Chapter 5 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-1 

5. Evaluation of the Alternatives 

5.1 Evaluation Criteria 

The four alternatives were evaluated against six criteria based 

on existing policy and law. These criteria were selected as being 

the most important factors to be used in selecting the Preferred 

Alternative. Following are the criteria, in order of importance: 

1. How well does the alternative satisfy the purposes of the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges (Refuges) and 

other provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA)? 

2. How well does the alternative satisfy the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System)? 

3. How well does the alternative contribute to meeting the 

goals of the Refuges? 

4. How well does the alternative address the issues and 

concerns identified during scoping? 

5. How well does the alternative maintain biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the 

refuge- and ecosystem-scale and contribute to managing 

the Refuges as part of an ecosystem? 

6. How well does the alternative agree with Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) management 

plans for the area? 

The differences among the alternatives are relatively small. 

Each action alternative (Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a) varies slightly 

from the current management direction (Alternative 1), and 

differences in meeting the evaluation criteria therefore are 

slight. Alternatives that would clearly not meet the purposes of 

the Refuges or System mission were not developed. Scoping did 

not identify any major issues that would result in significant 

changes in management direction for the Refuges. 

The most important criterion used in evaluating the alternatives 

is the degree to which the alternatives achieve the purposes of 

the Refuges as mandated by ANILCA. In Chapter 4, we 

describe the physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of 

each of the alternatives and provide a summary of the projected 

changes. 

5.2 Response to Refuge Purposes 

All alternatives conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats in their natural diversity, preserve water quality and 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives 

5-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

quantity, meet international treaty obligations, and provide 

opportunities for continued subsistence uses. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a increase the amount of land in the 

Minimal Management category by 5,000 acres and provide 

slightly more conservation of natural habitats and wildland 

values than do Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Opportunity for wilderness experience is a supplemental 

purpose for wildlife refuges that contain Congressionally 

designated Wilderness. The Becharof Wilderness has an 

additional purpose of maintaining the wilderness resource. All 

alternatives maintain the wilderness character of the Becharof 

Wilderness. 

5.3 Response to National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission 

All alternatives were developed with the Refuge System mission 

in mind and all contribute to fulfilling that mission. The Refuges 

play a part in supporting migratory birds, salmon, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and marine mammals that migrate far from the 

Refuges and even from the state. Many other species such as 

brown bears, caribou, and moose use the Refuges for part of the 

year and migrate to other areas seasonally. 

5.4 Response to Refuge Goals 

Goals and objectives for the Refuges are found in Chapter 2, 

section 2.2. The original Plans (USFWS 1985a, 1985b) did not 

develop goals for management; because Alternative 1 is based 

on those Plans, it does not have goals for management. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a provide goals for refuge management. 

This is shown by additional direction for monitoring resources 

and public uses. 

5.5 Response to Issues 

5.5.1 Access to Remote or Sensitive Areas 

All alternatives would maintain current means and methods of 

accessing the Refuges. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3a may allow, on a 

case-by-case basis and through issuance of special use permits, 

helicopter access for access for recreation purposes to some 

non-Wilderness parts of the Refuges, where such access is 

compatible with refuge purposes. This could increase human 

activity in localized areas and could disrupt wildlife within the 

helicopter flight path. Alternative 2 could allow helicopter 

access for recreation use after an evaluation of impacts and only 

in areas that are not identified as sensitive. Alternative 3 would 

prohibit use of helicopters for recreation access on the Refuges. 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-3 

5.5.2 User Conflicts 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a provide additional direction to the 

biologists and public-use specialists regarding monitoring of 

Refuges resources and public uses. Improved understanding of 

the dynamics of fish and wildlife resources and the interactions 

of human users and visitors with those resources would provide 

managers better tools to manage the resources and to respond 

to conflicts in a timely manner. 

5.6 Biological Integrity and 

Ecosystem Management 

The Service policy on maintaining the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System ecosystem provides refuge managers with 

direction to follow while achieving refuge purposes. The policy 

also provides an evaluation process for analyzing refuges and, 

through the planning and compatibility processes, for setting 

appropriate management direction to maintain and, where 

appropriate, restore biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. 

Each of the alternatives provides management direction that 

maintains the biotic and abiotic conditions on the Refuges within 

historic ranges. Natural processes are the dominant force at 

work within the Refuges. 

Human activities are predominantly related to hunting and 

fishing, managed by state regulations and Federal Subsistence 

Board regulations. 

Ecosystem management is more a way of thinking than it is an 

end product. It embodies the concepts of a constantly changing 

landscape in which humans play a part, influence the ecosystem, 

and have a role in decisions affecting the land. To understand 

the effects of an action, the manager must look at it from 

different scales, both larger and smaller than the refuge. 

Ecosystem management requires the manager to look at the 

long-term effects of actions and think in terms of years and 

decades. 

Ecosystem goals for the ecoregions encompassing the Refuges 

have not been developed. When they are developed, it will be 

possible to show the role the Refuges play in contributing to 

meeting those ecosystems goals. 

All alternatives maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuges and integrate scientific 

knowledge into its management. Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a 
Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives 

5-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

provide for obtaining a higher level of scientific knowledge and 

understanding than does Alternative 1. 

5.7 Agreement with ADF&G 

Management Plans 

The ADF&G management plans and objectives for fish and 

wildlife are discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2.3. All alternatives 

acknowledge the department’s role in managing fish and wildlife 

on national wildlife refuges consistent with the Master 

Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B). 

Wilderness designation places a higher level of protection on 

fish and wildlife resources than is available through 

administrative designation. It also places a higher level of 

responsibility on the refuge manager to analyze activities that 

may conflict with Wilderness management objectives and to 

restrict or prohibit those activities that may not be compatible 

with Wilderness management. Some fish or wildlife 

enhancement activities—for example, those that would require 

permanent structures—may be precluded in designated 

Wilderness areas; to date, designation of the Becharof 

Wilderness has not precluded any ADF&G activities. Any 

future requests for enhancement activities or structures would 

be evaluated consistent with laws, regulations, policy, and the 

management direction in the Conservation Plan. 

5.8 References Cited 

USFWS. 1985a. Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental 

Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

426 pp. 

USFWS. 1985b. Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental 

Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.