Chapter 4 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-1 

4. Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this chapter is to identify, describe, and compare 

the significant effects of the three management alternatives on 

biological and socioeconomic resources and on public-use 

opportunities. The current management situation (Alternative 

1) provides the basis for comparing the effects of the two action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). For each alternative, we 

describe the biological effects, followed by the effects on human 

uses, of the proposed actions. 

The analysis of the biological effects is presented for the 

following categories: 

 Caribou 

 Moose 

 Brown bear 

 Wolves 

 Seabirds 

 Marbled godwits 

 Birds in general 

 Fishery resources, which includes an emphasis on sockeye 

salmon and Arctic grayling 

 Fish and wildlife habitat 

Although all species on the Refuges are important, many 

species are not expected to experience any change as a result of 

implementing any of the alternatives and are not discussed in 

this chapter. Species such as marine mammals are not discussed 

because the potential changes described in the alternatives are 

not expected to have a noticeable effect on these populations. 

Bald eagles and peregrine falcons, two of the species specifically 

mentioned in the establishing purposes for the Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge, are also expected to be unaffected by any of the 

management alternatives. Any site-specific activity that may 

occur during the life of this Plan and that requires National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation would 

address species present at the location. 

The analysis of effects on the human environment addresses 

expected consequences for three broad areas of human use: 

 Local population and economy 

 Subsistence 

 Recreation opportunities 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

The effects on the local population and economy include the 

Refuges’ contribution to the local and regional economy and 

effects on local economic development. None of the alternatives 

could be expected to significantly affect the changes to the 

human population that are already projected to occur in the 

area. The section on subsistence assesses the effects on 

subsistence harvest of caribou and moose on the Refuges and 

any expected changes regarding conflicts between subsistence 

and recreation uses. The section on recreation opportunities 

assesses how opportunities for guided and unguided 

recreational hunting and fishing could be affected and also 

addresses other recreation opportunities and quality of 

recreation experience. Cultural resources are targeted for 

protection under all alternatives through Federal regulation, 

and none of the alternatives contains actions that could be 

expected to lead to impacts on cultural resources. For this 

reason, there is not a separate section on cultural resource 

impacts under each alternative. 

4.1.1 Setting the Stage for the Analysis 

Because the three actions considered in this plan are 

programmatic rather than site-specific, it is important to 

establish the basis for the analysis used in this chapter. This 

section provides additional background information that defines 

the general assumptions or approach used to analyze the effects 

of each of the three actions. 

Helicopters 

Chapter 2, Section 2.3.7, and Table 2-1, describe the common 

management direction for the use of helicopters in national 

wildlife refuges in Alaska. The direction clearly defines the 

opportunity to use helicopters for administrative purposes. In 

designated Wilderness areas, the use of helicopters for public 

uses is prohibited, and the administrative use of helicopters 

must meet the minimum-requirements and minimum-tool 

standards of the Wilderness Act. The opportunity for use of 

helicopters outside the Wilderness area, in support of 

recreational activities, is less clear. Current management 

direction for the Refuges states that helicopter use in support of 

recreational activities, excluding hunting, may be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. To date, no special-use permits to use 

helicopters for recreational activities have been issued on the 

Refuges. 

In this planning effort, the Service seeks to clarify direction on 

how to respond to requests for using helicopters to provide 

access for recreational activities on the Refuges. This is not a 

site-specific evaluation of a proposal, but an attempt to 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-3 

determine whether the Service should continue to consider 

applications for helicopter access for recreation or determine to 

prohibit such use on the Refuges. 

Without knowing how many requests might be received or the 

specifics of future requests for helicopter permits, it is a 

challenge to evaluate a change in management direction. Our 

approach is to discuss some effects that have been shown to 

occur in other locations, identifying indirect effects where 

possible. This analysis uses the following assumptions: 

 Because a comprehensive assessment of sensitive areas on 

the Refuges has not been completed, the evaluation of 

effects under current management (Alternative 1) assumes 

that only well-known sensitive areas (such as seabird 

colonies) would be avoided during the consideration of 

future proposals. 

 The proposed direction under Alternative 2 calls for prior 

identification of sensitive and remote areas, which would be 

excluded from consideration. Furthermore, the 

identification and protection of “remote areas” applies to 

areas that are normally beyond the reach of current means 

of motorized recreational access. 

 The analysis in this chapter under Alternatives 1 and 2 

assumes that, once an initial helicopter operation in support 

of recreational activities is approved, more proposals are 

likely. It assumes that only a few operators would be 

allowed to operate at any given time, in order to keep the 

cumulative use levels compatible with other refuge 

purposes. 

 Alternative 3 would prohibit using helicopters as a means of 

access for recreational activities.

4.2 Alternative 1— 

Current Management 

This alternative would continue management of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges largely as it has been managed 

in recent years, recognizing that current management is 

dynamic and can react to new information or changing resource 

conditions. Access would be maintained to all areas of the 

Refuges for subsistence, recreation, and commercial users to 

the maximum extent possible consistent with refuge purposes. 

Potential use of helicopters for recreational purposes outside 

Wilderness areas would be considered case by case and would 

be allowed only when the requested use was determined 

compatible with refuge goals and purposes and the mission of 

Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Any permit 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

could be issued only after an analysis of potential impacts at the 

specific landing sites proposed by the operator. 

4.2.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction 

Alternative 1 would make possible consideration of allowing 

helicopters to be used in support of recreation. This analysis 

considers the potential effects of the current management 

practice, which allows for consideration of helicopter landings 

without predetermining where all but the most noticeable 

sensitive areas of the Refuges are located. This analysis 

assumes that major impacts to currently identified sensitive 

areas (e.g., major seabird colonies) would be precluded under 

the provisions of any special-use permit. However, because 

knowledge of sensitive resources is incomplete, impacts from 

helicopter landings and takeoffs and from public use in 

previously little-disturbed areas could occur. Impacts at any 

given site would vary with frequency of helicopter visits, 

number and activities of visitors, and the sensitive resources 

present. 

Note that state law prohibits the use of helicopters for or in 

support of hunting throughout the state and in certain instances 

prohibits the use of helicopters in support of recreational 

fishing. For example, the use of helicopters to transport anglers 

or recreation-caught fish is prohibited in the Kvichak River 

drainage. This watershed is located a few miles north of the 

Refuges. The Service has no authority to regulate helicopters 

flying over the Refuges; if helicopter landings were permitted, 

overflights of the Refuges would be assumed to increase. The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates general 

aviation. Although the FAA has not specified a minimum 

altitude for aircraft to maintain over sparsely populated areas, it 

has requested that aircraft maintain a minimum altitude of 

2,000 feet above numerous Federal lands, including national 

wildlife refuges. 

Caribou and Moose 

Helicopters—Under some conditions, helicopter operations can 

cause significant disturbance to caribou and moose, especially 

those with calves. Helicopter landings, takeoffs, and low 

overflights could reduce survival of young calves by separating 

them from cows, and frequent helicopter use in a local area 

could displace animals from preferred habitat. However, 

because helicopter access for recreational use would occur only 

under special-use permits that would require pilots to avoid 

known sensitive areas and because of existing wildlife-
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-5 

harassment regulations, most such disturbances of highly 

visible large groups of animals should not occur on the Refuges. 

Temporary disturbance of small groups of moose or caribou 

that are harder to see would be unavoidable; such disturbance, 

however, should not have long-term consequences to the 

population. 

Conclusions—Short-term effects to caribou and moose 

populations from continuing current management include some 

additional displacement and disturbance if helicopter use for 

recreation is permitted. More significant effects from 

disturbance could occur to individual animals, but the overall 

effect from increased helicopter use would be minor. 

Bears and Wolves 

Helicopters—Special-use permits allowing helicopter landings 

for recreational uses would be designed to minimize the 

disturbance to known critical habitats. Nevertheless, some 

temporary displacement of individuals would be inevitable. Also, 

introducing visitors into areas currently inaccessible could 

habituate more bears to humans and possibly lead to some foodconditioning (Herrero 1985). 

Conclusions—Displacement and disturbance to individual bears 

and wolves could occur if helicopter use for recreation were 

allowed, but the overall effect would be minor. Disturbance 

associated with the new access provided by helicopters could 

increase the risk of longer-term effects such as habituation, 

food-conditioning, and defense-of-life-or-property (DLP) 

mortality. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species 

Helicopters—The large colonies of murres and kittiwakes at 

Puale and Dry bays are within the existing Wilderness area, 

where helicopter landings for recreation activities are 

prohibited. Because of the sensitivity to helicopters of colonially 

nesting seabirds, any helicopter permit issued would not allow 

landings near known seabird colonies. However, not all sensitive 

areas on the Refuges have been identified; therefore, helicopter 

operations could inevitably displace some nesting birds. This 

would potentially cause some loss of eggs or chicks to predation 

or abandonment. The likelihood of cumulative impacts to 

populations would depend on the eventual level of helicopter 

use. 

Seabirds such as terns, guillemots, and puffins nest within the 

Refuges on islands in lakes and along the Pacific coast. If 

helicopter landings were permitted near these nesting areas, 

the likelihood of displacement and nesting failure would 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

increase with the frequency and duration of helicopter traffic in 

the area. The marbled godwit nesting area would continue to be 

recognized as a sensitive area while the birds are nesting and 

rearing their young; however, no special protection or emphasis 

of the nesting area would occur under this alternative. 

Conclusions—Continued implementation of current 

management would have no short-term or long-term effects on 

seabird colonies or other large concentrations of breeding birds 

on the Refuges. Displacement and disturbance of solitary 

nesting birds or unknown small colonies would create minor 

effects if helicopter use for recreational purposes were allowed. 

Disturbance resulting in moderate effects to breeding birds 

(disturbance can result in reduced nesting success for a variety 

of reasons) could occur; these effects are not anticipated to 

result in measurable population changes. Almost all of the large 

seabird colonies on the Refuges are within the existing 

Wilderness area. There would be no special recognition or 

protection of marbled godwits nesting on the Refuges. 

Fisheries 

Wilderness—Within the Becharof Wilderness, which is in the 

Wilderness Management category, temporary restoration 

facilities may be allowed if fish stocks have been reduced or are 

threatened, as long as the facilities would not significantly 

detract from the values for which that area was established. 

Actions designed to artificially increase fish populations that are 

not in need of restoration may be allowed in designated 

Wilderness areas. All facilities, structures, and habitatmanipulation actions that are determined to be necessary within 

a designated Wilderness area would be implemented using the 

minimum tool required to achieve the objective while 

minimizing effects on wilderness values. 

Helicopters—If helicopter drop-offs of anglers to previously 

inaccessible upper reaches of backcountry streams were to 

become significant, fish populations in those areas should be 

monitored and, if necessary, regulations should be developed 

through the Alaska Board of Fisheries to protect stocks’ age 

and size composition. 

Conclusions—No short-term effects are expected for fish 

populations on the Refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Under current management priorities, there is an emphasis on 

conserving naturally diverse ecosystems, including fisheries. 

The Refuges will work with the State of Alaska, local Natives, 

and other partners to restore habitats and populations to 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-7 

appropriate, sustainable conditions, and to participate in a 

variety of monitoring and research projects. Restoration 

emphasis would focus on strategies that are the least intrusive 

to the ecosystem and that do not compromise the viability or 

genetic characteristics of the depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat includes sockeye-spawning habitat and 

almost all spawning habitat of other salmon species; about onehalf of rainbow trout and Arctic grayling habitat; most streams 

used by foraging brown bears and perhaps two-thirds of 

denning habitat; most moose winter range; about two-thirds of 

caribou summer range within the Refuges; about two-thirds of 

harlequin duck mountain stream habitat; about two-thirds of 

noncliff--nesting seabird habitat; and all nesting habitat of the 

Alaska subspecies of marbled godwits. 

Helicopters—Some currently inaccessible areas in Minimal 

Management may be susceptible to some long-term, 

irreversible impacts from helicopter access under this 

alternative. Among these potential impacts would be the 

introduction of invasive species, particularly plants and insects, 

across larger areas than are currently accessible by fixed-wing 

aircraft and boats. The long-term consequences of these 

introductions cannot be predicted, but consequences could be 

significant, as has been demonstrated in Hawaii and the 

contiguous 48 states (e.g., leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and 

hydrilla). Detrimental impacts of introduced plants include 

replacing native plants, reducing habitat quality and forage 

availability for fish and wildlife, clogging waterways, increasing 

erosion, and reducing soil nutrients. 

Introduced plant species have many means of dispersal, 

including many animal species (including humans) as seed 

carriers. Seeds and viable plant parts may be transported on 

clothing, muddy boots, boats, and other equipment (Westbrooks 

1998). In southeastern Alaska, several exotic plants with 

potentially significant impacts have become established------e.g., 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), Scotch broom 

(Cytisus scoparius), and tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) 

(Woods 2000). 

Introduced plants are most likely to become established at 

disturbed sites. On the Alaska Peninsula, naturally disturbed 

sites can include riverbanks, gravel bars on braided streams, 

sand blows, wind-blown slopes, and glacial till. Humandisturbed sites include popular public-use sites, ATV trails, and 

developed areas. Pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides) 

has long been established on the Alaska Peninsula (Hulten 1968, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

p. 889) and is established at popular public-use sites in the 

Refuges. At Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula, Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense) recently became established, presumably 

from seed carried on heavy equipment barged into the 

community; it now occupies three acres (Talbot 2001). 

Conclusions—There would be no discernable short-term effects 

on fish and wildlife habitat from continued implementation of 

current management. 

4.2.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The main ways in which continuing current management could 

affect human uses of the Refuges stem from effects on fish and 

wildlife populations and habitat, the current low level of 

monitoring of public use, and the existing approach of making 

case-by-case decisions on permits for helicopter access for 

recreation. The effects analysis in large part describes the 

current and expected trends in human uses of and benefits 

realized from the Refuges.

Local Population and Economy 

Effects on Local Population and Economy—The region is 

characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence economy. The cash 

economy is well developed, dominated by commercial fishing 

and with substantial support from tourism and government 

employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

economy, village lifestyles, and visitors’ attraction to the region. 

How refuge management affects and contributes to the health 

of fish populations is therefore perhaps its most important 

economic role. The 1,433 local jobs and $70 million in income the 

Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the local 

economy nearly all come from supporting the commercial 

fishery by providing salmon spawning and rearing habitat 

(Goldsmith et al. 1998a). Management of the Refuges under the 

Minimal Management category and its participation in fisheries 

management activities have maintained the fish habitat in highquality condition and are not limiting factors for fish 

populations. Other factors, such as ocean cycles or the multitude 

of regulations governing fishing, have likely been much more 

responsible for the variation in commercial, subsistence, and 

recreational harvest opportunities. The Refuges’ contributions 

to the fishery and its human uses will continue under 

Alternative 1. 

Effects on Economic Development—Economic opportunities in 

the Lake and Peninsula Borough are limited by the relative lack 

of transportation infrastructure in the borough, which reflects 

the dispersed and small population, rugged terrain, land status, 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-9 

and severe seasonal weather (HDR Alaska 1999). 

Transportation to communities depends on air and boat access 

because no roads connect the borough with other parts of the 

state. There are no long-distance roads or power lines, and few 

of the communities are connected to one another. Out of the 

many long-term road projects described in the state’s 

transportation plan, the one that could affect refuge lands that 

is receiving the most attention is a possible road between Port 

Heiden and Chignik. 

Such a road, which has been proposed in past plans and is 

included as a possible project in the state’s long-range planning 

effort for the southwest region, has also been endorsed by the 

Lake and Peninsula Borough (Wrede 2000). The road would link 

the year-round deep-water port at Chignik with the longest 

runway (which, at 6,400 feet, is capable of handling 737 jets) in 

the area at Port Heiden. Local residents have also discussed the 

possibility of a railroad along that route, which could mitigate 

some of the effects of a road while still providing benefits. 

Under existing management, all-weather or even unimproved 

roads are not allowed in Minimal Management areas; this could 

pose a policy barrier to a future road corridor between the two 

villages. Prior to authorization of any road through the Refuges, 

a Plan amendment, including a compatibility determination, 

would be necessary. 

The state has identified two routes across the Refuges for 

potential transportation and utility (TUS) corridors. The state 

identified these as potential routes for pipelines and associated 

infrastructure to transport petroleum to deepwater ports on the 

Pacific Ocean in the event that petroleum is discovered and 

developed on the Bristol Bay side of the peninsula. (See 

Appendix G for a detailed discussion of TUS corridors.) Prior to 

authorization, however, environmental studies would have to be 

conducted, and a favorable compatibility determination would 

be needed. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways that the alternatives could 

affect locals entities’ abilities to reach their own social and 

economic goals, as reflected in the borough’s and communities’ 

Overall Economic Development Plan. The Overall Economic 

Development Plan lists the Service as a lead organization in 

most of the tourism strategies, one of which is designed to 

develop communities as gateways to the borough’s parks and 

refuges. The plan calls for gateway community plans to be 

developed for communities that serve as access points to the 

Refuges. The Service would willingly participate in such efforts. 

A related strategy calls for expanding the existing tourism 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

industry from hunting and fishing activities to ecotourism and 

cultural tourism and developing the infrastructure (facilities, 

attractions, transportation) necessary to attract and develop 

these new markets. Current management of the Refuges is 

designed to accommodate such new uses, assuming that most 

facilities would be constructed on private lands. 

Under current management (and under the other two 

alternatives), oil and gas leasing would not be allowed on any 

portion of the Refuges. The Wilderness classification applied by 

Congress to the 503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness Area 

withdraws the area permanently from oil and gas leasing. The 

other management categories applied to the Refuges------Minimal 

Management and Moderate Management------preclude oil and gas 

leasing. An amendment to the Conservation Plan and a 

compatibility determination would be required to change the 

management category to Intensive Management before any 

leasing program could be implemented. If a national need for oil 

and gas development were to arise, areas with high potential 

could be re-examined. Mineral exploration may be allowed 

within the Refuges if conducted under a special-use permit. 

Only exploration conducted by or for the Department of the 

Interior would be authorized within the Becharof Wilderness 

Area. No requests to conduct exploration on the Refuges are 

anticipated within the life of this Plan; thus, effects on economic 

development would be negligible. 

Conclusions—Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

economy, village lifestyles, and visitors’ attraction to the region. 

How refuge management affects and contributes to the health 

of fish populations is therefore perhaps the Refuges most 

important economic role. Management of the Refuges under the 

Minimal Management category, coupled with its participation in 

fisheries management activities, has maintained fish habitat in 

high-quality condition and is not a limiting factor for fish 

populations. The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and their 

support of human uses and economic development will continue 

under current management. 

Subsistence Resources and Use 

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 188--

814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually, demonstrating the 

subsistence lifestyles present in the region. 

Fish—Eight of the communities rely primarily on fish, whereas 

four have relied more on land mammals; both sources of food, 

however, are important to all communities. Current refuge 

management is designed to maintain and protect fish and 

wildlife habitat. Because commercial, recreational, and 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-11 

subsistence fishing regulations are decisions made by entities 

other than the Refuges, continuation of existing management is 

expected to have little effect on use of fish species for 

subsistence. 

Caribou and Moose—Of the two species, caribou has 

traditionally been the most widely used among residents of the 

local villages. These animals have been harvested in large 

quantities, thoroughly used, and widely shared (Fall 1993). In 

the mid-1990s, from 4 percent through 9 percent of the animals 

harvested were taken within the boundaries of the Refuges; in 

1996--1997, none of the five communities with the highest 

harvest levels (King Salmon, Naknek, South Naknek, Port 

Heiden, and Pilot Point) harvested any caribou from the 

Refuges. 

Krieg et al. (1998) asked households whether their needs for 

caribou had been met for the 1996--1997 year. The results varied 

by community, but a majority of households in every community 

said their needs had been met (Figure 4-1). For those 

households whose needs were not met, the most common reason 

given (by 42 percent) was not enough time to hunt. 

Figure 4-1. Percentage of households reporting their caribou needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 

Declines in the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd 

(NAPCH) have been a great public concern. The decline of the 

herd prompted the state to shorten seasons, reduce harvest 

limits, and eliminate hunting by nonresidents in game 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

management units (GMUs) 9E and part of 9C. The Alaska 

Board of Game and the Federal Subsistence Board (not the 

Service) determine caribou-hunting regulations for recreational 

and subsistence hunters, respectively (also see Appendix A). It 

is likely that future caribou population trends will continue to be 

addressed in those forums, rather than by Service actions. 

Although not used by as many households as caribou, moose is 

another important subsistence species for residents of Alaska 

Peninsula communities. In 1995--1996, about 42 moose------some 

36 percent of the moose harvested in these GMUs------were taken 

within the boundaries of the Refuges. Of these, about 75 percent 

were taken within Alaska Peninsula Refuge boundaries. The 

number taken within refuge boundaries dropped considerably in 

1996--1997, to just 12 moose (all within Alaska Peninsula Refuge 

boundaries) or 19 percent of the total number of moose 

harvested. The only communities not harvesting significant 

portions of their moose on the Refuges were King Salmon, 

Naknek, South Naknek, Pilot Point, and Egegik. 

In 1996--1997, a majority of communities reported having their 

moose needs met, but more than 40 percent of the households 

sampled in Chignik Bay, Ivanof Bay, and King Salmon reported 

that their needs were not met (Figure 4-2). Reasons given for 

unmet needs included not enough time to hunt (given by 31 

percent of the households who said their needs were not met), 

scarcity of moose (17 percent), not given enough (22 percent), 

competition (2 percent), and regulations or weather (5 percent 

each). 

Conclusions—Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects on subsistence of proposed actions on Federal lands 

(see Section 4.8). Alternative 1 complements and sustains the 

Refuges’ purpose and objectives of providing a subsistence 

opportunity to rural residents. The most important issue for 

subsistence users is the decline of the caribou herd. Rather than 

actions taken by the Refuges under this Plan, the main variable 

affecting future use and access would likely be Alaska Board of 

Game and Federal Subsistence Board regulations made in 

response to changes in animal populations. The biological 

analyses did not produce any estimate of harvestable surplus of 

caribou within any time frame because future herd size and 

composition cannot be predicted from available information, 

making it impossible to specify any effects on subsistence uses. 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-13 

Figure 4-2. Percentage of households reporting their moose needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 

Conflict with Recreational Uses------In response to concerns raised 

by residents of Egegik during scoping meetings in 1998 and 

1999, the Refuges conducted a monitoring program during 

summer 1999 and again in 2000 to study public-use patterns at 

the Becharof Outlet and to identify possible crowding and 

conflict between subsistence and recreational users. In 

summary, public use for the years 1999 and 2000 was almost 

identical; there was little evidence of crowding or conflicts 

between subsistence and recreational uses on the Refuges 

during the time of year when most users visit. The results 

should be viewed as tentative, however, because the coho 

salmon run arrived several weeks later than normal and had 

below-average numbers in both years. 

On August 23, 1999, the state reduced the daily bag and 

possession limit to one fish from five, which could have affected 

some people’s decisions to visit. Another consideration is that a 

state road project employing local residents began in Egegik in 

August 1999 and continued in 2000. In such a small community, 

this could have also affected the number of local people using 

the river. The Service plans to continue the study and expand 

the scope to interviewing people encountered at the site in 

subsequent years to learn more about desired experiences, 

perceptions of crowding and conflict, and levels of concern about 

site characteristics. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Conclusions—The Refuges plan to continue monitoring at the 

outlet site and at other locations as needed. Because subsistence 

use is a purpose of the Refuges, it would be given priority over 

recreational uses if conflicts are identified and regulatory 

actions warranted. Current management therefore has the 

ability to detect and address conflicts, but may be placed in a 

reactive mode because of the lack of systematic monitoring of 

conflicts and related issues across the Refuges. 

Recreational Uses 

Under current management, the primary recreational uses of 

the Refuges would continue to be recreational fishing and 

hunting (both guided and unguided). 

Effects on Recreational Hunting—Guided use would continue to 

be regulated by the State of Alaska and the Service. In 1996 and 

1997, the number of guiding businesses that reported running 

one or more trips on the Refuges decreased to 17 from 18. This 

compares to the 26--36 businesses authorized to operate in the 

1980s and early 1990s, before the Service’s current recreational 

hunting guide policy was adopted in 1992. 

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the Northern 

Alaska Peninsula caribou herd numbered 17,000 to 20,000 

animals, the number of guided hunter days per year ranged 

from 1,078 through 1,889, and the number of caribou killed 

varied from 131 through 278. By 1998, use decreased markedly, 

with five businesses taking 28 clients on caribou-hunting trips, 

resulting in 99 hunter days of use on the Refuges and just 21 

caribou harvested. 

When the herd declined to the point that the estimated 

harvestable surplus was less than the established subsistence 

need of Alaska residents, the Alaska Board of Game closed the 

nonresident caribou hunt and instituted a Tier II hunt with only 

600 state permits for the 1999--2000 season within GMUs 9E 

and southern 9C. The Federal Subsistence Board responded 

similarly by closing Federal public lands to nonlocal users and 

issuing an additional 60 permits for qualified residents of local 

communities. As a result, there was no guided caribou hunting 

on the Refuges during the 1999--2000 season. These restrictions 

continued into the 2000--2001 season with a reduction in the 

numbers of permits to 400 state Tier II and 40 Federal. 

On the Refuges, bear-hunting use levels and bears harvested 

were lower in the late 1990s than in the late 1980s and early 

1990s, when the number of hunter days per year ranged from 

880 to 1,139, and the number of bears harvested varied from 61 

to 77. This downward trend in number of clients and bears 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-15 

harvested continued during 1998 and 1999. In 1999, for example, 

17 businesses took clients on bear-hunting trips, for a total of 68 

clients. There were 664 hunter days of guided bear-hunting use 

on the Refuges and 46 bears harvested. 

On the Refuges, use levels for moose hunting during 1996 

through 1999 were lower than use in the late 1980s and early 

1990s (before the current Service hunting-guide policy), when 

the number of hunter days per year ranged from 523 to 545, and 

the number of moose harvested varied from 43 to 58. In 1999, 

for example, 13 businesses took 40 clients on moose-hunting 

trips There were 298 hunter days of guided moose hunting use 

on the Refuges and just 29 moose harvested. 

Unguided users access the Refuges primarily by air-taxi 

operations, which are permitted by the Refuges. The number of 

air taxis authorized to operate on the Refuges has been steadily 

increasing, from two in 1988 to 11 in 1997, 22 in 1998, and 27 in 

1999. Although not all of these businesses operate trips to the 

Refuges every year, the total number of trips also shows an 

upward trend, but differs markedly by type of trip. 

Unguided recreational hunting-use levels appear to be stable or 

declining, and there is little evidence that current refuge 

management would change this trend. This mirrors the trend in 

reduced guided recreational hunting use. In the early- and mid1990s, for example, the number of air-taxi trips devoted to 

hunting was between 100 and 120, except for nearly 150 in 1994. 

In 1998, air-taxi operators made 70 trips to the Refuges for 

hunting and slightly more (86 trips) in 1999; both are decreases 

from the previous several years (the ban on recreational 

hunting of caribou in 1999 eliminated what was traditionally the 

most popular hunting opportunity on the Refuges). 

Conclusions—The existing opportunities for recreational 

hunting would remain. Alaska Board of Game and Federal 

Subsistence Board regulations made in response to changes in 

animal populations would likely be the primary variable 

affecting future use and access, rather than actions taken by the 

Refuges under the Plan. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing—Most recreational anglers on 

the Refuges practice catch-and-release, although anglers keep a 

proportion (25 percent to 35 percent) of coho and sockeye 

salmon and lake trout. Under current management, the nine 

most popular streams on the Refuges show somewhat different 

trends in guided use between 1993 and 1999. Use at Yantarni 

Bay, Gertrude, Featherly, the Egegik, the Ruth River, and 

Nakalilok Bay (which is used by just one guide operation with 

limited overnight facilities) appears to be decreasing. Levels of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

guided use at the King Salmon River and Painter Creek are 

steady. Use at Ugashik Narrows has been on an upward trend 

since 1995, possibly because of changes in state regulations that 

went into effect in that year. 

Together, the Becharof and Ugashik systems account for a 

relatively small proportion of freshwater recreational fishing 

use in Area R (the entire Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians south 

of Naknek and Cape Douglas)------17 percent of the anglers, 7 

percent of trips, and 8 percent of the total days. The two 

drainages account for about 1 percent or 2 percent of the 

recreational fishing use of the overall Bristol Bay recreational 

fishery (Walker et al. 2003). Area R data show fluctuations in 

angler use of the two drainages during the 1990s, with no clear 

trends present. 

One source of refuge-specific data for unguided recreational 

fishing is air-taxi reports. These provide the Refuges with 

information about air taxi clients (e.g., the activity, location, 

length of stay, and group size). During 1997 and 1998, angler 

use of air taxis increased; 1998 was the only year in the 1990s in 

which the number of angler trips by air taxi exceeded the 

number of hunter trips. Without regulation or consistent 

monitoring of unguided use and the quality of the experience, it 

is possible that quality could deteriorate at popular locations. 

Conclusions—Recreation use at more popular sites appears to 

be maintained by voluntary efforts of guides and air taxi 

operators; if one planned fishing site is occupied, the anglers try 

another location. This arrangement is not guaranteed to 

continue to be effective, especially if use levels increase and 

guided and unguided anglers compete for prime opportunities. 

Without limits on air taxis or recreational anglers, increases in 

unguided recreational fishing levels are likely to continue, which 

could lead to crowding at some popular areas that are most 

likely the same areas that are frequented by guided recreational 

anglers. The increased use of air taxis for unguided fishing trips 

mirrors general trends; anglers appear to learn about locations 

and techniques by taking a guided trip, and then save money yet 

have a similar experience by arranging a private trip in the 

future. 

Although air-taxi reports will continue to provide the Refuges 

with good information about unguided use patterns, information 

about quality, crowding, and other aspects of the experience is 

not being collected. If quality is declining, the Refuges will not 

be able to detect it or address it systematically and effectively 

with the present level and type of monitoring recreational 

fishing. These declines are most likely to happen at popular 

locations for recreational fishing such as Ugashik Narrows. 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-17 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality—There is no evidence that the increase in ecotourism 

predicted in the Public Use Management Plan (USFWS 1994) is 

occurring. Use of air taxis for opportunities not related to 

hunting or fishing is not increasing. While there is evidence of 

demand for increased wildlife viewing in Alaska, especially bear 

viewing, other, better-known settings adjacent to Katmai 

National Park and Preserve, Denali National Park and 

Preserve, Lake Clark National Park, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge, and areas managed by the USDA Forest Service in 

southeastern Alaska (such as Anan Creek, Pack Creek, and 

Fish Creek) appear to be the focus of increasing demand. There 

is also no evidence of use of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges as an overflow area as other, more popular wildlife 

viewing areas reach their capacity. 

Helicopter landings for recreational access are prohibited 

except by special-use permit. Very few applications have been 

submitted, and none has been approved. Without a specific 

proposal to evaluate, it is difficult to address potential effects on 

recreation quality of allowing helicopter access for recreational 

uses. However, the risks of adverse impacts of helicopter use to 

existing recreational use of the Refuges may well outweigh the 

benefits to those who would travel by helicopter. Helicopter use 

can diminish opportunities for challenge and risk, remoteness, 

solitude, and sense of isolation (USDA FS 1996), the human 

values attributed to a wilderness experience. 

The Service has not collected data about recreational 

experiences, satisfaction with guides, or other information that 

would provide a more complete profile of recreation 

opportunities on the Refuges; thus, aspects of recreation such as 

changes in the quality of the experience would not be 

detectable. Although the Refuges have conducted some use 

studies------such as the Becharof Outlet conflict study------and 

ADF&G occasionally conducts creel censuses as well as mails 

out an annual survey to all anglers in the state, there is no 

systematic program of monitoring recreational uses other than 

aerial surveys. 

Given the generally stable trends in use patterns, the absence of 

a more rigorous program to monitor recreation opportunities 

and quality under Alternative 1, or the use of site-specific 

management objectives in general, does not appear to have 

resulted in significant impacts on recreation opportunities. 

However, without such a monitoring program in place over 

time, the Service will find it difficult to know when more sitespecific management goals and management techniques are 

needed. Over the long term, if the quality of opportunities on 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 

4-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

the Refuges were to gradually decline, the Service may not be 

sufficiently aware of the causes and effects of changes to be able 

to respond before degradations occur. 

If monitoring of use does find evidence of conflict among user 

groups and/or crowding on refuge lands or water, under current 

management the Refuges would work with visitors to address 

the problems. It appears likely that issues would initially be 

social, rather than impacts to fish or wildlife populations. The 

Refuges could take actions to address issues such as crowding 

and resulting declines in the quality of recreation at the site. 

The Refuges would try to address the problem in partnership 

with the state and others, without regulating recreation access 

to Refuge lands or waters, but such regulation could occur if 

other types of methods, such as public education, were not 

effective. 

Conclusions—The Refuges do not currently plan to place any 

limits on recreational access or take other actions to regulate 

recreational use in order to reduce conflict or to protect 

recreation quality, but could do so under current management if 

necessary at some point in the future. Given the current goal of 

maximizing recreational (and other) uses to the extent 

compatible with refuge purposes, higher use levels and greater 

effects on social and resource conditions would probably be 

more likely under this alternative than they would be under 

Alternative 3. 

4.2.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

Alternative 1 contains no actions that, directly or indirectly, 

would change biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management guidelines contained in 

Chapter 2 are designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. 

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 

No major development actions have been identified on or off the 

Refuges within the next 15 to 20 years that could impact refuge 

resources. 

Although two road corridors have been identified that could 

bisect the Refuges, any plans for development are outside the 

Service’s purview, and their development is speculative at this 

time. If one or more of the transportation corridors were to be 

developed, there could be cumulative long-term effects from the 

road structure itself and from its use. Consequences could 

include destruction of habitat along the road corridor, potential 
Alternative 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-19 

spills of fuels and other pollutants, changes in drainage patterns 

with resulting changes in vegetation, siltation of adjacent 

streams and wetlands with resulting changes in aquatic 

ecosystems, and possible introduction of invasive species. 

Further, the Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal 

hunters and anglers access to the new road corridor. Adjacent 

areas could then be reached by jet boats brought in on the ferry 

and taken to streams crossing the roadway. Additional 

pressures on local fish and game populations could result. 

Traffic along the road could also disturb wildlife such as nesting 

birds and migrating caribou. 

The potential development of roads across the Refuges could 

decrease bear and wolf populations through a variety of 

mechanisms. Some of the well-documented effects of roads on 

bears and wolves include displacement of the animals from 

important habitats (for examples see Archibald et al. [1987] and 

Thurber et al. [1994]), increased habituation of bears resulting 

in increased risk of defense-of-life-or-property (DLP) incidents 

(Herrero 1985), and increased hunting and trapping pressure in 

areas near the road corridor. It is generally accepted that 

brown bears require vast areas of undeveloped lands to prosper 

and that they are basically incompatible with concentrated 

human activity except in highly controlled circumstances such 

as Brooks Camp, McNeil River, and Pack Creek viewing areas 

in Alaska (Herrero 1985; Miller and Chihuly 1987, Ch. 17). 

Possible cumulative effects on the Refuges include an increased 

risk of introducing invasive species through new human activity 

in locations previously inaccessible to people. Should invasive 

species be introduced as a result of actions in this alternative, 

habitat quality could be reduced as invasive species may change 

the species composition of the habitat. Although such effects are 

possible, they are unlikely to occur in the majority of instances 

during the life of this Plan. 

New fishing pressure to remote reaches of streams could occur 

if helicopter access for recreational activities were permitted. 

Except for at a few rivers, fishing pressure is light within the 

Refuges. Streams not now receiving any fishing pressure or 

those streams receiving some fishing pressure by boat, 

floatplane, or foot access could see increased pressure if 

helicopter access were permitted. Although this increased 

pressure could result in some shift in age structure, it is 

assumed state fishing regulations would be sufficient to manage 

any increased fishing activities.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

4.3 Alternative 2 

Under this alternative, the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges would continue to be managed largely as they have 

been in recent years, but with a few key changes. Use of 

helicopters for recreational landings outside Wilderness areas 

could be considered case by case in areas without sensitive 

resources or for remote recreation opportunities; this would be 

done after the Service had developed criteria and identified 

areas and seasons with resources or opportunities sensitive to 

helicopter operations. These areas would probably include a 

large part of the Refuges landbase. Monitoring of recreational 

use patterns and their effects on subsistence uses and biological 

resources would be increased. Monitoring of fish and wildlife 

resources also would increase significantly. 

4.3.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction 

Fish and wildlife management under Alternative 2 would be 

very similar to the current management direction (see Section 

4.2). Regarding helicopter landings for recreational uses, 

Alternatives 2 and 1 would not necessarily differ in the potential 

level of use nor in the potential areas and dates where landings 

would be permitted. Rather, these alternatives differ in the 

manner in which the Service would go about determining (1) the 

areas and dates within which landings could be permitted and 

(2) the acceptable levels of use. 

Under Alternative 2, an evaluation of the Refuges would be 

done in advance of any permit requests to determine areas 

containing sensitive resources where helicopter landings would 

not be considered. The evaluation might also include 

consideration of the impacts of increased visitor use to currently 

inaccessible areas. As a result of this advance evaluation, refuge 

staff would have knowledge with which to evaluate the potential 

impacts of any requests for helicopter landings. Requests could 

still be considered on a case-by-case basis, but with a better 

information base from which to estimate potential impacts. The 

same compatibility and other determinations would be required 

as under Alternative 1. This advance evaluation would be 

applied, as would a compatibility and other determinations, to 

all new forms of motorized access that might be developed 

during the life of this Plan. 

The effects on the Refuges’ fish and wildlife of management 

direction described in this alternative are more subtle. With 

Alternative 2, the revised objectives for fish and wildlife 

management on the Refuges are more clearly defined than they 
Alternative 2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-21 

are under current management and include new objectives to 

increase knowledge and management capabilities for several 

species and their habitats. 

Caribou and Moose 

Helicopters—This alternative would consider, case by case, 

helicopter landings for recreation purposes on Refuges areas 

outside the designated Wilderness, but would prohibit this use 

in fish and wildlife habitats identified as sensitive. Helicopter 

landings, takeoffs, and low overflights could reduce survival of 

young calves by separating them from cows, thus increasing 

stress and exposure to predators. Also, frequent helicopter use 

in a local area could displace animals from preferred habitat. 

Special-use permits would require pilots to avoid known 

sensitive areas, and existing wildlife harassment regulations 

would discourage disturbances of animals. Nevertheless, some 

temporary disturbance and displacement of small groups of 

moose or caribou could be unavoidable. Such disturbance, 

however, should not have long-term consequences to individuals 

or to the population. 

Conclusions—Short-term effects to caribou and moose 

populations from implementing Alternative 2 could include 

some displacement and disturbance if helicopter landings for 

recreational uses are permitted, but significant population 

impacts would not occur. The advance evaluation to identify 

sensitive habitats and seasons should result in better protection 

of critical habitats. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts 

to resources should be lower under Alternative 2. These 

differences may be negligible, however, unless helicopter use 

were to increase to moderate or high levels. Current population 

trends are expected to continue for both species. Moose 

populations would remain stable or potentially increase. 

Bears and Wolves 

Helicopters—Alternative 2 includes the opportunity for the use 

of helicopters for recreational access on the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges. Although this alternative would limit the 

area and extent of helicopter activity on the Refuges, some 

disturbance could still occur in the limited areas where access 

was permitted. Also, introducing visitors into areas currently 

inaccessible could habituate more bears to humans and possibly 

lead to some food-conditioning (Herrero 1985). 

Conclusions—Displacement and disturbance to individual 

animals could occur if helicopter use for recreational activities 

were allowed. Some increase in the risk of longer-term effects 

such as habituation, food-conditioning, and DLP mortality could 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

occur if helicopter access were permitted into remote areas. The 

advance evaluation to identify sensitive habitats and seasons 

should result in better protection of critical habitats. Therefore, 

the potential for adverse impacts to resources should be lower 

under Alternative 2 than under the current management 

(Alternative 1). These differences may be negligible, however, 

unless helicopter use were to increase to moderate or high 

levels. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species 

Helicopters—The large colonies of murres and kittiwakes at 

Puale and Dry bays are within the existing Becharof Wilderness 

Area, where helicopter landings for recreational activities are 

prohibited. Because of the sensitivity of nesting seabirds to 

helicopters, any helicopter permit issued would not allow 

landings near known seabird colonies. Under this alternative, 

the refuge staff would develop criteria and identify sensitive 

habitats, time periods, and areas where helicopter landings for 

recreational purposes would be prohibited. These criteria would 

be applied, in addition to compatibility determinations, to all 

new forms of motorized access that may be developed during 

the life of this plan. 

Nevertheless, some disturbance of dispersed nesting birds or 

unknown small colonies could inevitably result if helicopter 

access for recreational activities were permitted. Non--cliffnesting seabirds such as terns, guillemots, and puffins nest 

within the Refuges on islands in lakes and along the Pacific 

coast. If helicopter landings were permitted near these nesting 

areas, the likelihood of displacement and nesting failure could 

increase with the frequency and duration of helicopter traffic in 

the area (e.g., Hockin et al. 1992; Smit and Viser 1993). 

Conclusions—Implementation of this alternative would have no 

short-term effects on seabird colonies or other large 

concentrations of breeding birds on the Refuges. Displacement 

and disturbance of solitary nesting birds or unknown small 

colonies could create minor effects if helicopter use for 

recreational purposes were allowed. Disturbance could result in 

moderate effects on breeding birds (disturbance can result in 

reduced nesting success for a variety of reasons). These effects 

are not anticipated to result in measurable population changes, 

however, particularly because sensitive areas and seasons would 

be identified in advance and excluded from permitted helicopter 

landing areas under this alternative. Therefore, the potential for 

adverse impacts to resources should be lower under Alternative 

2; these differences may be negligible, unless helicopter use 

were to increase to moderate or high levels. 
Alternative 2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-23 

Fisheries 

Wilderness—Within the Becharof Wilderness, which is in the 

Wilderness Management category, temporary restoration 

facilities may be allowed if fish stocks have been reduced or are 

threatened, as long as the facilities would not significantly 

detract from the values for which that area was established. 

Actions designed to artificially increase fish populations that are 

not in need of restoration may be allowed in designated 

Wilderness areas. All facilities, structures, and habitatmanipulation actions that are determined to be necessary within 

a designated Wilderness area would be implemented using the 

minimum tool required to achieve the objective while 

minimizing effects on wilderness values. 

Helicopters—With Alternative 2, potential effects on fisheries 

populations are essentially the same as under current 

management (Alternative 1; Section 4.2). Sensitive areas and 

seasons identified during the implementation of this alternative 

(e.g., seasonal bear feeding areas along salmon spawning 

streams) would be excluded from helicopter landings. 

Consequently, helicopters would be restricted from landing 

near some upper reaches of streams during some seasons. 

Nevertheless, angler access to previously inaccessible stream 

reaches could be greatly increased. If helicopter access to 

backcountry streams became significant, fish populations in 

those areas should be monitored and, if necessary, regulations 

developed through the Alaska Board of Fisheries to protect the 

populations’ age and size composition. 

Conclusions—No short-term effects from this alternative are 

expected for fish populations on the Refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

As under current management priorities, with Alternative 2 

there is an emphasis on conserving naturally diverse 

ecosystems, including fisheries. The Refuges will work with the 

State of Alaska, local Natives, and other partners to restore 

habitats and populations to appropriate, sustainable conditions, 

and to participate in a variety of monitoring and research 

projects. Restoration emphasis would focus on strategies that 

are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the 

depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat in this management category includes the 

following 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

 About half the sockeye-spawning habitat and almost all 

spawning habitat of other salmon species 

 Almost all rainbow trout habitat and most Arctic grayling 

habitat 

 Most brown bear salmon-fishing streams and denning 

habitat 

 Almost all moose winter range 

 Most caribou summer range within the Refuges 

 Most mountain stream habitat for harlequin ducks 

 Most non–cliff-nesting seabird habitat 

 All nesting habitat of the Alaska subpopulation of marbled 

godwits 

These habitats would continue to be managed to maintain their 

natural ecological processes in an undeveloped condition. 

Because the majority of these lands are managed under the 

Minimal Management category (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, for a 

detailed description), management policy prohibits large-scale 

development activities from occurring on these lands. Activities 

such as road construction or oil and gas leasing would require a 

revision of the Refuges’ Conservation Plan and a change from 

Minimal to Intensive Management for the areas in question. 

Helicopters—Under Alternative 2, criteria would be developed 

to identify sensitive habitats, time periods, and areas where 

helicopter landings for recreational activities would be 

prohibited in order to minimize adverse effects to resources. 

These criteria would be applied, as would compatibility and 

other determinations, to all new forms of motorized access that 

might be developed during the life of this Plan. Even though 

permits prohibit helicopter landings in areas with identified 

sensitive resources, some locally significant impacts------such as 

disturbance of wildlife or the introduction of invasive species------

could occur at landing sites or along transit routes. It is difficult 

to predict the difference in potential impacts between 

Alternatives 2 and 1. If, during the life of this Plan, there were 

only one or two helicopters operating infrequently on the 

Refuges to transport visitors to a limited number of sites, the 

difference in consequences between Alternatives 1 and 2 might 

be negligible, depending on the specific areas requested. 

However, if helicopters were to become a common means of 

access to large areas of the Refuges, the potential for adverse 

impacts to resources could be expected to be lower under 

Alternative 2. 

Conclusions—There would be no discernable short-term effects 

on fish and wildlife habitat from implementation of Alternative 
Alternative 2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-25 

2. Refuge policy would prohibit large-scale developments in the 

majority of the Refuges’ lands 

4.3.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The primary changes from current management that could 

affect human uses of the Refuges would be an increase in 

monitoring of public use and identification of sensitive areas 

where helicopter landings for recreational access would not be 

allowed. The effects of implementing Alternative 2 are 

described in terms of the level and type of departure expected 

from baseline effects (those estimated to result from 

implementing Alternative 1). 

Local Population and Economy 

The region is characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence 

economy. The cash economy is well developed, dominated by 

commercial fishing, with substantial support from tourism and 

government employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind 

the local economy, village lifestyles, and visitors’ attraction to 

the region. Therefore, how refuge management affects and 

contributes to the health of fish populations is perhaps its most 

important social role. The 1,433 local jobs and $70 million in 

income the Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the 

local economy nearly all stem from supporting the commercial 

fishery by ensuring the continued health of salmon-spawning 

and -rearing habitat (Goldsmith et al. 1998a). 

Management of the Refuges under the Minimal Management 

category, coupled with the Refuges’ participation in fisheries 

management activities, has maintained the fish habitat in highquality condition; neither refuge habitat nor fishing pressure is 

a limiting factor for the health of fish populations. Other factors, 

such as ocean cycles or the multitude of regulations governing 

fishing, have likely been much more responsible for the 

variation in commercial, subsistence, and recreational harvest 

and opportunities. The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and 

support of human uses would continue under current 

management. 

Effects on Economic Development—These effects of Alternative 

2 are very similar to those expected under Alternative 1. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways that the alternatives would 

affect locals’ abilities to reach their own social and economic 

goals, as reflected in the borough’s and communities’ Overall 

Economic Development Plan. The Overall Economic 

Development Plan lists the Service as a lead organization in 

most of the tourism strategies, one of which is designed to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

develop communities as gateways to the borough’s parks and 

Refuges. 

This alternative would not preclude development of either of the 

cross-peninsula transportation and utility system (TUS) 

corridors. Prior to authorization for such a corridor, however, 

environmental studies would be conducted, and a favorable 

compatibility determination and a Plan amendment revising 

management of the route from Minimal to Intensive 

Management would be needed. (See Appendix G for a detailed 

discussion of TUS corridors.) 

Under Alternative 2 (and all other alternatives), oil and gas 

leasing would not be allowed on any portion of the Refuges. The 

Wilderness classification applied by Congress to the 

503,000 acre Becharof Wilderness Area withdraws the area 

permanently from oil and gas leasing. The other management 

categories applied to the Refuges------Minimal Management and 

Moderate Management------preclude oil and gas leasing. Before 

any leasing program could be implemented, an amendment to 

the Plan and a positive compatibility determination would be 

required to change the management category to Intensive 

Management. If a national need for oil and gas development 

were to arise, areas with high potential could be re-examined. 

Mineral exploration may be allowed within the Refuges if 

conducted under a special-use-permit. Only exploration 

conducted by or for the Department of the Interior would be 

authorized within the Becharof Wilderness Area. No requests to 

conduct exploration on the Refuges are anticipated, so effects 

on economic development would be negligible. 

Effects on Subsistence Uses 

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

between 188 and 814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually, 

demonstrating the subsistence lifestyles present in the region 

(Fall and Morris 1987). Eight of the communities rely primarily 

on fish, and four rely more on land mammals, but both sources 

of food are important to all communities. 

Fish—Current refuge management is designed to maintain and 

protect fish habitat. Because commercial, recreational, and 

subsistence fishing regulations are decisions made by entities 

other than the Service, continuation of existing management is 

expected to have little effect on use of fish species for 

subsistence. Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects proposed actions on Federal lands would have on 

subsistence (see Section 4.8). This alternative would not result 

in a significant restriction on subsistence uses. 
Alternative 2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-27 

Caribou and Moose—Effects of Alternative 2 on these 

subsistence species would be very similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conflict with Recreational Uses—The Refuges plan to continue 

monitoring at the Becharof Outlet site and to increase the level 

of public-use monitoring at other locations on the Refuges, as 

needed. This more proactive, systematic approach to monitoring 

could allow the Refuges to detect and fully understand threats 

to subsistence uses before they became substantial impacts. 

Because subsistence use is a purpose of the Refuges, it would be 

given priority over recreational uses if conflicts are identified 

and regulatory actions warranted. 

Effects on Recreational Uses 

Under Alternative 2, the primary recreational uses of the 

Refuges would continue to be fishing and hunting (both guided 

and unguided) for the foreseeable future. 

Effects on Recreational Hunting—Guided use would continue to 

be regulated by both the State of Alaska and the Service; 

existing policies would remain, and existing trends would be 

expected to continue. Unguided users access the Refuges 

primarily via air-taxi operations, which are permitted by the 

Refuges. Levels of unguided recreational hunting use appear to 

be stable or declining, and there is little evidence to believe that 

this trend would change under Alternative 2. 

The existing opportunities for unguided recreational hunting 

would remain. The main variable affecting future use and access 

would likely be management by the Alaska Board of Game and 

by the Federal Subsistence Board rather than actions taken by 

the Refuges under this Plan. Over the life of the Plan, hunting 

use levels could be expected to remain stable or to continue a 

slight decline. The exception could be if the caribou herd 

recovers, in which case recreational hunting could be allowed 

and use could increase to, but probably not beyond, levels 

present in the mid-1990s. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing—Recreation use at more 

popular sites appears to be maintained by voluntary efforts of 

guides and air taxis; if one planned fishing site is occupied, the 

anglers can try another location. This arrangement is not 

guaranteed to continue to be effective, especially if use levels 

increase and guided and unguided anglers compete more for 

prime opportunities. 

During 1998 and 1999, angler use of air taxis increased, with 80 

trips in 1998 and 84 trips in 1999. Without limits on air taxis or 

recreational anglers, increases in unguided recreational fishing 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

levels are likely to continue, which could lead to crowding at 

some popular areas that are most likely the same areas being 

frequented by guided recreational anglers. 

Increased monitoring of guided and unguided recreational 

fishing use will allow the Refuges to identify, before crowding 

and on-the-ground conflicts occur, times and areas where use 

patterns may be contributing to lower-quality recreation 

angling experiences. Collecting additional information from 

visitors will allow the Refuges to measure indicators of quality 

and trends in resource and social conditions that visitors value. 

This information would help managers develop site-specific 

objectives to maintain recreation quality. If necessary, 

educational efforts and regulations could be developed or 

special-use permits could be modified as needed to address the 

issue. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality—Other opportunities for recreation would not be 

affected under Alternative 2 except for restrictions on where 

helicopter landings for recreational use could take place. The 

Refuges would identify sensitive and remote areas where 

landings would not be allowed and would only consider allowing 

landings in the remaining portions of the Refuges through 

special-use permits. 

In reality, this may not be a great change from current 

conditions, in which special-use permits are required and the 

activity must be determined compatible with refuge goals and 

purposes before it can be allowed. In sensitive areas, it is 

unlikely permits would have been granted under current 

management; few applications have been submitted, and none 

has been approved. There is no evidence that demand for 

helicopter use is increasing; thus, the social and economic 

effects would be negligible. 

Under this alternative, the Service would collect additional data 

about recreation experiences, satisfaction with guides, and other 

information that provide a more complete profile of recreation 

opportunities on the Refuges, thus making it possible to detect 

other aspects of recreation such as changes in the quality of the 

experience. Although the Refuges have conducted some studies 

of use, such as the Becharof Outlet conflict study in 1999 and the 

sporadic creel censuses in which the Refuges are typically a 

partner, there has been no systematic program of monitoring 

use other than aerial surveys similar to those used to estimate 

wildlife populations. The absence of a more rigorous program to 

monitor recreation opportunities and quality, or the use of sitespecific management objectives in general, does not appear to 
Alternative 2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-29 

have resulted in significant impacts on recreation opportunities 

given the generally stable trends in use patterns. 

However, increased monitoring would expand the Refuges’ 

ability to know when more site-specific management goals and 

management are needed. Over the long term, if the quality of 

opportunities on the Refuges appears to be declining or has the 

potential to do so, the Refuges would be aware of the causes and 

effects of changes and be able to respond before degradation 

occurred. Keeping track of the quality of recreation experiences 

and use patterns could be especially important at popular 

locations for recreational fishing such as the Ugashik Narrows. 

The increased law-enforcement presence in the field could 

enhance this monitoring and could increase the effectiveness of 

existing management. 

If such monitoring of use does find evidence of significant 

conflict among user groups and/or crowding on refuge lands or 

waters, the Refuges would work with visitors to address the 

problems. It appears more likely that issues would initially be 

social rather than from impacts to fish or wildlife populations. 

The Refuges could take actions to address issues such as 

crowding and resulting declines in the quality of recreation at 

the site. The increased monitoring effort would allow the 

Refuges to deal with the issues effectively and efficiently, rather 

than passing regulations or imposing limits based on limited 

information. The Refuges would try to address the problem, in 

partnership with the state and other entities, without regulating 

recreation access to refuge lands or waters, but such regulation 

could be considered if other methods such as public education 

were not effective. 

4.3.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

Alternative 2 contains no actions that would change, directly or 

indirectly, biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management guidelines contained in 

Chapter 2 are designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. Recreation-use data from guides 

and air taxis do not suggest any consistent increases in 

Wilderness use levels that could pose a concern for 

opportunities for solitude.

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 

As with Alternative 1, no major development actions on or off 

the Refuges that would impact refuge resources within the next 

15 to 20 years have been identified should Alternative 2 be 

implemented. While two road corridors have been identified 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 

4-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

that could bisect the Refuges, any plans for development are 

beyond the planning horizon, and their development is 

speculative at this time. If one or more of the transportation 

corridors were developed, there could be cumulative long-term 

effects from the road structure itself and from its use. 

Consequences could include destruction of habitat along the 

road corridor, potential spills of fuels and other pollutants, 

changes in drainage patterns with resulting changes in 

vegetation, siltation of adjacent streams and wetlands with 

resulting changes in aquatic ecosystems, and possible 

introduction of invasive species. The Alaska Marine Highway 

could provide nonlocal hunters and anglers access to the road 

corridor and to adjacent areas that could be reached by jet 

boats brought in by trailer, via the ferry, to streams crossing 

the roadway. Additional pressures on local fish and game 

populations could result. Traffic along the road could also 

disturb wildlife such as nesting birds and migrating caribou. 

Possible cumulative effects on the Refuges include an increased 

risk of introducing invasive species through new human activity 

in locations previously inaccessible to people. Should invasive 

species be introduced as a result of actions in Alternative 2, 

habitat quality could be reduced because invasive species may 

change the species composition of the habitat. While such 

effects are possible, they are unlikely to occur in the majority of 

instances during the life of this Plan. 

New fishing pressure to remote reaches of streams could occur 

if helicopter use for recreational activities is permitted. Except 

for on a few rivers, fishing pressure is light within the Refuges. 

Streams not now receiving any fishing pressure or those 

streams receiving some fishing pressure by boat, floatplane, or 

foot access could see increased pressure if helicopter access 

were permitted. Although this increased pressure could result 

in some shift in age structure, it is assumed state fishing 

regulations would be sufficient to manage any increase in 

fishing activities. 
Alternative 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-31 

4.4 Alternative 3— 

Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 would also continue management of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges largely as they have been 

managed in recent years, recognizing that current management 

is dynamic and can react to new information or changing 

resource conditions. Access would be maintained to all areas of 

the Refuges for subsistence, recreational, and commercial users 

to the maximum extent possible consistent with refuge 

purposes. The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area would 

be reduced in size from 9,100 to 4,000 acres. This change in size 

of the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area is not 

anticipated to affect habitat quality or wildlife populations in the 

area. With this alternative, the use of helicopters for 

recreational purposes would not be allowed on the Refuges. 

4.4.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction 

As with all the alternatives, fish and wildlife management under 

Alternative 3 would be very similar to the current management 

direction. The primary difference could come from prohibiting 

the use of helicopters for recreation activities on the Refuges. 

The revised objectives for fish and wildlife management on the 

Refuges would be more clearly defined than under current 

management (Alternative 1) and would include new objectives 

to increase knowledge and management capabilities for several 

species and their habitats. 

Caribou and Moose 

The effects of management under Alternative 3 on caribou and 

moose populations would be very similar to those described 

under current management, Alternative 1 (see Section 4.2.1). 

The important difference is that there would be no potential 

disturbance from recreation associated with helicopter use on 

the Refuges. Current hunting pressure on caribou under Tier II 

regulations will not change until the population has recovered 

sufficiently for the Board of Game to determine that the herd 

could support greater harvest. Hunting pressure on moose 

would likely increase over time because of increased demand 

from nonlocal hunters. 

Conclusions—There would be no short-term effects on caribou 

and moose on the Refuges; current population trends are 

expected to continue for both species. Disturbance associated 

with helicopter landings for recreational purposes would not 

occur. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 

4-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Bears and Wolves 

Wilderness—On the Refuges, most of the salmon streams that 

are critical foraging sites for brown bears and perhaps twothirds of bear denning habitats are located outside the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. Nearly all these areas are located in the 

Refuges’ Minimal Management areas, which are managed to 

maintain the natural environment with very little evidence of 

human-caused change. 

Conclusions—Disturbance associated with helicopter landings 

for recreational purposes would not occur. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species 

Approximately half of the major seabird colonies on the Refuges 

are included in designated Wilderness. Without the potential 

disturbance from helicopters, the potential for human-caused 

disturbance to bird populations would be limited to currently 

accessed areas and new areas that could be accessed by boat or 

fixed-wing aircraft. The Alaska subpopulation of the marbled 

godwit is very poorly known and is believed to be small. 

Although there are no known short-term threats, this 

alternative does not include additional long-term protection for 

the marbled godwit population. 

Conclusions—Implementation of this alternative would have no 

short-term effects on seabird colonies or other large 

concentrations of breeding birds on the Refuges. There would 

be no special recognition of or protection for marbled godwits 

nesting on the Refuges.

Fisheries 

In the short term, the potential effects on fisheries populations 

for Alternative 3 are essentially the same as those under 

current management (Alternative 1). In the long term, however, 

the restriction on helicopter access could protect sensitive areas 

(e.g., seasonal bear feeding areas along salmon spawning 

streams) and populations. Because helicopter landings would be 

restricted, stream reaches that are currently inaccessible would 

remain so. 

Conclusions—Short-term effects from this alternative are 

expected to be negligible for fish populations on the Refuges. 

This alternative could help maintain populations at current 

levels in the long term because recreational access by helicopter 

would not be allowed. 
Alternative 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-33 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

As is true under current management priorities, Alternative 3 

management direction emphasizes conserving naturally diverse 

ecosystems, including fisheries. The Refuges will work with the 

State of Alaska, local Natives, and other partners to restore 

habitats and populations to appropriate, sustainable conditions, 

and to participate in a variety of monitoring and research 

projects. Restoration emphasis would focus on strategies that 

are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the 

depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat in this management category includes the 

following: 

 About half the sockeye-spawning habitat and almost all 

spawning habitat of other salmon species 

 Almost all rainbow trout habitat and most Arctic grayling 

habitat 

 Most brown bear salmon-fishing streams and denning 

habitat 

 Almost all moose winter range 

 Most caribou summer range within the Refuges 

 Most mountain stream habitat for harlequin ducks 

 Most non–cliff-nesting seabird habitat 

 All nesting habitat of the Alaska subpopulation of marbled 

godwits 

These habitats would continue to be managed to maintain their 

natural ecological processes in an undeveloped condition. 

Because the majority of these lands are managed under the 

Minimal Management category (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, for a 

detailed description), management policy prohibits large-scale 

development activities from occurring on these lands. Activities 

such as road construction or oil and gas leasing would require a 

revision of the Refuges’ Conservation Plan and a change from 

Minimal to Intensive Management for the areas in question. 

The reduction in size of the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management Area is not anticipated to affect habitat quality in 

the area. 

Conclusions—Alternative 3 would create no discernable shortterm effects on fish and wildlife habitat. Because this alternative 

does not propose actions that could bring additional people into 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 

4-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

the more inaccessible areas of the Refuges, there is less risk of 

introducing invasive species. 

4.4.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The primary changes from current management that could 

affect human uses of the Refuges would be estimated effects on 

wildlife populations and habitat, an increase in monitoring of 

public use, and prohibition of helicopter landings for 

recreational access. The change in size of the Yantarni Bay 

Moderate Management Area is not anticipated to affect human 

uses in the area. 

The effects of implementing Alternative 3 are described in 

terms of the level and type of departure expected from baseline 

effects (those estimated to result from implementing 

Alternative 1). 

Local Population and Economy 

The region is characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence 

economy. The cash economy is well developed, dominated by 

commercial fishing, with substantial support from tourism and 

government employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind 

the local economy, village lifestyles, and visitor’ attraction to the 

region. How refuge management affects and contributes to the 

health of fish populations is therefore perhaps its most 

important economic role. The 1,433 local jobs and $70 million in 

income the Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the 

local economy nearly all stem from supporting the commercial 

fishery by ensuring the well-being of salmon-spawning and 

-rearing habitat (Goldsmith et al. 1998b). 

Management of the Refuges under the Minimal Management 

category, coupled with its participation in fisheries management 

activities, has maintained the fish habitat in high-quality 

condition and is not a limiting factor for fish populations. Other 

factors------such as ocean cycles or the multitude of regulations 

governing fishing------have likely been much more responsible for 

the variation in commercial, subsistence, and sport harvest 

opportunities. The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and its 

human uses will continue under Alternative 3. 

Effects on Economic Development—Economic opportunities are 

limited by the relative lack of transportation infrastructure in 

the borough, which reflects the dispersed and small population, 

rugged terrain, land status, and severe seasonal weather (HDR 

Alaska 1999). Because no roads connect the borough with other 

parts of the state, transportation to communities depends on air 

and boat access. There are no long-distance roads or power 
Alternative 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-35 

lines, and few of the communities are connected by all-season 

land routes. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways the alternatives could affect 

locals’ abilities to reach their own social and economic goals, as 

reflected in the borough’s and communities’ Overall Economic 

Development Plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan 

lists the Service as a lead organization in most of the tourism 

strategies, one of which is designed to develop communities as 

gateways to the borough’s parks and refuges. The plan calls for 

gateway community plans to be developed for communities that 

serve as access points to the Refuges. The Service would 

willingly participate in such efforts. A related strategy calls for 

expanding the existing tourism industry from hunting and 

fishing activities to ecotourism and cultural tourism and for 

developing the infrastructure (facilities, attractions, 

transportation) necessary to attract and develop these new 

markets. Current management of the Refuges is designed to 

accommodate such new uses, assuming that most facilities are 

constructed on private lands. 

Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed on any portion of the 

Refuges. The Wilderness classification applied by Congress to 

the 503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness withdrew the area 

permanently from oil and gas leasing. The other management 

categories applied to the Refuges------Minimal Management and 

Moderate Management------preclude oil and gas leasing. An 

amendment to the Conservation Plan and a compatibility 

determination would be required prior to changing the 

management category to Intensive Management, which would 

be necessary before any leasing program could be implemented. 

Although there are no indications that economically recoverable 

volumes of oil and gas will be discovered on the Alaska 

Peninsula (Banet 2000), if a national need for oil and gas 

development were to arise, areas with high potential could be 

reexamined. 

Mineral exploration could be allowed within the Refuges if 

conducted under a special-use permit. Only exploration 

conducted by or for the Department of the Interior would be 

authorized within the Becharof Wilderness Area. No requests to 

conduct exploration on the Refuges are anticipated; thus, effects 

on economic development would be negligible. 

Conclusions—Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

economy, village lifestyles, and visitor attraction to the region. 

Therefore, how Refuges management affects and contributes to 

the health of fish populations is perhaps its most important 

economic role. Management of the Refuges under the Minimal 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 

4-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Management category, coupled with its participation in fisheries 

management activities, has maintained fish habitat in highquality condition and is not a limiting factor for fish populations. 

The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and support of human 

uses and economic development will continue under current 

management. 

Subsistence Uses 

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

between 188 and 814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually 

(Fall and Morris 1987), which demonstrates the subsistence 

lifestyle present in the region. 

Fish—Eight of the communities rely primarily on fish, and four 

rely more on land mammals, but both sources of food are 

important to all communities. Current refuge management is 

designed to maintain and protect fish habitat. Because 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing regulations 

are decisions made by entities other than the Refuges, 

continuation of existing management is expected to have little 

effect on use of fish species for subsistence. 

Caribou and Moose—As suggested by the biological effects 

analyses, the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd would be 

expected to continue to decline at least to carrying capacity of 

available habitat. The biological analyses did not, however, 

produce any estimate of harvestable surplus within any time 

frame, making it impossible to specify any effects on 

subsistence uses. 

Conflict with Recreational Uses—The Refuges plan to continue 

monitoring at Becharof Outlet and to increase the level of 

public-use monitoring at other locations on the Refuges as 

needed. This more proactive, systematic approach to monitoring 

would allow the Refuges to detect and fully understand threats 

to subsistence uses before they became substantial impacts. 

Because subsistence use is a purpose of the Refuges, it would be 

given priority over recreational uses if conflicts were identified 

and regulatory actions warranted. 

Conclusions—Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects on subsistence that proposed actions on Federal 

lands would have (see Section 4.8). Alternative 3 complements 

and sustains the Refuges’ purpose and objectives of providing a 

subsistence opportunity to rural residents. The most important 

issue for subsistence users is the decline of the caribou herd. 

The main variable affecting future use and access would likely 

be Alaska Board of Game and Federal Subsistence Board 

regulations made in response to changes in animal populations, 
Alternative 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-37 

rather than actions taken by the Refuges under the Plan. The 

biological analyses did not produce any estimate of harvestable 

surplus of caribou within any time frame because future herd 

size and composition cannot be predicted from available 

information, thus making it impossible to specify any effects on 

subsistence uses. 

Recreational Uses 

Under Alternative 3, the primary recreational uses of the 

Refuges would continue, for the foreseeable future, to be guided 

and unguided recreational fishing and hunting. 

Effects on Recreational Hunting—Guided use would continue to 

be regulated by both the State of Alaska and the Service. 

Existing policies would remain, and existing trends would be 

expected to continue. The existing opportunities for guided 

recreational hunting would remain. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing—Recreation quality at more 

popular sites appears to be maintained by voluntary efforts of 

guides and air taxis; if one planned fishing site is occupied, the 

transporter can try another location. This arrangement is not 

guaranteed to continue to be effective, especially if use levels 

increase and guided and unguided anglers compete more for 

prime locations and opportunities. 

During 1998 and 1999, angler use of air taxis increased, with 80 

trips in 1998 and 84 trips in 1999. Without limits on air taxis or 

recreational anglers, increases in unguided recreational fishing 

levels are likely to continue, which could lead to crowding at 

some popular areas that are most likely the same areas 

frequented by guided recreational anglers. Increased 

monitoring of recreational fishing, both guided and unguided, 

will allow the Refuges to identify, before crowding and on-theground conflicts occur, times and areas where use patterns may 

be reducing quality of the angling experience. If necessary, 

special use permits could be modified, and educational efforts 

and regulations could be developed to address these issues. 

Limits on access to refuge recreation opportunities would be 

undertaken only as a last resort. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality—Other opportunities for recreation would not be 

affected, except for prohibition of helicopter landings for 

recreational activities. In reality, this may not be a great change 

from current conditions in which special-use permits are 

required and the activity must be determined compatible with 

refuge goals and purposes before it can be allowed. No requests 

for special-use permits for recreational helicopter landings have 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 

4-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

been approved on the Refuges. Prohibition of helicopters would 

eliminate the risks of impacts from helicopter use described 

under Alternative 1 (Section 4.2). 

Under Alternative 3, the Service would collect additional data 

about recreation experiences, satisfaction with guides, and other 

information that provides a more complete profile of recreation 

opportunities on the Refuges. Thus, aspects of recreation------such 

as changes in the quality of the experience------would be 

detectable in a systematic manner. 

Although the Refuges have conducted some studies of use, such 

as the Becharof Outlet conflict study in 1999 and 2000 and the 

sporadic creel censuses, there has been no systematic program, 

other than aerial surveys, for monitoring use. Given the 

generally stable trends in use patterns, the absence of a more 

rigorous program to monitor recreation opportunities and 

quality, or the use of site-specific management objectives in 

general, does not appear to have resulted in significant impacts 

to recreation opportunities. 

Increased monitoring will expand the Refuges’ ability to know 

when more site-specific management goals and management 

are needed. Over the long term, if the quality of opportunities 

on the Refuges appears to be declining or has the potential to do 

so, the Refuges will be aware of the causes and effects of 

changes to thus facilitate responding before losses occur. 

Keeping track of recreation quality and use patterns will be 

especially important at popular locations for recreational fishing 

(e.g., the Ugashik Narrows). Under this alternative, the 

increased law-enforcement presence in the field could enhance 

this monitoring and increase the effectiveness of existing 

management. 

If such monitoring of use does find evidence of significant 

conflict among user groups and/or crowding on Refuges lands 

or waters, the Refuges would work with visitors to address the 

problems. It appears more likely that issues could initially be 

social, rather than related to impacts to fish or wildlife 

populations. The Refuges could take actions to address issues 

such as crowding and resulting declines in the quality of 

recreation at the site. The increased monitoring effort could 

allow the Refuges to deal with the issues effectively and 

efficiently, rather than passing regulations or imposing limits 

based on limited information. The Refuges could try to address 

the problem in partnership with the state and other entities, 

without regulating recreation access to refuge lands or waters; 

such regulation could be considered, however, if other methods 

(e.g., public education) were not effective. 
Alternative 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-39 

4.4.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

This alternative contains no actions that could change, directly 

or indirectly, biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management guidelines contained in 

Chapter 2 are designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. Recreation use data from guides 

and air taxis do not suggest any consistent increases in 

Wilderness use levels that could pose a concern for 

opportunities for solitude. 

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects 

As with Alternative 1, no major development actions within the 

next 15 to 20 years located on or off the Refuges have been 

identified as having potential to impact refuge resources. While 

two road corridors have been identified that could bisect the 

Refuges, any plans for development are beyond the planning 

horizon, and their development is speculative at this time. If one 

or more of the transportation corridors were developed, there 

could be cumulative long-term effects from the road structure 

itself and from its use. Consequences could include the 

following: 

 Destruction of habitat along the road corridor 

 Potential spills of fuels and other pollutants 

 Changes in drainage patterns with resulting changes in 

vegetation 

 Siltation of adjacent streams and wetlands with resulting 

changes in aquatic ecosystems 

 Possible introduction of invasive species 

The Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal hunters and 

anglers access to the road corridor and to adjacent areas that 

could be then reached by jet boats brought in by trailer to 

streams crossing the roadway. Additional pressures on local fish 

and game populations could result. Traffic along the road could 

also disturb wildlife such as nesting birds and migrating 

caribou. 

4.5 Relationship Between ShortTerm Uses of 

the Environment and LongTerm Productivity 

Under all alternatives, including the Service’s preferred 

alternative, the primary short-term uses of the Refuges would 

be subsistence and recreation. Monitoring and regulation of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-40 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

harvested fish and wildlife populations by ADF&G and the 

Service will 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. 

4.6 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 tradeoffs (opportunities forgone) in the use and management of 

natural resources. Irretrievable commitment of resources can 

include the expenditure of funds, loss of production, or 

restrictions 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 irretrievable commit resources 

occurs 

 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 development would not be allowed within the 

Refuges under any of the management categories used within 

the Refuge. Therefore these resources could not be irreversibly 

committed unless the Plan was amended. Future decisions on 

the location or development of any road within the Refuges 

would take into account the cultural resources and could 

minimize or eliminate the possibility of losing those resources. 

Wilderness and river-related values are protected by the 

management categories applied to the Refuges and would not 

be irreversibly lost or irreversibly committed under any of the 

alternatives. 

Limits on the level of guided use within the refuge would be an 

example of an irretrievable commitment of resources. None of 

the alternatives proposes any change in the level of guided use 

being provided on the Refuges. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-41 

4.7 Environmental Justice 

Federal agencies are 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; 1994, amended 1995). 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 the 

Refuges are rural, contain many low-income households, and 

maintain a subsistence lifestyle. The nature of the proposed 

action------revision of the Conservation Plan for the Refuges------is 

very different from proposals often associated with 

environmental justice issues (e.g., siting of polluting facilities). 

None of the alternatives proposed in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement would place a disproportionate weight of any 

adverse effects on low-income or minority populations. 

Maintaining high-quality habitat and healthy populations of fish 

and wildlife, maintaining water quality, and providing 

opportunities for subsistence are legislated purposes of the 

Refuges. Thus, 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 would favor activities or projects that could 

direct negative impacts toward low-income or minority 

populations. 

4.8 Section 810 Evaluation 

Section 810 of 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 will 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 3 of this document describes current uses of the 

Refuges for subsistence, and Chapter 4 describes anticipated 

effects of each alternative on those subsistence uses. Because 

this is a long-range, programmatic plan that describes possible 

changes in management direction for the Refuges, it does not 

propose any site-specific development nor allowing of any new 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-42 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

types of uses or development that could pose risks to 

subsistence uses of the Refuges. 

None of the alternatives contains actions that could reduce 

subsistence uses because of direct impacts on the resource or 

adverse impacts on habitat or that could increase competition 

for resources. None of the alternatives could change the 

availability of resources by altering their distribution, 

migration, or location. The general goal is to maintain and/or 

restore habitat and maintain populations in their natural 

diversity. 

Finally, the alternatives could not reduce, by either physical or 

legal barriers, subsistence uses because of limitations on access 

to harvestable resources. Adoption of any of the alternatives 

could not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses. 

4.9 Summary Comparison of 

Environmental Effects 

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the environmental effects 

described in this chapter. 

4.9.1 Definition of Terms 

The following definitions (as they relate to biological 

resources) are important to understand the categories 

described in Table 4-1: 

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). 

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; however, habitat quality 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). 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-43 

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 

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 

Likelihood—Some discussion about the likelihood of a 

particular effect to occur is necessary (e.g., some actions have 

the potential to produce a moderate effect, but the likelihood of 

that effect occurring is low) 

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. 

Table 4-1. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Caribou and Moose short term = Minor effects 

from disturbance associated 

with helicopters (low 

likelihood) 

short term = Same as 

Alternative 1 

short term = 

Negligible; use of 

helicopters for 

recreation access not 

allowed

long term = Existing 

Wilderness designation 

provides legislative 

protection for about oneeighth of caribou summer 

grounds on the Refuges.

long term = Same as 

Alternative 1 

long term = Same as 

Alternative 1 with the 

addition that 

restriction of 

helicopter access 

could decrease 

disturbance 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-44 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Bears short term = Minor effects 

from disturbance associated 

with helicopters (low 

likelihood) 

short term = Same as 

Alternative 1

short term = 

Negligible; recreation 

use of helicopters for 

recreation access not 

allowed

 long term = Risk of habitat 

fragmentation in future 

remains unchanged.

long term =Same as 

Alternative 1 

long term = Same as 

Alternative 1

Wolves short term = Minor effects 

from disturbance associated 

with helicopters (medium 

likelihood) 

short term = Same as 

Alternative 1 

short term = 

Negligible; use of 

helicopters for 

recreation access not 

allowed 

long term = Negligible long term = Negligible long term = 

Negligible

Bird Colonies short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

short term = 

Negligible 

long term = Negligible long term = Negligible long term = 

Negligible; some 

additional protection 

because use of 

helicopters for 

recreation access not 

allowed

Birds in General short term and long term 

effects = Minor effects are 

likely (high likelihood) 

associated with disturbance 

from helicopter access. 

Moderate effects from 

helicopter disturbance could 

be experienced in some 

instances (medium 

likelihood) 

short term and long 

term effects = Minor 

effects are likely (high 

likelihood) associated 

with disturbance from 

helicopter access. 

Moderate effects from 

helicopter disturbance 

could be experienced in 

some instances 

(medium likelihood). 

short term = 

Negligible 

 long term = 

Negligible 

No additional protection for 

marbled godwits

Same as 1 Same as 1

Fish short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

short term = 

Negligible 

long term = Minor (high 

likelihood) to moderate 

effects (medium likelihood) 

from potential increased 

fishing pressure associated 

with new access provided by 

helicopter use 

long term = Same as 

Alternative 1 

long term = 

Negligible 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-45 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Habitat short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

short term = 

Negligible 

long term = Moderate if 

invasive species are 

introduced (low likelihood); 

other actions would have a 

negligible effect. 

long term = Same as 

Alternative 1, except 

sensitive habitats 

would be pre-identified 

and excluded from new 

helicopter activity 

long term = 

Negligible 

Refuges Contribution 

to the Local 

Economy 

Refuges contribute 1,433 

local jobs and $70 million in 

income annually to the local 

economy (1997 estimate), 

nearly all of which is support 

of the commercial fishery by 

ensuring the health of 

salmon-spawning and -

rearing habitat.

Negligible change from 

Alternative 1 because 

fish habitat would 

continue to be 

protected.

Same as Alternative 2

Economic 

Development 

Refuges are willing partners 

in gateway community 

projects. 

Refuges would be 

willing partners in 

gateway community 

projects. 

Refuges would be 

willing partners in 

gateway community 

projects. 

Subsistence 

Resources and 

Habitat 

No actions proposed that 

would lead to any significant 

restrictions. Sporadic nature 

of monitoring of conflicts 

between recreation use and 

subsistence use and 

competition could increase 

risk of impacts in the future. 

No actions proposed 

that would lead to any 

significant restrictions. 

Increase in monitoring 

would reduce risk of 

conflicts and 

competition from 

recreational uses over 

the long term. 

No actions proposed 

that would lead to any 

significant 

restrictions. Increase 

in monitoring would 

reduce risk of 

conflicts and 

competition from 

recreational uses over 

the long term. 

Availability of 

Subsistence 

Resources 

No actions proposed that 

would lead to any significant 

restrictions. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Access to 

Subsistence 

Resources 

No actions proposed that 

would lead to any significant 

restrictions. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Recreational Hunting The existing opportunities 

for recreational hunting 

would remain. Rather than 

actions taken by the Refuges 

under the Plan, the main 

variable affecting future use 

and access would be Alaska 

Board of Game and Federal 

Subsistence Board 

regulations made in response 

to changes in animal 

populations. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-46 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreational Fishing Existing opportunities for 

recreational fishing would 

remain. Without regulation 

of unguided use or consistent 

monitoring of resource and 

social conditions and the 

quality of the experience, it 

is possible that existing highquality opportunities may 

decline over time at popular 

locations. 

Existing opportunities 

for recreational fishing 

would remain. 

Increased monitoring 

of guided and unguided 

recreational fishing use 

would allow the 

Refuges to identify------

before crowding, onthe-ground conflicts, or 

resource damage lower 

recreation quality------

times and areas where 

use patterns may be 

reducing quality. 

Same as Alternative 2 

Wilderness Values 

and Character 

Current social and biological 

conditions would be 

maintained in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. Guidelines 

for Minimal Management 

(which could be changed in 

subsequent Plan revisions) 

would maintain the natural 

values and wild character of 

nearly all of the remainder of 

the Refuges. Opportunities 

for solitude could be 

compromised in some areas 

over time. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

with the additional 

protection, because of 

restriction of 

helicopter use, to 

opportunities to 

experience wilderness 

values and character 

in areas not officially 

designated as 

Wilderness. 

4.10 References Cited 

Archibald, A.R., R. Ellis, and A.N. Ellis. 1987. Responses of 

grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the 

Kimsquit River valley, British Columbia. In 

proceedings from International Conference on 

Bear Research and Management. 7:251-257. 

Banet, A. 2000. “Draft Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National 

Wildlife Refuges Oil and Gas Assessment.” U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Fall, J.A. 1993. “An overview of subsistence uses of the 

Northern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd by 

communities of game management units 9C and 

9E.” Technical Paper. No. 224. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 4-47 

Fall, J.A., and J.M. Morris. 1987. “Fish and Wildlife Harvests in 

Pilot Point, Ugashik, Port Heiden, Alaska 

Peninsula, Southwest Alaska, 1986-1987.” 

Technical Paper. No. 158. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence. 

Goldsmith, O.S., A. Hill, T. Hill, M. Markowski, and R. 

Unsworth. 1998a. “Economic assessment of 

Bristol Bay area National Wildlife Refuges: 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof, Izembek, Togiak.” 

Final Draft report prepared for the Division of 

Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C.(Contract #14-480009-95-005, 

December 3, 1998) 

Goldsmith, O.S., A. Hill, and T. Hull. 1998b. “Economic 

Assessment of Bristol Bay area national wildlife 

refuges: Alaska Peninsula/Becharof, Izembek, 

and Togiak.” Final draft report prepared for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

December 3, 1998. Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska 

Anchorage; Marla Markowski and Robert 

Unsworth, Industrial Economics, Inc., 

Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Contract #14-

48009-95-005) 

HDR Alaska. 1999. “Lake and Peninsula Borough overall 

economic development plan.” Final. Anchorage, 

Alaska: HDR Alaska, Inc. 

Herrero, S. 1985. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. 

Piscataway, New Jersey: Winchester Press. 

Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. 

Barker. 1992. “Examination of the effects of 

disturbance on birds with reference to its 

importance in ecological assessments.” Journal 

of Environmental Management 36: 253-286. 

Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. 

Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 

Krieg, T.M., J.A. Fall, C.J. Utermohle, and L. Brown. 1998. 

“Subsistence harvests and uses of caribou, 

moose, and brown bear in 12 Alaska Peninsula 

communities, 1995/96 and 1996/97.” Technical 

Paper. No. 244. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-48 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Miller, S.D., and M.A. Chihuly. 1987. “Characteristics of 

nonsport brown bear deaths in Alaska.” 

International Conference of Bear Research and 

Management 7: 51-58. 

Smit, C.J., and G.J.M. Viser. 1993. “Effects of disturbances on 

shorebirds: a summary of existing knowledge 

from Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta areas.” 

Wader Study Group Bulletin 68: 6-19. 

Talbot, S.A., wildlife biologist for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2001. Personal communication to C. Ardizzone, 

botanist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural 

Resources Division. October 14, 2001. 

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A. 

Thomasma. 1994. “Gray wolf response to refuge 

boundaries and roads in Alaska.” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 22: 61-68. 

USDA FS. 1996. “Helicopter landings in wilderness draft 

environmental impact statement.” R10-MB-318b. 

April 1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska. 

USFWS. 1994. “Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Final Public Use Management 

Plan.” Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

USFWS. 1999. “Beringia seabird colony catalog.” Computer 

database. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management. 

Walker, R., C. Olnes, K. Sundet, A. Howe, and A. Bingham. 

2003. “Participation, Catch, and Harvest in 

Alaska Sport Fisheries During 2000.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Westbrooks, R.G. 1998. Invasive Plants, Changing the 

Landscape of America: Fact Book. Washington, 

D.C.: Federal Interagency Committee for the 

Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 

Woods, T.A.N., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. 

Memorandum to ARD ES/Fisheries, Juneau, 

Alaska, Fish and Wildlife Service Office. Subject: 

“Invasive species.” 

Wrede, W., Chief, Planning and Administration, DOT/PF, 

Central Region. 2000. Letter to J. Tolley, Lake 

and Peninsula Borough Manager.