutrally habituated to nonthreatening, consistent, and predictable 

human activity’ (p. 4-16). However, the EIS also states that longterm impacts of bear habituation is not clear (p. 4-8). Habituation of 

bears to people, especially habituation by food rewards, is the 

primary factor associated with bear-human conflicts in many places. 

Habituated bears are often perceived as threats to human safety and 

removed from the population because people are more likely to 

inadvertently approach within its “individual distance” and be 

charged (National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park 

Homepage). The EIS should discuss potential conflicts between 

human activities and habituated bears. The EPA recommends the 

EIS include further analysis of the potential impacts of habituation.” 

Response: See Bear Viewing in Section 3.2.3 of the full document for 

our detailed discussion of the risks and benefits of various forms of 

bear habituation. As a matter of policy, we will not tolerate any 

practices that encourage habituation of bears to human food or 

garbage, a behavioral response known as food-conditioning. 

Moreover, a bear that successfully acquires food waste or garbage 

becomes dependent on them and associates people as a source of 

food. Such circumstances are unnatural, tend to diminish respect for 

bears, and present a public safety hazard. Eventually such a foodconditioned bear becomes involved in altercations with people and 

winds up dead. Proper food and waste management and prevention 

of food-conditioning in bears are standard goals of existing and 

proposed management programs. Strict adherence to such standards 

is also required as a condition of public use (cabins, Karluk 

easement) and commercial operation permits (guides and air taxi 

operators). 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-29 

Comment 39: Page xvi. Glossary definition of “big game outfitter”: 

A guide pointed out that Alaska Statutes require a person who 

provides these services to have the same Guide License the “big 

game guide-outfitter” must have. 

Response: This comment identified an error in a definition. That 

definition has been corrected. 

Comment 40: An individual made several comments about Section 

1.1 and provided new information. 

“Livestock introductions were made during the Russian 

colonization era in the early 1800s. Grazing animals were 

translocated following the Mt. Katmai eruption as volcanic 

ash inundated gazing ranges. There wasn’t any shellfish 

industry per se until the 1950s. A major expansion of the 

livestock industry occurred after World War II. The 

statement that government hunters were brought in during 

the 1930s to reduce the bear population or otherwise curb 

cattle depredation is incorrect. Federal predator control 

agents made a token effort to kill problem bears around the 

mid 1950s. A major effort to reduce the number of bears 

ranging outside the refuge, on grazing leases, was 

undertaken by the State . . . early in the 1960s. 

“The statement . . . that advocacy groups led to refuge 

establishment is unfounded. Events leading up to World 

War II provided an impetus for establishing refuges in 

Alaska. Large military withdrawals had taken place in the 

Territory. In 1941 construction of military bases at Kodiak, 

Sitka, Dutch Harbor and elsewhere already ensued before 

the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Proponents of establishing 

Kodiak and Kenai refuges consisted mainly of 

scientists/authorities of the former Bureau of Biological 

Survey (several land parcels in the Kodiak area including 

the whole of Near Island were already under auspice of the 

Survey) . . . The person that championed the Kodiak 

Refuge was Dr. Ira H. Gabrielson . . . Chief of the Survey.” 

Threats to natural resources were obvious to him and other 

early conservationists from large-scale military expansion 

in south central Alaska. 

“A proposed Kodiak Refuge was controversial from the 

outset, for . . . commercial salmon fishing, situated around 

the island’s perimeter, objected to its classification. A 

compromise accommodated economic expansion with a 

designated one-mile wide strip extending around the island 

that cleared a way for Refuge establishment by Executive 

Order. The Fish and Wildlife Service maintained control 

over the strip and it was not, contrary to what the draft plan 

states, open to settlement. Absolute authority over the strip 

came through a political tradeoff, namely a Public Land 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-30 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Order issued in 1958 that realigned the refuge’s northern 

boundary transferring one time refuge holdings, next to 

grazing leases, over to the State.” 

Response: We have reviewed available historic information and 

made appropriate changes to section 1.1 of the Plan. Thank you for 

making us aware of the inaccuracies in our discussion. 

Comment 41: An individual commented about section 1.6. For the 

issue statements “to be of any value to planners, . . . the number of 

participants, their place of residency, who they represented and their 

reasons for involvement” should be included “so reviewers can more 

objectively evaluate the plan’s alternatives. . . . there is no evidence 

that public input has been compiled, yet alone analyzed as a means 

of determining whether or not there’s a consensus for your 

consideration in formulating management direction. While opinions 

of local constituent is vitally important, the final decision . . . must be 

within the realm of serving the National interest, not just those of a 

local or Statewide interest.” 

Response: A thorough analysis of the public input into the planning 

process was completed as part of identifying the issues and concerns 

addressed in the revision of the Kodiak Refuge Conservation Plan. A 

brief summary of this analysis was included in the Draft 

Conservation Plan (see sections 1.5.2 and 1.6); additional 

information has been added to these sections in the Final 

Conservation Plan. If additional information is desired, the analysis 

of public scoping comments is available upon request. 

Comment 42: Sand and Gravel: Defenders of Wildlife and Cascadia 

Wildlands Project questioned why sand and gravel removal would be 

allowed and asked how that is compatible with the purpose of the 

refuge? “Defenders believes that this use is entirely incompatible 

with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Moderate management lands where sand, gravel, and other common 

variety materials sale are allowed are located on the northern coast of 

Kodiak Island. This use is inappropriate given that coastal regions 

are particularly sensitive to these activities. It is well know that 

depletion of sand and gravel in streambeds and along coastal areas 

causes the deepening of rivers and estuaries, and the enlargement of 

river mouths and coastal inlets. This can lead to significant 

geographic change and undesirable salt water intrusion from the 

Shelikof Strait. The effects of coastal material removal are 

compounded by the effect of sea level rise, which Alaska waters are 

particularly susceptible to. Habitat disturbance and alteration from 

mining infrastructure and material transport adversely affects the 

wildlife and consequentially the biological integrity of the refuge.” 

Response: Information on the circumstances under which sand and 

gravel removal would be allowed is presented in section 2.2.17. 

Given the location of the moderate management areas on Kodiak 

Refuge, it is unlikely that the Refuge would ever address sand and 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-31 

gravel removal but it is possible. Prior to approving any such use, 

appropriate site-specific NEPA analysis and a compatibility 

determination would be conducted. 

Comment 43: Commercial Gathering of Other Refuge Resources: 

“Defenders [of Wildlife] feels that including this blanket ‘other’ use 

in the template is totally inapt. Without allowing the public to 

comment on specific commercial uses the Service is effacing public 

review in the CCP process. USFWS policy clearly states the goals 

for the CCP: B. To provide a clear and comprehensive statement of 

desired future conditions for each refuge or planning unit. F. To 

provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent, and 

compatibility of uses on refuges, including priority wildlifedependent recreational uses (602 FW 3) The Service must remove 

this category from the template and consider the “other” refuge 

resources commercially gathered individually.” 

Response: “May be authorized” means an application for this use 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, would be subject to 

NEPA analysis, a compatibility determination, and other applicable 

laws. See definition in section 2.3.5.

The public will be permitted to comment on the commercial harvest 

of any refuge resource not specifically identified in this table prior to 

the Refuge authorizing such use. The Refuge is required to complete 

a site-specific NEPA analysis (may require public review) and a 

compatibility determination (opportunity for public review is 

required) prior to issuing a special use permit or other authorization 

for commercial harvest of any refuge resources. 

Comment 44: Hazardous Materials Storage: Defenders of Wildlife 

and The Wilderness Society are concerned about allowing hazardous 

materials storage within the refuge. “We [Defenders of Wildlife] 

believe hazardous materials storage is inappropriate and inconsistent 

with the refuge goals and mission. This includes maintaining the 

‘primeval character and influence’ and ‘natural conditions’ of the 

refuges’ recommended wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1131(c)). 

Hazardous materials storage does not meet the compatibility 

standard set by congress and therefore should be removed from the 

final plan.” 

Response: Storage of hazardous materials on the Refuge is directed 

through regulations and policy. Gasoline in tanks for immediate use 

in boats and airplanes is the most common hazardous material 

encountered. This is not considered fuel storage. If a commercial 

operator wants to temporarily store any fuels for the duration of 

their camp, it must be done in conformance with Regional Fuel 

Storage Policy 7-4 and be described in detail within their plan of 

operations. See Appendix E of the Conservation Plan; note the 

special condition for fuel storage for commercial operators. Fuel 

storage for longer than the duration of their camp is not permitted. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-32 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The frequency, quantities, and duration of fuel storage that currently 

occurs are not considered an incompatible use of the Refuge. 

Comment 45: Jet Boats: Cascadia Wildland Project commented, 

“Why give blanket permit for jet boats? Even if use is very low now, 

jet boats could potentially become management concern. The 

potential of intensive commercial jet boat enterprises threaten 

erosion and disturbance to wildlife. Please at least keep the 

management option available to restrict or require permits for jet 

boat use in the refuge, should use become a problem.” An individual 

commenting on use of motorboats (page 2-92) said “Recommend a 

separate category for ‘jet boats’ and identify that they ‘may be 

allowed.’ Although their use has not become a problem yet, the 

potential is still here. There are areas that should be subject to sitespecific NEPA analysis when considering their use.” 

Response: The use of jet boats was evaluated in the Public Use 

Management Plan (USFWS 1993; USFWS 1994). There was a 

recommendation in this plan to seasonally restrict jet boat use on 

specified refuge rivers. In 2000, an effort was made to develop the 

regulations recommended in the Public Use Management Plan. At 

that time, it was decided not to include the jet boat regulations since 

physical attributes of the rivers identified seldom allow for travel in 

a jet boat; use was too infrequent to justify the development of a 

regulation to minimize resource impacts. There is a concern that 

with development of new jet boat technology the physical attributes 

of these rivers may no longer be the limiting factor to jet boat use. 

Jet boat use will be monitored and necessary management action 

will be taken if resource issues develop 

Comment 46: The State of Alaska commented that “[t]he 

information contained on page 2-62 regarding helicopters is 

potentially misleading to the public. The text states that ‘Helicopter 

landings for recreational activities are not allowed on Kodiak 

Refuge.’ We request the CCP explain the mechanism for prohibiting 

this activity, such as the following suggested language: Regulations 

at 43 CFR 36.11(4) prohibit landing of helicopters except at 

designated landing areas by permit. It is the policy of Kodiak Refuge 

to not issue permits for the landing of helicopters for recreational 

purposes.” 

Response: The language requested by the State has been 

incorporated into section 2.2.13. 

Comment 47: Airboats: The Wilderness Society recommended that 

the Service “clarify that airboats are prohibited on the Refuges 

because they were not found to be a traditional mode of access under 

ANILCA Title XI.” They said, “We object to all airboat use on any 

Alaska refuges because of their significant impacts to fish, wildlife, 

natural soundscapes, vegetation, and soils. However, the Service also 

needs to review impacts from airboat use on navigable waters in the 

Draft CCP, however. If the use of airboats on navigable waters 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-33 

would disturb wildlife, then the Service has the authority, grounded 

in its Property Clause authority, to manage the public lands and to 

restrict the use of airboats even if the state has regulatory authority 

over the navigable waters.” 

Response: The use of airboats on the Refuge is prohibited by 43 CFR 

36.11 and 50 CFR 36.2. See section 2.2.13 and Table 2-2 in this 

document. We see no need to conduct additional analysis. 

Comment 48: Jet-skis: The Wilderness Society commented that 

“[r]egardless of the national policy being determined by the Service 

at this time, jet-skis should not be allowed on Alaskan Refuges.” 

They said, “These joy-riding machines fall far outside the purposes 

of the Refuges, are nontraditional, and are known to disrupt sensitive 

wildlife, subsistence activities, and other recreational experiences. 

We encourage the Service to ban jet-skis from Kodiak Refuge.” 

Response: At this time we have not documented any use of jet-skis 

within the Refuge. If policy is developed on their use, the Plan will be 

reviewed to determine if an amendment is necessary. Before any 

restrictions could be implemented the Service would have to go 

through the rule-making procedures and develop regulations. The 

Camp Island Limited Development Easement includes the following: 

“No jet skis, or similar type of personal watercraft may be used or 

based at or supported from the Protected Property.” Koniag, Inc., 

the State of Alaska, and the Service are parties to this easement.

Comment 49: Page 2-66: One person said, “totally disagree with 

wildlife viewing being nonconsumptive - see section 2.2.14 .” 

Response: The difference between the terms consumptive and 

nonconsumptive activities or uses is useful for a variety of types of 

discussions, including compatibility with refuge goals and objectives 

and developing sustainable harvest levels. ANILCA and other laws 

provide legal definitions that differentiate between the two for a 

variety of specific legal purposes. The terms often begin to blur, 

however, when wildlife managers analyze data on the effects of 

human presence on wildlife and habitat. We acknowledge that the 

functional effect of human presence often results in take or 

consumption of refuge resources whether the activity is labeled 

consumptive or nonconsumptive. It is still important to have the two 

definitions. 

We also acknowledge that Service biological data have shown that 

bear viewing and even simple human presence can be consumptive. 

Bears can be displaced directly by human presence either by 

conditioned fear or by active human deterrent. In biological studies, 

scientists have observed the death of bears and separation of sows 

and cubs that lead to cub mortality because of human activities such 

as fishing and hiking. Often defense of life or property bear kills are 

a result of human activity unrelated to hunting. Kodiak Refuge bear 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-34 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

viewing programs would be developed using biological data to 

minimize the consumptive nature of bear viewing. 

Comment 50: Page 2-72, Commercial Fishing and Related Facilities: 

The State of Alaska commented that it “has had continuing but 

unsuccessful dialogue with the Service concerning the issuance of 

special use permits in support of commercial fishing activities. 

Under separate cover, we will request the Service meet with the State 

to seek immediate resolution the long standing issue regarding the 

Service’s narrow interpretation of allowed commercial fishing 

support activities pursuant to ANILCA Section 304(d). To the extent 

these issues are not resolved outside the CCP process, we request 

that the CCP increase the priority of the Kodiak Refuge Fisheries 

Management Plan revision (now slated for 2007) to complete the 

plan at the earliest possible time.” 

Response: The Refuge is always willing to meet with the State to 

review and discuss issues pertaining to the Commercial Fisheries 

Management Plan. The Commercial Fisheries Management Plan is 

slated for revision in 2007. Given current staffing and other 

competing refuge priorities, it is unlikely we would be able to move 

the schedule ahead. 

Comment 51: Page 2-73, Commercial Gathering of Other Resources: 

The State of Alaska asked the following. “The first sentence 

references regulations at 50 CFR 27.51. Would 50 CFR 27.97 be a 

better fit?” 

Response: The first sentence as written is accurate and with the 

correct CFR reference. However, this regulation applies mainly to 

personal, non-commercial actions which may be confusing under 

this activity – Commercial Gathering of Other Resources. The 

regulation, 50 CFR 27.97, states that conducting a commercial 

enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as 

may be authorized by special permit. If someone was caught 

gathering resources for commercial purposes without a special use 

permit on the refuge they would be cited for the intent of commercial 

profit as per 50 CFR 27.97. 

Comment 52: Page 2-91, Temporary Facilities: An individual 

commented that “[t]he provisions of Section 1316 of ANILCA must 

be included here exactly as stated in the current plan.” 

Response: Section 1316 of ANILCA states that we “shall permit, 

subject to reasonable regulation to insure compatibility, the 

continuance of existing uses, and the future establishment, and use, 

of temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other 

temporary facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related 

to such activities.” In the public use management planning process, 

it was determined that the establishment of new tent platforms on 

Kodiak Refuge would not be consistent with refuge purposes. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-35 

Comment 53: Page 2-103: An individual recommended we “[a]dd 

category for Guiding Support Facilities and identify as ‘may be 

authorized’. If this is appropriate for Commercial Fishing it stands to 

reason that the same provision should apply to guiding.” 

Response: A category for Guiding Support Facilities will not be 

added. It is appropriate to include commercial fishing facilities, but 

not guiding support facilities. Commercial fishing support facilities 

are authorized by Section 304(d) of ANILCA. Guiding support 

facilities are handled as part of the special use permit process. 

Comment 54: The State of Alaska commented, “Regarding the table 

on page 2-119 addressing proposed changes in the CCP from the 

original 1987 CCP, we note that mariculture (and aquaculture) have 

been eliminated from consideration. The State requests the Service 

retain the current management direction of providing the option to 

consider mariculture and aquaculture support facilities in Moderate 

Management areas. While the State currently has no plans for new 

mariculture or aquaculture projects in the Kodiak Archipelago, we 

request this change to retain maximum management flexibility. Since 

there are no Intensive Management lands within the Kodiak Refuge 

the proposed management direction would effectively prohibit these 

activities.” 

Response: The Refuge has adopted the new management direction 

for mariculture and aquaculture support facilities that the Service is 

applying to all national wildlife refuges in Alaska. This management 

direction does not preclude these activities from occurring on refuge 

lands, subsequent to site-specific NEPA analysis and completion of a 

compatibility determination, but would require that the Plan be 

amended to reclassify areas of the Refuge as Intensive Management 

prior to authorizing the activity. 

Comment 55: Page 3-114: The State of Alaska questioned the 

primitive recreation description that appears in the wilderness values 

discussion in Chapter 3 of the Plan. The State noted that ANILCA 

provides for continued motorized uses in designated Wilderness 

areas and requested that “nonmotorized” be removed from the 

primitive recreation description. 

Response: ANILCA clearly states that, “The terms ‘wilderness’ and 

‘National Wilderness Preservation System’ have the same meaning 

as when used in the Wilderness Act” (Section 102). The meaning of 

“primitive recreation” is clear in the history and purposes of the 

Wilderness Act, and in the Act’s explicit general prohibition on the 

use of motor vehicles and motorized equipment. ANILCA allows for 

continued use of specific types of motor vehicles for traditional 

activities, and motorized surface transportation traditionally used 

for subsistence. The Wilderness Act allows continued use of aircraft 

and motorboats in Wilderness areas where those uses had previously 

become established. However, these provisions do not change the 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-36 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

meaning of primitive recreation provided in the Wilderness Act for 

the purposes of describing wilderness values. 

Comment 56: Visitor Center: The Defenders of Wildlife commented 

that they recognize “the vital role a visitor center plays in informing 

and educating the public. Fostering an environmental ethic through 

education is a noble cause and a visitor center is an appropriate 

conduit for this edification. This said, the big show is Kodiak Refuge 

and Defenders believes that this is where the majority of the 

Service’s energy and resources should be directed. The proposed 

visitor center with its eight million dollar (plus land acquisition) 

price tag seems excessive. Given the current budgetary constraints of 

the USFWS, Defenders recommends that the Service evaluate less 

costly alternatives in constructing a new visitor center.” An 

individual also expressed concern about the cost of a new visitor 

center. 

Response: The planning and design of the new visitor center is 

separate from the Conservation Plan revision. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service does not have funding in its general budget for the visitor 

center. The funding is a one-time special appropriation from 

Congress that can be used exclusively for construction of the Kodiak 

Refuge visitor center. These funds would not be available for other 

uses. 

Much of Kodiak Refuge’s pristine nature and suitability for brown 

bears is attributable to its remoteness and complete lack of roads. 

Access is by chartered boat or single-engine airplane. These 

attributes make Kodiak Refuge inaccessible to the general public, 

especially to children, people of low to middle income and people 

who have disabilities that make access to back country difficult. 

Another key constituent group consists of people who intensely 

support the existence of a remote, wild Refuge heavily populated by 

brown bears and who have no interest in visiting the bears in their 

habitats. In short, a very small percentage of the public at large and 

even Kodiak Island residents are able to visit Kodiak Refuge. 

The new visitor center will provide residents of Kodiak and visitors 

with a safe, accessible, affordable opportunity to learn about Kodiak 

Refuge, its wonders and the larger ecological context. Kodiak school 

children will be able to learn at the center during the regular school 

day with minimal time and money involved with transportation. Our 

present facility is several miles outside of town. It is not integrated 

into the City of Kodiak. The downtown location of the visitor center 

will benefit the City of Kodiak economically by giving visitors yet 

another reason to stay in to the heart of town, possibly encouraging 

visitors to stay an extra day. 

The visitor center will also provide the refuge with better 

opportunities to educate people who plan to visit Kodiak Refuge. 

Prospective visitors can learn about etiquette, guidelines, 

regulations and laws pertaining to a stay at Kodiak Refuge. We will 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-37 

provide information on the concept of leave-no-trace visitation 

(toilet paper as litter, for example) and visiting bear country in a 

way that is safe for both visitors and bears. This is expected to 

improve the overall quality of experience of refuge visitors and to 

help reduce undesired bear-human encounters consistent with The 

Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan. 

3.12 Compatibility Determinations 

Comment 57: Page E-5, Justification Section: The State of Alaska 

said, “We request removal or revision of the last sentence of the first 

paragraph to indicate the Service is not entering into an allocation 

issue between commercial set net operators within the Kodiak 

Salmon Management Area. The Service may have received 

comments from some current permit holders that they would prefer 

not to have additional permits issued for a specific area; however, 

competition between users should not be a criterion for the Refuge to 

unintentionally or otherwise interfere with the State’s management 

of a commercial fishery. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

manages all salmon fisheries in the Kodiak Salmon Management 

Area at the direction of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Limited entry 

permits for salmon are issued for the entire Kodiak Salmon 

Management Area, not for one side of Kodiak Island or the other. 

Resolution of allocation issues resides with the Board.” 

Response: This sentence pertains to special use permits issued by 

Kodiak Refuge for set-net site facilities. It does not refer to stateissued limited entry permits. A text change has been made to clarify 

this. 

Comment 58: Two individuals expressed concern about apparent 

inconsistencies related to the impacts of cabins on bears. “On Page 

E-68 under anticipated impacts of use concerning private structures, 

this statement is made. ‘Use of these authorized structures has the 

potential to cause adverse bear-human encounters.’ On page E-73 

under Anticipated Impacts of use concerning ‘public use cabins’ this 

statement is made. ‘Public use cabins have generally positive 

impacts on bears.’ Both statements can’t be true! . . . These impact 

statements should be the same for both private and public structures 

in the final plan.” 

Response: We have changed the wording in the two compatibility 

determinations to address this concern. New language has been 

added to clarify the differences between private cabins and public 

use cabins. Kodiak Refuge has removed public use cabins that 

caused conflicts between people and bears. Our decisions in siting 

new cabins will include consideration of timing and location of 

adjacent bear use. 

Human presence brings with it potential problems such as garbage, 

meat and fish from harvest, and human waste. In general, cabins 

tend to concentrate human activity near these structures. Cabins 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-38 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

afford better protection for wildlife and habitat than tent camps 

when cabin users take measures such using meat caches, collecting, 

protecting, or burning garbage, disposing of human waste in 

latrines, and using electric fences for items stored outside the cabin. 

Kodiak Refuge law enforcement patrols will continue to extend to 

public use cabins as weather and funding allow ensuring that 

visitors comply with the protective conditions for use of these cabins. 

Specifically, we have inserted additional language in the Anticipated 

Impacts section of the compatibility determination for private cabins 

and temporary camps. See Appendix E. 

Comment 59: Military Training: “Defenders [of Wildlife] believes 

that there are many affirmative wildlife protections associated with 

refresher training and detailed operations plan outlined in the DEIS. 

We are concerned however that non-coastguard helicopter transport 

and survival training are not compatible with the refuge mission and 

goals. The DEIS acknowledges that helicopter transport and survival 

training disturb mountain goats and denning brown bears. We 

believe this disturbance occurs at a level that renders this use 

incompatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. The Service rightfully banned recreational 

helicopters and should do the same with helicopter use associated 

with military training. In the eyes of the Improvement Act there is no 

qualitative difference between two non-wildlife dependent uses with 

respect to meeting the strict compatibility requirements. Defenders 

believes that the Service has a legal obligation to suspend noncoastguard helicopter transport and survival training at Kodiak 

Refuge.” 

Response: This activity was initially determined to be a compatible 

use in 1994. The operations plan for each military request for 

training is reviewed for essential need, location, activity, and time of 

year, alternate training locations, and potential for impacts to refuge 

resources. If it is determined that the training can be conducted with 

minimal or no impact to refuge resources, a permit is issued with the 

stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility. A permit is not issued 

if there is greater potential for impacts. Our files indicate that 

training exercises occur infrequently - about once every ten years. 

The last permit for training was issued in 1996. Monitoring of the 

last two training exercises indicated the use did not impact refuge 

resources and was compatible. 

Comment 60: Private Helicopter Use: The Defenders of Wildlife 

commented, “While the prohibition of recreational helicopter use is 

laudable, allowing helicopter use for maintenance of a private radio 

repeater site is totally incongruent with refuge goals and mission. A 

compatible use is ‘a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use...that, based on sound professional judgment, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

National Wildlife System mission or the purpose(s) of the national 

wildlife refuge.’ (50 CFR § 25.12 (a)). This is a non-wildlife 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan K-39 

dependent incompatible use that must be removed from the final 

plan.” 

Response: This activity was initially determined to be a compatible 

use in 1994. The operations plan for each request for maintenance is 

reviewed for essential need, activity, and time of year, and potential 

for impacts to refuge resources. If it is determined that the 

maintenance work can be performed with minimal or no impact to 

refuge resources, a permit is issued with the stipulations necessary to 

ensure compatibility. Our files indicate that maintenance involving 

helicopter use occurs infrequently - about once every five years. 

Monitoring of the maintenance work has indicated the use did not 

impact refuge resources and was compatible. This private radio 

tower was used by a cannery. This cannery has been closed for the 

past three years and it is not known if it will be reopened. 

Comment 61: An individual at the Port Lions meeting commented 

that, because of the misunderstandings the public has about native 

private land, “Native Corporation Selected,” should read “Privately 

Owned Native Corporation Selected” on the General Land Status 

Map (Figure 3-1). 

 Response: “Native Corporation Selected” is the correct term for 

these lands. It refers specifically to lands that have been selected by, 

but not yet conveyed to, a regional or village Native corporation. 

Ownership remains with the federal government until such time as 

they are conveyed to the selecting Native corporation (or remains 

with the federal government should the selection(s) be rejected or 

invalidated).

4. References Cited 

ADF&G. 2002. “Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and 

Management Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 240 pp. 

Allen, S., and A. Collins. 2002. “An assessment of bear-viewing 

opportunities relevant to management of Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 77 pp. 

Barnes Jr., V.G., and G. Wilker. 2000. “Brown bear activity, 

behavior, and response to public use at Karluk Lake, 

Alaska.” Unpublished report on file. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

50 pp. 

Goldsmith, S., J. Brian, and A. Hill. 2003. “The Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge: Economic Importance—A Report for the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.” Anchorage, Alaska: Institute 

for Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska 

Anchorage. 

Jonkel, C.J. 1980. “Winter disturbance and grizzly bears.” Special 

Report No. 46. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana, 

Border Grizzly Project. 3 pp. 
Appendix K: Response to Comments 

K-40 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

USDI and USDC. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.,: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 

USFWS. 1987. “Record of Decision: Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental 

Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review.” December 2, 

1987. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 9 pp. 

USFWS. 1993. “Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.” Files of 

materials compiled by refuge biologists who participated in 

the biological program review. Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 1994b. “Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact: Final public use management plan and 

environmental assessment for public use regulations.” 

Kodiak, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Kodiak 

National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp.