Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-1 

1. Introduction 

This document presents four alternatives for revising the 

comprehensive conservation plan for management of the 

Ugashik and Chignik units of the Alaska Peninsula National 

Wildlife Refuge, the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, and the 

Seal Cape area of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. 

These units, all managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

office in King Salmon, are covered in this document and will be 

referred to as the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges or 

simply as “the Refuges.” 

The Refuges comprise approximately 4.2 million acres of the 

Alaska Peninsula (Figure 1-1). The northern boundary of the 

Becharof Refuge lies approximately 10 miles south of King 

Salmon and extends south past Becharof Lake, where it meets 

the northern boundary of the Ugashik Unit of the Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge. The Alaska Peninsula Refuge stretches for 

nearly 340 miles along the peninsula and is divided into four 

management units. The Ugashik and Chignik units are 

separated by the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. 

The Seal Cape area is part of the Alaska Maritime Refuge. The 

most southern portions of the Alaska Peninsula National 

Wildlife Refuge—the Pavlof and North Creek units—are 

managed by the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge; they are not 

covered by this revised plan. 

Figure 1-1 Location of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges 

When this revised comprehensive conservation plan 

(“Conservation Plan” or “Plan”) is finalized, it will replace the 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

management direction for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges described in the existing Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans (the Plans) adopted in 1985 for the Becharof Refuge 

(USFWS 1985) and in 1987 for the Alaska Peninsula Refuge 

(USFWS 1987). 

This chapter provides background information that establishes 

the framework used to develop this document. Sections 1.1, 1.2, 

and 1.3 describe why the Service is revising the existing 

management plans and provides information on the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the laws, policies, and guidance 

that set the stage for management direction on the Refuges. 

Section 1.4 describes the purposes, vision, and goals that are 

specific to the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. A brief 

overview of the Refuges and of their special values is provided 

in sections 1.5 and 1.6, while a more detailed discussion of the 

Refuges is provided in Chapter 3. 

At section 1.7, the focus of this chapter changes to provide 

information about the steps that this planning process followed 

as we used public comments to develop the final Plan and 

environmental impact statement. Section 1.8 describes how we 

determined which issues would be addressed in this plan, and 

section 1.9 describes the significant planning issues that are 

addressed in the alternatives: recreation access and managing 

conflicts among user groups. Each of the issues is described in 

greater detail and is accompanied by a brief summary of the 

types of comments that we received, which show that people 

believe there are different approaches for addressing these 

issues. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for 

Action 

The 1985 and 1987 Final Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

provided broad policy guidance and established long-term goals 

and objectives for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) 

management of the Refuges. The Plans are dynamic documents 

that need to be reviewed and updated periodically. As directed 

by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA) and the Refuge Administration Act, as amended, we 

are revising the Plans to guide the management of the Refuges 

for the next 15 years. Revising the Plans allows us to 

incorporate changing public interests and new scientific 

information. The revised Plan will also update the public-use 

management plan prepared for the Refuges in 1994 and will 

consolidate management direction from various plans into this 

one plan. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-3 

In general, a comprehensive conservation plan serves to do the 

following: 

 Ensure that the purposes of the Refuges and the mission of 

the Refuge System are being fulfilled 

 Ensure that national policy direction is incorporated into the 

management of the Refuges 

 Ensure that opportunities are available for interested 

parties to participate in the development of management 

direction 

 Provide a systematic process for making and documenting 

refuge decisions and establish broad management strategies 

for refuge management programs and activities 

 Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments 

This document includes a final environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges Plan. It 

describes current management and three alternatives for 

managing the Refuges, including the Service’s preferred 

alternative. The document includes a description of the existing 

environment on the Refuges and an assessment of the effects of 

implementing each of the alternatives. Each alternative 

provides choices for addressing management concerns and for 

resolving public issues. 

Following a public review of the Draft EIS and Plan (released in 

February 2004), the Service evaluated comments, made 

revisions as necessary, and created a new alternative (3a). 

1.2 Planning Context 

The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges are part of a 

national system of more than 545 refuges. The Service places an 

emphasis on managing individual refuges in a manner that 

reflects the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) mission. 

As a result, the revised Plan must also contribute to meeting the 

overall System mission and goals. 

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

Refuge System 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. In addition to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, the Service also operates national fish 

hatcheries, fishery resource offices, and ecological services field 

stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees 

the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program that 

distributes to state fish and wildlife agencies hundreds of 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting 

equipment. 

As of 2004, the National Wildlife Refuge System comprised 

more than 95 million acres of federal lands, which encompass 

more than 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small 

wetlands, and other special management areas. The areas 

within the System are located in all 50 states and the territories 

of the United States. The System was created to conserve fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. This conservation mission 

includes providing Americans with opportunities to participate 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing 

and hunting, on System lands and to better appreciate the value 

of and need for fish and wildlife conservation. 

There are 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska (Figure 1-2), 

which contain a wide range of habitats with varied terrain that 

includes mountains, glaciers, tundra, grasslands, wetlands, 

lakes, woodlands, and rivers. Together, the 16 refuges comprise 

76.8 million acres and constitute about 80 percent of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Figure 1-2 The 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-5 

Service and System Missions 

The missions of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System are as follows: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended).

Principles of Refuge Management 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended, states that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill 

both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which the individual refuge was established. It also requires 

that any use of a refuge be a compatible use: a use that will not 

materially interfere with nor detract from, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, 

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

refuge. 

The 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act identified a number of principles to guide 

management of the Refuge System. They include the following: 

 Conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within 

the System 

 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the System 

 Coordinate, interact, and cooperate with adjacent 

landowners and state fish and wildlife agencies 

 Maintain adequate water quantity and water quality to meet 

refuge and System purposes and acquire necessary water 

rights 

 Maintain hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education 

as the priority general public uses of the System 

 Provide opportunities for compatible priority wildlifedependent public uses within the System 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Provide enhanced consideration for priority wildlifedependent public uses over other general public uses in 

planning and management 

 Provide increased opportunities for families to experience 

priority general public uses, especially traditional outdoor 

activities such as fishing and hunting 

 Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in 

each refuge 

In order to maintain the health of individual refuges, and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole, managers must 

anticipate future conditions. Managers must endeavor to avoid 

adverse impacts and take positive actions to conserve and 

protect refuge resources. Effective management also depends 

on acknowledging larger systems and resource relationships. 

Refuge managers will work together with partners—including 

other refuges, federal and state agencies, tribal and other 

governments, Native organizations and entities, and 

nongovernmental organizations and groups—to protect, 

conserve, enhance, or restore all native fish, wildlife (including 

invertebrates), plants, and their habitats. 

Refuge Establishment 

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter established the 1,157,000-acre 

Becharof National Wildlife Monument with Presidential 

Proclamation 4613. The monument was established, from lands 

in the public domain, to protect the area, notably the unique 

brown bear denning islands in the Island Arm of Becharof 

Lake. 

In 1980, Section 302 of ANILCA established the Alaska 

Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge and changed the Becharof 

National Wildlife Monument into a national wildlife refuge as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Section 303(1) of 

ANILCA created the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

by redesignating 11 pre-existing refuges as units of the new 

refuge and adding other public lands on island, islets, rocks, 

reefs, spires, and designated capes and headlands in the coastal 

areas and adjacent seas of Alaska. 

In 1983, the Service decided to manage the Ugashik and 

Chignik units of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge, the 9,900-acre 

Seal Cape area of the Alaska Maritime Refuge, and the 

Becharof Refuge as a “complex” because they shared resources 

and resource issues. Distance and weather create barriers to 

managing the Pavlof and North Creek units from the King 

Salmon office; management of these units was shifted to the 

Izembek Refuge headquartered in Cold Bay. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-7 

1.3 Legal and Policy Guidance 

and State Coordination 

Management of the Refuges is dictated, in large part, by the 

legislation that created the units and by the purposes and goals 

described later in this chapter. However, other laws, 

regulations, and policies and agreements with the State of 

Alaska also guide the management of the Refuges. This section 

identifies the acts and the policy guidance that are integral in 

the development of this Plan. 

1.3.1 Legal Guidance 

Operation and management of refuges throughout the System 

are influenced by a wide array of laws, treaties, and executive 

orders. Among the most important are the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act; the Refuge 

Recreation Act; the Endangered Species Act; and the 

Wilderness Act. These acts are described briefly in Appendix A, 

along with other acts and legal guidance that influence 

management of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

For national wildlife refuges in Alaska, ANILCA, as amended, 

provides key management direction. ANILCA sets forth the 

purposes of the Refuges, defines provisions for planning and 

management, and authorizes studies and programs related to 

wildlife and wildland resources, subsistence opportunities, and 

recreation and economic uses. ANILCA also provides specific 

direction for the management of designated Wilderness Areas 

and Wilderness Study Areas in the state of Alaska. How 

ANILCA influences management of the Refuges is described 

throughout this document. 

1.3.2 Policy Guidance 

Programmatic guidance and policy documents provide 

additional direction for the management of national wildlife 

refuges throughout the System. These documents include the 

following: 

 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual chapters 

 Director’s orders 

 National Policy Issuances 

 Handbooks 

 Director’s memoranda 

 Regional directives 

Although it is not practical to provide information about all 

these documents in this Plan, they are critical to management of 

the Refuges. Much of the management direction described in 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2, and throughout this Plan, is influenced by guidance 

from these programmatic and policy documents. 

Several of these documents direct that an ecosystem approach 

be used in refuge management. In other words, we must 

consider the health of the entire ecosystem when managing the 

Refuges. This concept requires close coordination with others. 

Appendix A provides a brief description of this concept and of 

several of the national and regional management plans and 

programs that were considered during the development of this 

Plan. Other key policies such as the compatibility policy are 

described in later chapters as they provide guidance in this 

Plan. 

1.3.3 State of Alaska Coordination 

The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has the 

primary responsibility for managing fish and resident wildlife 

populations in the state. On refuge lands, the Service and 

ADF&G share a concern for all fish and wildlife resources and 

their habitats, and both agencies are engaged in extensive fish 

and wildlife conservation, management, and protection 

programs. In 1982, the Service and ADF&G signed a Master 

Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix B) that defines 

the cooperative management roles of each agency and sets the 

framework for cooperation between the two agencies. 

The State of Alaska establishes fishing, hunting, and trapping 

regulations throughout the state at the direction of the Alaska 

Boards of Fisheries and Game. These regulations apply to 

federal public lands. If Service restrictions on hunting were 

needed, they would be done through a rule-making or through 

closures or restrictions under 50 CFR 36.41 (2003). The state is 

divided into 26 game management units (GMUs); most of these 

are further divided into subunits. Management objectives are 

developed for populations within the GMUs. All the Refuges 

lands lie within GMU 9E, with the exception of the Big Creek 

drainage on the northern end of Becharof Refuge, which is in 

GMU 9C (see Figure 1-3). The ADF&G management objectives 

for big-game and fish populations on the Refuges are described 

in Chapter 3. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-9 

Figure 1-3 State of Alaska game management units 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its 

divisions are also key management partners. DNR manages all 

state-owned land, water, and surface and subsurface resources 

except for fish and game. DNR’s Division of Mining, Land, and 

Water manages the state’s water and lands interests within the 

Refuges. Issues related to state interests will expand in the next 

10 to 15 years, especially with regard to water rights, navigable 

waters, ownership of submerged lands, and rights of way over 

refuge lands. 

Additional information about key state programs is provided in 

Appendix A. 

1.4 Refuge Purposes, Vision, 

and Goals 

1.4.1 Refuge Purposes 

The purposes of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges are 

described in Section 302(B) and Section 302(2)(B) of ANILCA. 

Purposes for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge are 

described in Section 303(1)(B). The purposes identify the 

reasons why Congress established the Refuges and the 

management priorities. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The purposes include the following (unless otherwise noted, the 

purposes apply to all units of the Refuges): 

 [Alaska Maritime] to conserve fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats in their natural diversity, including marine 

mammals, marine birds, and other migratory birds, the 

marine resources upon which they rely, bears, caribou, and 

other mammals 

 [Alaska Peninsula] to conserve fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats in their natural diversity, including brown 

bears, the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, moose, sea otters 

and other marine mammals, shorebirds and other migratory 

birds, raptors including bald eagles and peregrine falcons, 

and salmonids and other fish 

 [Becharof] to conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats in their natural diversity, including brown bears, 

salmon, migratory birds, the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, 

and marine mammals and birds 

 to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United 

States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats 

 to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set 

forth in preceding paragraphs, the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses by local residents 

 [Alaska Maritime] to provide, in a manner consistent with 

preceding paragraphs, a program of national and 

international scientific research on marine resources 

 to ensure to the maximum extent practicable and in a 

manner consistent with the purposes set forth in preceding 

text, water quality and necessary water quantity within the 

refuge 

 [Becharof Wilderness Area] to secure an enduring resource 

of wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness 

character of areas within the National Wilderness Resource 

Preservation System, and to administer this wilderness for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that 

will leave it unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. 

1.4.2 Vision Statement 

The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges will 

remain as they are today with healthy, natural 

populations of fish and wildlife living in primarily 

unaltered habitats. The Refuges will continue to 

provide local residents opportunities for subsistence 

use. The Refuges will be open to all people to engage in 

a variety of wildlife-dependent activities and to enjoy 

the spectacular setting and resources. Refuge 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-11 

management and outreach will be a model of effective 

collaboration among diverse public interests and 

public and private landowners and managers. 

1.4.3 Refuge Goals 

Goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements 

of desired future conditions that convey a purpose but do not 

define measurable units. Goals for the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges will direct work at carrying out the Refuges 

mandates and achieving the purposes defined in ANILCA. 

Objectives are more concise statements of what the Refuges 

want to achieve, how much they want to achieve, when and 

where they want to achieve it, and who will be responsible for 

the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, 

and evaluating the success of strategies. 

Strategies are specific actions, tools, techniques, or a 

combination of these elements used to meet objectives. These 

more detailed specifics are contained in various step-down plans 

(see section 6.1). 

The following goals are derived from the vision statement and 

Refuges purposes to reflect the Refuges’ contribution to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other key management 

responsibilities that stem from law and policy. Any management 

plan eventually adopted must work toward meeting all these 

goals. 

Goal 1. Ensure quantity and optimal quality of naturally 

functioning habitats available on the Refuges for fish 

and wildlife populations in perpetuity, especially for 

salmonids, migratory birds, the northern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou herd, moose, and brown bear 

Goal 2. Improve knowledge of fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats in order to conserve species in 

their natural diversity, especially those that are 

identified in the refuge purposes, have restricted 

populations, or have been identified as species or 

populations of ecological interest 

Goal 3. Provide opportunities for local residents to continue 

their subsistence use activities, consistent with the 

subsistence priority and other refuge purposes 

Goal 4. Improve baseline understanding of water resources 

on the Refuges in order to acquire and maintain the 

water quality and quantity necessary to conserve 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity 

Goal 5. Preserve and enhance, in perpetuity, wilderness 

values of designated Wilderness, consistent with the 

establishing purposes 

Goal 6. Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation, emphasizing short-term, low-density 

uses that require minimal facility development or 

habitat alteration 

Goal 7. Provide opportunities for subsistence, recreational, 

and commercial users to enjoy and benefit from 

compatible activities on the Refuges in ways that 

minimize conflicts among user groups 

Goal 8. Conduct interpretive and environmental education 

programs that increase understanding and support 

for the System; develop a sense of stewardship for 

wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment; 

and enhance visitor experiences 

Goal 9. Conserve the special geological and cultural values 

of the Refuges 

Goal 10. Provide and maintain the facilities and equipment 

necessary to ensure a safe and secure environment 

for the visiting public and Service personnel 

1.5 Refuge Overview 

1.5.1 Physical Environment 

The Alaska Peninsula is a land of towering mountains, active 

volcanoes, broad valleys, fjords, tundra, and glacially formed 

lakes. The Refuges lie along the Pacific side of the Alaska 

Peninsula, starting about 10 miles south of the Refuges 

headquarters in King Salmon and extending for approximately 

250 miles. From the coastal lowlands on the Bristol Bay side of 

the Refuges, the land rises to steep, glaciated mountains and 

volcanoes, which form the spine of the Refuges, and then 

plunges to steep cliffs and sandy beaches on the Pacific side. 

The Bristol Bay side of the Refuges consists primarily of rolling, 

moist-to-wet tundra, lakes, and wetlands. The snow-covered, 

heavily glaciated mountains of the Aleutian Range bisect the 

Refuges, with volcanic peaks more than 8,200 feet high. The 

Pacific coastline is rugged, with sea cliffs rising hundreds of feet 

from the water. Numerous streams and several large rivers 

originate in the Refuges. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-13 

Encompassing approximately 1,157,000 acres and lying directly 

south of the Katmai National Park and Preserve, the Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge is the northernmost portion of the 

Refuges. It contains Becharof Lake—which, at approximately 

300,000 acres, is the second-largest lake in Alaska and the 

largest lake in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mount 

Peulik, a 4,800-foot volcano with lava flows reaching to Becharof 

Lake, is a prominent landmark. The Ukinrek Maars1

 were 

formed during a violent eruption in 1977. 

The Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to 

and south of Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. The Ugashik 

and Chignik units encompass about 2,648,100 acres of federal 

lands. These units are separated by the Aniakchak National 

Monument and Preserve, a unit of the National Park Service. 

The culturally and economically important Ugashik Lakes are 

located in the Ugashik Unit. The area around Mother Goose 

Lake provides important habitat for moose and for a number of 

bird species. 

Several volcanoes have been active in the recent past. Mt. 

Chiginagak last erupted in 1971 and continues to vent gases and 

steam. Mt. Veniaminof, a massive stratovolcano with a base 30 

miles in diameter and summit crater 20 miles in circumference, 

erupted from 1993 to 1995 and again began showing increased 

seismic activity in 2004. Mt. Veniaminof has the most extensive 

crater glacier in the country and the only known glacier on the 

continent with an active volcanic vent in its center. In 1967, the 

(approximately) 800,000-acre Mount Veniaminof National 

Natural Landmark was designated to recognize the unique 

qualities of the area. 

The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge manages all 

federally owned islands, sea stacks, columns, islets, and rocks 

off the Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula between American 

Bay and Katmai National Park and Preserve, except within the 

boundary of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. Seal 

Cape, a 9,900-acre headland about 30 miles south of the village 

of Chignik, is the only part of the Alaska Maritime Refuge 

managed by Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. Narrow 

bays cut Seal Cape into two main arms with cliffs that rise to 

more than 2,000 feet. 

 

1

 A maar is a low-relief, broad volcanic crater formed by shallow explosive eruptions. The explosions are 

usually caused by the heating and boiling of groundwater when magma invades the groundwater table. 

Maars often fill with water to form lakes. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.5.2 Biological Resources 

The Refuges provide habitat for about 200 species of resident 

and migratory wildlife (see Appendix D for complete lists). 

Marine mammals, seabirds, and waterfowl use the coastal areas. 

Bald eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls nest on the rock pinnacles 

and spires. The tundra lowlands are host to caribou, moose, 

brown bears, wolves, tundra swans, and waterfowl. Salmon, 

trout, char, and numerous other fish species are common in the 

waterways. 

Five species of Pacific salmon spawn in the streams and lakes of 

the Refuges. These massive runs of salmon fuel the Refuges 

ecosystems by enriching freshwater streams and lakes with 

nutrients from the ocean and by providing food for wildlife. The 

salmon spawning on the Refuges are important to humans as 

well: they support subsistence users, recreational anglers, and 

the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery. 

Brown bear inhabit most of the Alaska Peninsula. Portions of 

the peninsula contain some of the highest densities of brown 

bear in Alaska. These bears feed on spawning salmon and 

forage over nearly all the Refuges lands. About 25 percent of 

the brown bear harvested in Alaska are taken from GMU 9, 

which includes the Refuges. Forty-five of the largest 100 brown 

bears harvested by hunters (Byers and Gettas 1999) were taken 

on the peninsula. 

The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd migrates from 

Port Moller to and from as far north as the Alagnak River. 

Portions of the Refuges provide important summer and winter 

habitats. Caribou are essential for the subsistence use of many 

local residents and have been an important resource for 

recreational hunters. 

Moose have been on the Alaska Peninsula since the early 1900s 

and have extended their range as far south as Pavlof Bay. 

1.5.3 Human Uses 

Local residents and visitors from across the world use Refuges 

resources for a variety of purposes. Residents of local villages 

are subsistence users of refuge resources. They emphasize use 

of wild plants, animals, and fish and use between 200 and 800 

pounds of edible wild food per person annually (Fall and Morris 

1987). The mainstay subsistence food for many communities is 

salmon, which is obtained by subsistence harvest. All five Pacific 

salmon species that spawn in Alaska are used, although 

Chinook, sockeye, and coho are preferred. Local residents also 

harvest caribou, moose, bear, and a variety of other species. 

Caribou, traditionally the most widely used of the three large 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-15 

land mammal species, have been harvested in large quantities, 

thoroughly used, and widely shared. With the decline of the 

Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, however, hunting 

opportunities have been limited, as described in more detail in 

Chapter 2. 

Recreation settings on the Refuges are remote and inaccessible 

by road, keeping levels of recreation use low. The means of 

access for most visitors is small aircraft, although some portions 

of the Refuges are accessed by boat, either from villages at the 

mouths of rivers or from the Pacific Ocean. Nearly all recreation 

visitors access the Refuges with either air-taxi operators or 

guides, although a few visitors use their own planes or boats. 

The primary recreation uses of the Refuges continue to be 

recreational fishing and hunting (both guided and unguided) 

and associated activities such as viewing wildlife and hiking. 

Interpretive and educational efforts occur primarily in King 

Salmon or in surrounding villages rather than on site because of 

the huge size of the Refuges, the lack of developed visitor 

facilities, and the dispersed public-use patterns. 

Recreation anglers fish for a variety of species, depending on 

the drainage and season. Dolly Varden char are the most 

commonly caught species, followed by Arctic char and coho and 

sockeye salmon. The Refuges also support a renowned Arctic 

grayling fishery, with several records having been set at 

Ugashik Narrows. Most of the recreation anglers practice 

catch-and-release fishing. 

The Refuges have a national and international reputation for 

recreational hunting of brown bear and moose. Caribou are also 

hunted; however, the recent decline of the caribou herd has 

resulted in a closure of caribou hunting to nonresidents, and 

issuance of a limited number of permits for local residents, until 

the herd recovers. 

1.6 Special Values 

Section 304(g) of ANILCA states that, before developing or 

revising a comprehensive conservation plan, “the special values 

of the refuge, as well as any other archaeological, cultural, 

ecological, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic, or 

wilderness value of the refuge” should be identified. The 

following discussion describes the special values that have been 

identified for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

1.6.1 Refuge Characteristics Valued by the Public 

Public comment indicated that people valued the naturalness of 

the Refuges, their wildness and wilderness qualities, wildlife in 

its natural diversity, the naturally functioning ecosystems, and 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the associated wildlife-related recreation opportunities. A 

number of people said that they valued the protection of the 

wilderness quality of lands outside of designated Wilderness. 

Public responses are described in section 1.8 and section 1.9. 

Some people also mentioned specific places on the Refuges that 

they valued. Some of these places have also been documented 

by refuge staff and other knowledgeable people. Special places 

or settings identified as special values are listed in the following 

subsections. 

1.6.2 Becharof Refuge (see Figure 1-4) 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

The Becharof Wilderness Area was established in 1980 by 

ANILCA. It is bounded on the north by the designated 

Wilderness of the Katmai National Park and Preserve and by 

the Kejulik Pinnacles, on the west by Becharof Lake, and on the 

east and south by the Pacific Ocean. 

Spectacular scenery backdrop is provided in this area by the 

rugged Kejulik Pinnacles and Aleutian Mountains, which are 

separated by the broad Kejulik River valley. The Pacific coast 

has towering cliffs where the mountains meet the sea. 

The area supports a variety of intact and functioning plant and 

animal communities. Some of the world’s largest salmon runs 

spawn in the Becharof Lake watershed, which includes much of 

this Wilderness Area. The area supports populations of brown 

bear, wolves, moose, caribou, and numerous other species. Cliffs 

on the Pacific coast support large seabird colonies. 

The Becharof Wilderness Area includes portions of areas 

described subsequently as the Becharof Ecosystem, Becharof 

and Katmai Uplands, and Seabird Colonies. See section 3.4.1 for 

further discussion. 

Becharof Ecosystem 

Becharof Lake is the second-largest lake in Alaska. The lake 

and its drainage support one of the largest sockeye salmon runs 

in Bristol Bay as well as a large suite of sockeye predators, 

including char, Arctic grayling, brown bears, cormorants, terns, 

and bald eagles. The uplands within this ecosystem provide 

habitat for moose, caribou, nesting waterfowl and songbirds, 

small mammals, and other species within a rich matrix of 

vegetation types. The outlet of Becharof Lake is popular with 

subsistence fishermen and recreation anglers. Significant 

paleontological resources have been located in the fossil-rich 

uplands, including a pliosaur (a giant marine reptile from the 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-17 

late Jurassic period) found in the Kejulik drainage. The area has 

special scenic and public-use values. 

Island Arm and Ruth Lake 

The Island Arm of Becharof Lake provides most of the 

spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye salmon within the 

Becharof drainage. Consequently, it hosts one of the highest 

densities of brown bear feeding on spawning salmon that occurs 

in Becharof Refuge and in the Ugashik Unit. Island Arm is also 

especially scenic, with its many small islands and surrounding 

mountains. Among them, Ruth Lake and River provide 

outstanding examples, even by Alaska Peninsula standards, of 

beautiful glaciated mountain drainages. 

Becharof and Katmai Uplands 

These uplands on the eastern boundary of the Refuges support 

important brown bear denning and moose winter range. The 

area is one of the most scenic parts of the refuge. 

Mt. Peulik and Gas Rocks Area 

This area is geologically significant, being one of Alaska’s most 

recent volcanically active sites. In 1977, eruption of Mt. Peulik, 

which created the Ukinrek Maars, received international 

attention. In addition to its scientific and educational values, the 

area has special scenic values. At 4,835 feet, the classic volcanic 

cone of Mt. Peulik dominates the area; nestled in its side, the 

cinder cones of Ugashik Caldera complete the unique volcanic 

landscape. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D Compre

Figure 1-4 Becharof National Wildlife Refuge 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-19

King Salmon River Drainage (Egegik) 

This drainage provides important spawning and rearing habitat 

for Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon. It also contains 

significant Dolly Varden char and Arctic grayling populations 

and the farthest-south resident population of rainbow trout on 

the Alaska Peninsula. The area provides brown bear, moose, 

and caribou habitat as well as nesting habitat for tundra swans, 

sandhill cranes, ptarmigan, and other birds. It is important for 

local subsistence and for recreational angling and hunting. 

Big Creek Drainage 

This area is important for salmon spawning and rearing and 

includes key moose, caribou, and brown bear habitats. It is one 

of the most heavily visited parts of the Refuges for subsistence 

purposes and is a favorite trapping area for local residents. 

Recreational hunting for moose and caribou is popular. 

Kanatak Village 

Two sites on the Refuges are listed in the Alaska Heritage 

Resource Survey: the village of Kanatak on Portage Bay and a 

Russian Orthodox church at the same location. In 1890, Kanatak 

had 23 residents. In the 1930s, the population expanded to 134 

because of oil exploration. This activity ceased in the 1950s, 

however, and the village was subsequently abandoned. In 1981, 

the church and much of the village were destroyed by fire. 

These sites are being studied for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Seabird Colonies 

Three large colonies of cliff-nesting seabirds in Puale and Dry 

bays host tens of thousands of murres and thousands of 

kittiwakes, as well as scores of cormorants and puffins. These 

are the only murre colonies between the Barren and Semidi 

islands, a distance of 250 miles. The cliffs provide habitat from 

which seabirds can use forage resources of the southwestern 

end of the Shelikof Strait. These colonies and the marine 

resources were impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. 

1.6.3 Alaska Peninsula Refuge 

The Alaska Peninsula Refuge (Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6) 

contains many unique geologic and scenic features. Indeed, the 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge is the most scenically diverse of the 

Bristol Bay refuges: the interplay of volcanic activity with 

shoreline erosion and glacial scour has created outstanding 

scenery. The Joint Federal–State Land Use Planning 

Commission listed Chiginagak and Veniaminof volcanoes, 

Castle Cape, and the Pacific Coast as making up one of the 

outstanding scenic complexes of Alaska (Gordon and Shaine 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1978). The Ugashik and Chignik units of the Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge also provide pristine habitat to significant fish and 

wildlife resources and offer many subsistence and recreation 

opportunities. 

Pacific Coast 

In addition to its scenic value, the spectacularly rugged Pacific 

coast—with its cliffs, bays, fjords, and streams—supports a 

diversity of fish and wildlife resources. These include nesting 

bald eagles; at least eight nesting species of seabirds, including 

puffins, cormorants, kittiwakes, and guillemots; and wintering 

waterfowl such as emperor geese, harlequin ducks, and the 

threatened Steller’s eider. 

Five species of Pacific salmon spawn in these coastal drainages, 

including the commercially significant sockeye run into the 

Chignik system. Harbor seals, sea otters, and Steller sea lions 

of the threatened western population haul out along the coast, 

and local residents report that gray whales enter the refuge 

boundary in spring to feed in Chignik Lagoon. 

Brown bears forage in coastal sedge meadows in spring and in 

coastal drainages for spawning salmon in summer and fall. More 

than a thousand caribou summer in coastal drainages and 

mountains of the Pacific coast of the Ugashik Unit, and moose 

are also common. 

The frequent fog, rain, and wind contribute to the beauty of the 

coast that becomes spectacular on clear days when glaciercovered volcanoes are seen rising above the steep walls of 

coastal drainages that meet the sea on rocky coasts. Exemplary 

streams are the short drainages of Agripina Bay and Port 

Wrangell, which quickly flow from glaciers to valley floors, 

which are decorated with small lakes and rock outcrops, before 

draining into rocky bays with finely dissected shores. 

Ugashik Lakes 

The Ugashik Lakes are world-renowned for trophy Arctic 

grayling fishing (the Alaska record was set here); the lakes also 

support large concentrations of lake trout, provide key feeding 

habitat for brown bears, and provide spawning and rearing 

habitat for large numbers of sockeye and coho salmon. The 

Ugashik Narrows has outstanding recreation opportunities for 

angling for trophy Arctic grayling and other popular sport fish. 

The Narrows also is a unique geologic feature on the Alaska 

Peninsula, where two of the largest lakes in the area are joined 

by a shallow, flowing narrows. The Narrows was also important 

to pre-contact Native communities.
Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 1-5 Ugashik Unit, Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Compre

Figure 1-6 Chignik and Seal Cape Units, Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-23 

Dog Salmon River, Mother Goose Lake, and King Salmon 

River (Ugashik) 

These drainages constitute a major portion of the high-quality 

winter moose habitat on the central Alaska Peninsula. Stands of 

poplar are scattered throughout this area, culminating in the 

only forest (located at Mother Goose Lake and along King 

Salmon River) southwest of Katmai National Park and 

Preserve. This forest provides locally unique habitat to many 

species of breeding songbirds and to hares and lynx. These 

drainages also include a substantial part of the limited nesting 

range of the Alaska subspecies of the marbled godwit (Gibson 

and Kessel 1989; North et al. 1996; North and Tucker 1992). 

They support runs of five species of Pacific salmon as well as 

resident populations of Arctic char, Dolly Varden, and other 

species. Both drainages originate in the glaciers and snowfields 

of Mt. Kialagvik, the active Chiginagak volcano, and 

surrounding mountains, which provide spectacular scenic 

backgrounds to the Dog Salmon River meandering through the 

marshes and to beautiful Mother Goose Lake. 

Black Lake–Chignik Lake Area 

The Black Lake–Chignik Lake area encompasses one of the 

most dense seasonal concentrations of brown bears in North 

America. The tributaries of the Chignik and Alex rivers 

(Chignik Unit) provide the best example on the Refuges of high 

concentrations of spawning sockeye salmon and the large 

number of brown bears they attract. As many as 500 bears 

congregate on these streams during August (Hicks 1996). 

Although this type of value is found on other rivers in this 

region, the size of the run and the number of bears that depend 

on it are truly exemplary on these streams. 

Castle Cape 

Castle Cape, in the Chignik Unit, consists of extremely rugged 

mountains deeply indented by the sea; the rocks exhibit a 

pattern of contrasting dark and light layers that is so 

pronounced that the cape serves as a famous landmark to ships. 

Mount Veniaminof 

Mount Veniaminof, one of Alaska’s active volcanoes, last 

erupted in 2004. The volcano is massive, with a base diameter of 

about 30 miles and a summit crater circumference of about 20 

miles. In 1967, Mount Veniaminof was designated as a national 

natural landmark. The spectacular Upper Sandy River 

originates in the glaciers of Veniaminof and flows through a 

still-raw volcanic landscape before forming a delta about Sandy 

Lake. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.6.4 Alaska Maritime Refuge 

Seal Cape (see Figure 1-6) is an extension of the Alaska 

Peninsula. The cape provides nesting areas for numerous bird 

species, including cormorants, black-legged kittiwakes, 

glaucous-winged gulls, and murrelets. Its extremely rugged 

coastline is deeply indented by fjordlike bays. Cliffs, which line 

much of the coastline, reach heights of more than 2,000 feet. The 

scenery is spectacular, with fjords and deeply cut bays set 

against a backdrop of jagged peaks and pinnacles. This area is 

very rugged and remote; it provides outstanding opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation. 

1.7 The Planning Process 

This section describes the process used to develop this Plan and 

EIS for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The 

process is consistent with the planning requirements specified 

in Section 304(g) of ANILCA; the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended; the Service’s planning 

policy (602 FWS); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

direction (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); and the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508; U.S. 

Government 1996–2003). 

The process we are using to revise the original Plans contains 

eight steps; with publication of this Plan and EIS, we are 

partway through step six. The rest of this section describes 

what we have done at each step and what we anticipate doing to 

finish the Plan. Section 1.7.3 describes the significant planning 

issues that were identified and what aspects of management the 

Plan and the alternatives will emphasize. 

1.7.1 Design the Planning Process 

This first step prepares the refuge staff for revising the Plans. 

In 1996, the Service began reviewing the numerous documents 

that constituted the comprehensive plan for the Refuges to 

determine if the plan should be revised. All together, 12 

documents had to be consulted to identify the management 

direction for the Refuges. A number of discrepancies were 

noted among the three comprehensive conservation plans for 

the Alaska Peninsula, Becharof, and Alaska Maritime (Seal 

Cape) refuges, including the following: 

 Conflicting management direction (in which one plan allows 

an activity in a management category, and the other plan 

does not) 

 Content discrepancies (one plan has management direction 

for a topic, and the other plan does not mention the topic) 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-25 

 Format inconsistencies (in some cases, the management 

direction is organized so differently that it is almost 

impossible to accurately make comparisons) 

We also determined that some of the management direction in 

the plans was out of date because of changes in laws, 

regulations, and circumstances (see Appendix A for more 

information). Therefore, the Service decided to revise the plans 

and prepare one comprehensive conservation plan for the 

jointly managed Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

We then identified all relevant laws, regulations, policies, and 

other direction that would have to be considered during the 

development of the Plan. These were described under the legal 

and planning context sections earlier in this chapter. We also 

reviewed the data available on refuge resources and uses and 

identified some areas where more work was needed. For 

example, the study of potential use conflicts conducted at 

Becharof Outlet during the summers of 1999 and 2000 was 

designed to meet one of these information needs. 

1.7.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping 

The purpose of this second step was to let people know that the 

Plan revision process was beginning and to solicit ideas on what 

issues should be addressed in the revision. Formal scoping 

began with publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, 

which was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 

1998 (Volume 63, Number 38, pp. 9855–9856). 

In March 1998, a planning update announcing the revision effort 

and seeking comments was mailed to 6,000 individuals and 

organizations on the Service’s Alaska Region master mailing 

list. This mailing included all the local community mailbox 

holders. It contained information about the Refuges and some 

preliminary issues identified by the Refuge staff. The mailing 

included an optional response sheet to make it easier for people 

to identify their issues and concerns. 

During scoping, we also held 10 public meetings in the 

communities within or adjacent to the Refuges (Table 1-1). 

Seventy-six people attended the meetings, and 18 individuals or 

organizations provided written or telephone comments. Most of 

the suggestions for change related to providing additional 

detailed management direction and addressing site-specific 

issues. People seemed to be generally satisfied with the 

Refuges’ approach to management, asking us to improve the 

existing plan rather than take off in a whole new direction. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 1-1 Location and dates of public meetings in 1998a

Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date 

Chignik 8 3/23/98 Naknek 1 4/7/98 

Chignik 

Lagoon 

4 3/5/98 Perryville 9 3/3/98 

Chignik Lake 12 3/23/98 Pilot Point 9 3/17/98 

Egegik 16 3/16/98 Port Heiden 8 3/18/98 

Ivanof Bay 4 3/2/98 South Naknek 5 4/9/98 

a A complete set of all comments received, in this or any other step of the Plan revision, is available from the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Anchorage. The comments reflect the wide range of public values, 

perceptions, and opinions that local residents, other Alaskans, and the national public have regarding the 

Refuges and their management. 

1.7.3 Determine Significant Issues 

In March 1999, we mailed a second planning update to nearly 

2,500 individuals and organizations who had expressed an 

interest in these two refuges. This update introduced the two 

main issues that we had learned from the public during the 

initial scoping process and asked people to comment on possible 

actions that could be taken to address the issues. This update 

also included an optional response sheet. 

Approximately 100 individuals or organizations responded to 

the planning update. Fifty-five of the respondents were from 

Alaska, and 13 of these lived in communities within or adjacent 

to the Refuges. Most comments were from individuals, but we 

also heard from entities such as the Sierra Club, National Rifle 

Association, Becharof Corporation, and the Lake and Peninsula 

Borough. We also had another round of local public meetings. 

Forty-five people attended the meetings in eight local 

communities (Table 1-2). The public meeting in Ivanof Bay was 

cancelled because of bad weather, but Refuge staff were able to 

discuss planning issues with the community by telephone. 

Planning issues are discussed in greater detail in sections 1.8 

and 1.9 of this chapter. 

Table 1-2 Locations and dates of public meetings held in March and April 1999 

Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date 

Chignik 1 3/26/99 Perryville 8 3/11/99 

Chignik Lake 9 3/25/99 Pilot Point 11 3/31/99 

Chignik 

Lagoon 

4 3/26/99 Port Heiden 3 3/10/99 

Egegik 20 4/14/99 South Naknek 7 4/8/99 

Naknek 2 4/6/99 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-27 

A third round of public meetings was held during the winter of 

2000. Forty-seven people attended these meetings in nine 

communities or by telephone (Table 1-3). 

Table 1-3 Locations and dates of public meetings held during winter 2000 

Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date 

Chignik 2 2/8/00 Naknek/South 

Naknek 

2 2/23/00 

Chignik Lake 9 2/7/00 Perryville 13 3/6/00 

Chignik 

Lagoon 

6 2/8/00 Pilot Point 2 1/18/00 

Egegik 8 1/19/00 Port Heiden 4 1/17/00 

Ivanof Bay 

(telephone) 

1 2/17/00 

1.7.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives 

The purpose of this fourth step was to develop alternative 

approaches to the issues. These alternatives would meet the 

purposes and goals of the Refuges and would comply with the 

missions of the refuge system and the Service. The planning 

team developed a range of alternatives that responded to the 

issues identified in the previous steps. The team eliminated 

alternatives that did not meet refuge purposes or were outside 

of the Service’s ability to implement. These draft alternatives 

were sent to more than 2,000 individuals and organizations in a 

January 2000 planning update. This update was also posted on 

our planning page on the Web site of the Alaska Region of the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service <http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/planning>. 

The draft alternatives were refined based on comments we 

received from the planning update. We analyzed the 

environmental effects of the alternatives and present the results 

of that analysis in Chapter 4. We evaluated the alternatives 

against a set of criteria and present that discussion in 

Chapter 5. 

1.7.5 Prepare Draft Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

The Draft EIS was released in February 2004. It contained 

three management alternatives, including one that described 

continuation of current management and one that was the 

Service’s preferred alternative. We held meetings in local 

villages and sent out a planning update during the public 

comment period. 

Comments Received on the Draft Plan 

Comments were received at public meetings and in writing, by 

mail and via the Internet. For a detailed presentation of results 

and our response to comments, see Appendix I. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Public Meetings 

The Service conducted meetings in eight villages near the 

Refuges and in Anchorage. At these meetings, the planning 

team generally did not receive individual comments, but made 

note of comments and concerns raised. 

Table 1-4 Locations and dates of public meetings 

Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date Community Number of 

Attendees 

Meeting Date 

Chignik Lake 7 3/10/04 Pilot Point 5 3/30/04 

Chignik 

Lagoon 

5 3/12/04 Port Heiden 6 3/31/04 

Chignik 0 3/12/04 Perryville 4 4/01/04 

Anchorage 7 5/11/04 Naknek/South 

Naknek 

1 4/15/04 

 Egegik 8 4/08/04 

Synopsis of Comments and Concerns from Public Meetings 

 Satisfaction with how the refuge is managed 

 Support for Alternative 3 

 Concern over wildlife populations; people thought that 

predators were a problem and that moose and caribou 

numbers are too low. 

 Concern over conflicts between user groups; supportive of 

use studies 

 Uniform support for the prohibition of helicopter landings 

for recreation purposes 

 No concerns or complaints about the proposed boundary 

change for the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area 

 Importance of subsistence activities to them and their 

communities 

Written Comments: 

The Service received almost 11,600 comments on the Draft 

Plan. More than 11,400 were form letters sent by members of 

the Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, or the 

Northern Alaska Environmental Center. About 130 letters were 

unique; some of those included the same comments as the form 

letters but with additional comments. Comments were received 

from people in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico as well as from 22 other countries. 

Most comments addressed three general topics: oil and gas 

development (on these refuges and Alaska refuges in general) 

and other development within refuges; wilderness study and 

recommendations; and recreation access by use of helicopters, 

snowmachine, or off-road vehicle. Most people opposed any oil 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-29 

and gas exploration, leasing, or development on all refuges in 

Alaska. They also wanted the Service to conduct a Wilderness 

review and provide Wilderness recommendations. They opposed 

use of helicopters, snowmachines, and off-road vehicles for 

recreation access. They also opposed development of 

transportation and utility systems (e.g., roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines) on the Refuges. Some individuals and 

organizations, including the State of Alaska, supported oil and 

gas exploration, leasing, and development and recreational use 

of helicopters and other vehicles and opposed Wilderness 

review and any new Wilderness recommendations. 

Table 1-5 Most common comments received on Draft Plan and EIS 

Comment Supported Opposed 

Oil and gas exploration, leasing, 

and development 

8 11,554 

Wilderness review and 

recommendation 

11,518 7 

Helicopters for recreation access 2 11,528 

1.7.6 Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement 

As part of this sixth step, the planning team reviewed and 

analyzed all the comments received on the Draft Plan and EIS, 

modified the draft as needed, and created a new preferred 

alternative. This Final Revised Plan and EIS is the result of 

these changes. Following a 30-day period, the Service’s regional 

director will issue a record of decision that describes the 

management plan that will be implemented. The record of 

decision is a document that identifies the rationale the decisionmaker used to make the decision on the direction for managing 

the Refuges for the next 15 years. This publication is the Final 

Plan and EIS; we plan to publish and distribute the Final 

Revised Plan and the record of decision after the 30-day period. 

1.7.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate 

After the record of decision and Final Revised Plan are 

distributed, the Refuges staff will begin to initiate any changes 

called for in the revised Plan. A critical component of 

management is monitoring and measuring resource and social 

conditions to make sure that progress is being made toward 

meeting goals. Monitoring also detects new problems, issues, or 

opportunities that should be addressed. The Refuges are using 

an adaptive management approach, which means that 

information gained from monitoring is used to evaluate and, as 

needed, to modify refuge objectives. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.7.8 Review and Revise Plan 

Agency policy directs that we review the plan annually to assess 

the need for changes. We revise the plan when significant new 

information becomes available, ecological conditions change, or 

the need to do so is identified during the review. If major 

changes are proposed, public meetings may be held or new 

environmental assessments and environmental impact 

statements may be necessary. Consultation with appropriate 

state agencies and Native corporations would occur during any 

future revision. Full review and revision of the Plan will occur at 

least every 15 years, more often if necessary. We continue 

informing and involving the public throughout the Plan 

implementation, holding regular meetings in local villages at 

least annually and publishing Refuges planning updates. 

1.8 Issues 

Public responses to the three planning updates and rounds of 

village meetings were used to identify issues to be addressed in 

this revision. Refuge planning policy defines an issue as any 

unsettled matter that requires a management decision: e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to 

refuge resources, conflict in uses, public concern, or presence of 

an undesirable resource condition. 

The process of scoping initially identified a broad range of topics 

that became more focused into specific issues as more 

information was gathered. Issues identified during the first 

round of public involvement were refined and clarified during 

the second and third rounds. As described in section 1.9, 

through public participation, widely varied issues were 

identified. Several issues were raised that were outside the 

scope of this revision process (categories 1–3, in subsequent 

text). To identify issues that could be addressed in the Plan 

versus those outside the scope of this Plan, each preliminary 

issue was assigned to one of the following categories: 

1. The issue is addressed by existing laws and policies. 

Example

Several people raised an issue with regard to hunting on the 

Refuges, especially recreational hunting. ANILCA specifically 

mentions sport hunting as one of the recreation opportunities 

preserved by creating the conservation system units via the act. 

In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended, lists recreational hunting as 

one of the six public uses that are allowed and facilitated on 

national wildlife refuges when compatible with refuge purposes. 

At this time, recreational hunting is compatible with the 

purposes of the Refuges, and we do not address the issue of 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-31 

eliminating it; therefore, it is not a planning issue and is instead 

discussed under “Alternatives considered, but eliminated from 

detailed study” in Chapter 2, section 2.27. 

2. The issue is addressed in other arenas, outside this 

revision process. 

Example 1

In planning updates, we asked the question, “How should we 

work with the state and private landowners to address how 

activities on adjacent lands and inholdings affect refuge lands, 

resources, and users?” This question raised a wide range of 

suggestions and comments. Many of the comments focused on 

opportunities for the Refuges to acquire lands. Respondents 

were divided about the issue of whether the Refuges should 

work toward acquiring, from willing landowners, title to or 

easements on inholdings. Land-acquisition issues on national 

wildlife refuges in Alaska are dealt with through a planning 

process that steps down from this Plan. A land protection plan 

(LPP) focuses on private lands within the refuge boundaries 

with the goal of identifying and conserving high-quality habitat 

on those lands. The LLP will guide the Refuges landconservation activities and provide a framework for refuge and 

private landowner cooperation. Any course of action would 

require mutual consent (see section 6.1 for more information). 

Because this separate process exists, land-acquisition issues are 

not addressed in this document. The LPP for the Refuges was 

completed in 2002. 

Example 2

People expressed an interest in improving coordination with 

state and local landowners. This is an important topic and fits 

with the mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: “Working 

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.” The comprehensive management plan for the 

Refuges deals only with lands managed by the Service and does 

not provide direction for management of private or state lands; 

understanding what effect activities on neighboring lands may 

have on the Refuges is, however, an important part of refuge 

management. The refuge manager is already responsible for 

coordinating with adjacent landowners the effects of any 

activities on the Refuges and for minimizing any adverse effect 

they may have on those lands. The refuge manager is also 

responsible for evaluating, working with, and commenting on 

projects on adjacent land that may adversely affect the Refuges. 

These day-to-day contacts are therefore already an ongoing 

part of the refuge operations. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Example 3 

Whether this revised Plan should recommend additional areas 

for Wilderness designation or rivers for inclusion in the 

National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers was an issue that 

required additional legal analysis. 

After reviewing the requirements for Wilderness and for Wild 

and Scenic River reviews, we determined that the 

comprehensive planning requirements of Section 304(g) of 

ANILCA were best satisfied by honoring the Wilderness 

recommendations of the current Plans and focusing our efforts 

on describing the wilderness values of the Refuges and 

providing better direction for how the Refuges could be 

managed to protect those values. A similar approach was taken 

for wild and scenic river values 

Wilderness values and river-related values are discussed in 

Chapter 3, sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this Plan. Programs and 

actions to protect all refuge-related values are discussed in the 

alternatives section and in management direction sections of 

Chapter 2. 

3. The issue is already being addressed or will be addressed 

similarly regardless of management alternative selected. 

Management direction for the Refuges covers all aspects of 

management, from monitoring fish populations to facility 

maintenance. Many aspects of refuge management are treated 

the same in all alternatives. Management direction for the 

Refuges are described in Management Direction in Chapter 2. 

Example 1

Some people suggested that Refuges increase law-enforcement 

activity. They recognized that increased enforcement of existing 

laws and regulations could address some of the issues on the 

Refuges. Increasing the level of law enforcement on the 

Refuges, which would require increases in staffing and funding, 

is not proposed to vary among the alternatives. 

Example 2 

Several people suggested that we hire more local residents; the 

Refuge Information Technician program is an example of how 

the Refuges have responded to this concern. Through this 

program, local residents are employed by the Refuges to work 

as liaison with the local communities. They provide invaluable 

skills in interpretation, in local traditional knowledge, and in 

transferring information between the refuge staff and the local 

communities. 

Example 3 

Some people expressed an interest in managing fluctuations of 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-33 

wildlife populations. On the Alaska Peninsula, people are 

concerned with the status of moose and caribou populations, 

some waterfowl populations, and some fisheries. Caribou are of 

greatest concern. The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd 

has provided food to local villages for generations. This herd’s 

more recent population high, occurring the 1980s, was 

approximately 17,000 to 20,000 animals. By 2001, however, the 

herd had declined to approximately 6,000 animals. 

Approximately 2,000 of these reside on the Refuges. 

Recreational hunting has been eliminated, and the subsistence 

harvest has been restricted. 

The policy of the Service is to manage populations for natural 

densities and levels of variation. Thus, we will generally not 

intentionally manipulate population levels of any species when 

they are within the historically normal range. 

On the Alaska Peninsula, there is little opportunity to 

manipulate wildlife populations by habitat management. 

However, wildlife populations could be directly altered by 

adjustments to hunting seasons and bag limits; hunting access, 

means, and methods; and trapping and/or implementation of 

predator-control programs. Any modification of existing 

programs (e.g., hunting) or a proposed initiation of a new 

program (e.g., predator control) would require extensive 

analysis of both appropriateness (based on regulations and 

policy) and likelihood for success (based on detailed biological 

analysis). Detailed problem statements and action proposals are 

required to conduct meaningful analysis. 

No specific proposals to modify hunting or trapping programs 

or to implement predator control are being considered as part of 

this Plan. However, because we can envision circumstances 

under which we might need to manipulate predator and/or prey 

populations, it is appropriate and prudent that we retain such 

management flexibility in the future, regardless of the 

management alternative selected. 

4. The issue is a significant planning issue, and the Plan 

revision will develop alternative ways of addressing it (e.g., 

recreation access, minimizing user conflicts). 

Some of the issues raised can be addressed by more than one 

management approach. How we manage recreation access to 

allow people to use the Refuges while protecting the resources 

of the Refuges will be key in the future. Potentials for conflicts 

between different user groups can be minimized so that all 

peoples with rights to use the Refuges may do so with limited 

impacts on others. These types of issues can be addressed in 

different alternatives and are within the jurisdiction of the 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Refuges. These issues are described in the next section and are 

addressed in Chapter 2. 

1.9 Significant Planning Issues 

The list of issues reflects problems, opportunities, or points of 

discussion that the refuge Plan can address in a variety of ways. 

They are reflected in the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2. 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, displays the probable 

effects that implementing an alternative would have on the 

issue. 

In addition to identifying the significant planning issues, this 

section includes a brief summary of the public comments 

received on each issue. It is important to recognize that public 

comments are not considered “votes.” Sometimes important 

topics are identified only by a few people familiar with a specific 

area or problem. Other issues are of national interest and 

generate a large number of comments from across the country. 

Certainly strong public support or opposition is an important 

consideration, but the decision must also consider how to best 

meet the purposes of the Refuges and the mission of the 

System. 

Following each issue statement, we include examples of people’s 

comments on the issue, using their own words. This provides 

readers with a greater understanding of how people who care 

about the Refuges view each issue. The comments were selected 

to demonstrate the broad range of approaches and opinions 

people bring to the issues, not to represent the proportion of 

each type of comment that we received. See Appendix I for the 

Service’s response to comments; the complete set of written and 

verbal comments received is available from the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Regional Office in Anchorage. 

1.9.1 Issue 1. How should we address recreation access to remote 

and sensitive areas? 

The issue of access on the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges is a complex topic because access is tied to a wide 

variety of activities. Providing that refuge resources are 

protected, certain forms of transportation (i.e., motorized boats) 

are either permitted or authorized under Sections 811 and 1110 

of ANILCA when used for specific purposes such as 

subsistence. Activities such as hunting, fishing, and other 

wildlife-dependent recreation are also guaranteed by law and by 

policy as long as they are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Refuges also contain sensitive habitats (such as salmon 

spawning areas, seabird colonies, and bear feeding areas) and 

other areas (such as archaeological sites and sacred sites) that 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-35 

can be easily damaged by inappropriate human use. We have 

identified and mapped only some of these sensitive habitats on 

the Refuges, and protecting these areas becomes more 

challenging as human-use patterns change. Helicopters, in 

particular, could provide greater access to these remote2

 or 

sensitive areas. For the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges, many people favored restricting access to sensitive 

areas if it was necessary to protect resources, yet many people 

also stated that access was not yet a problem. A large 

percentage of people who commented about access support 

management direction that would limit or prohibit the use of 

helicopters for access for recreation activities on the Refuges. 

Public use of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges tends 

to be highly dispersed, with higher concentrations at just a few 

specific locations (see Chapter 3, section 3.3, for information 

about use patterns). The Refuges have garnered at least some 

information about the sensitivity of these popular areas to the 

current levels of human activity, but have little information 

about other parts of these large and remote areas. The use of 

helicopters for recreation activities has the greatest potential to 

bring people to little-known areas that may be sensitive to 

human activity. Because many people commented about the use 

of helicopters for recreation activities on the Refuges, we have 

focused the issue on options for helicopter landings for such 

recreation use. This is the one access method that could 

significantly increase access to remote areas during the life of 

this plan. Other elements of recreation access are covered by 

the management direction in Chapter 2 and do not vary by 

alternative. 

Summary of Comments 

Most people favored taking some action to address remote and 

sensitive areas on the Refuges. All the local residents and 

nearly all the Lower 48 residents said some type of action was 

needed, whereas other Alaska residents indicated lower levels 

of support. The use of helicopters for recreation access 

attracted the greatest response, with a majority saying we 

should prohibit or limit them. Most respondents favored a 

prohibition of access by helicopter for recreation activities or for 

all use of helicopters, and many were referring not just to 

remote or sensitive areas, but to the whole refuge. Some 

favored limiting access to remote or sensitive areas through 

limits on number of people, while others favored limits on 

methods of access—typically motorized use, which included 

limits on aircraft as well as on ground vehicles. Some people also 

 

2

 Remote areas applies to areas that are normally beyond the reach of current means of motorized 

recreation access. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

specified limits on commercial use rather than on subsistence or 

general recreation use. 

Some people favored keeping access open to the extent possible 

(for example, requiring proof of damage before limiting access); 

others favored erring on the side of resources protection (e.g., 

limiting access based on risk of damage). Several people 

believed that access per se was not the problem and that the 

behavior of users or other issues were the real concern. A small 

group of respondents believed that we should increase our 

knowledge of sensitive and remote areas and possible threats to 

them from use and that educating visitors about the impacts 

was desirable before imposing use limits. A few people 

mentioned specific areas about which they were concerned; of 

those mentioned, most focused on fish spawning areas with a 

few comments on bear denning or feeding areas. 

Representative Comments 

“Prohibit all mechanized access to some areas. Maintain 

wilderness character. Prohibit commercial uses of these areas, 

especially [by] guides.” 

“No, do not prohibit access. Collect additional information to 

identify and monitor sensitive areas and increase educational 

efforts to prevent damage to sensitive and remote areas.” 

“Should prohibit helicopters. Aircraft land at certain designated 

spots, people can hike to secluded areas for camping, etc. There 

is no escape from helicopter access.” 

“Access is not necessarily a problem. What people do once they 

get somewhere can be controlled with rules and regulations.” 

1.9.2 Issue 2. How can conflicts between refuge user groups be 

minimized? 

Like other refuges in Alaska, the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges have seen an increase in use by locals and 

nonlocals. Because people use refuges in different ways and for 

different reasons, conflicts between user groups can arise. On 

the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges, the primary uses 

are subsistence activities and recreational hunting and fishing. 

Many local residents view recreational hunters and anglers as 

competing with them for increasingly scarce resources, 

especially caribou, although at present there is no competition 

for caribou because the only state hunt is a Tier II3

 permit hunt 

 

3

 Tier II permit hunts are initiated when the amount of harvestable game is not sufficient to meet the 

needs of all subsistence users. These permit hunts are a way of allocating a scarce resource among the 

subsistence users. Applications are made to the Board of Game, which selects hunters based, in part, on 

their dependence on the game resource and other options for obtaining food. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1-37 

principally for local residents. Other local residents view the 

presence of nonlocals as an adverse impact on their activities on 

the Refuges. Some of these conflicts stem from different 

cultural views of recreation activities. For example, catch-andrelease fishing is viewed by some as a conservation strategy and 

by others as “playing” with an animal that should be harvested 

for food. See section 3.3.2 for a discussion of subsistence uses of 

the Refuges. 

Crowding at some times and locations has been reported as 

another source of conflict. Although subsistence uses have 

priority during resource shortages, recreational hunting and 

fishing are two of the priority human uses of national wildlife 

refuges. Providing opportunities for subsistence and for 

recreational hunting and fishing activities is an important goal 

for the Refuges. Options to manage conflicts between user 

groups can often be tied to the access issue, in which conflicts 

have been reported between people using different means of 

access (for instance, motorboats versus aircraft). These same 

conflicts can sometimes be addressed through education and 

monitoring. 

Summary of Comments 

Nonresidents were much more likely to favor management 

intervention than were locals or other Alaskans. The most 

common recommendation was to, when necessary, limit use. 

Many people had ideas on what use to limit first; in general, 

respondents were more sympathetic to local and subsistence 

users than to guided or nonresident visitors. Perhaps 

anticipating that response, a number of individuals called for 

keeping the refuge open to nonlocal (recreation) use. 

Nonregulatory approaches to conflict management also 

dominated the responses; there was support for monitoring 

areas of conflict and for educating visitors and working with 

user groups to reduce conflicts. 

Representative Comments: 

“. . . treat everyone the same, we are all citizens of the USA. 

Stop taking everything from one group and giving it to 

another.” 

“Increased monitoring of all public use on the refuge would be 

excellent. It is ideal to have hard data on a situation to assess 

whether a problem exists, what the problem is, and often helps 

to identify the solution. Far too many ‘conflicts’ are the result of 

wrong perceptions and not facts.” 

“The locals were there first. Listen to them. They have more of 

a stake in keeping a balance.” 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.10 References Cited 

Byers, C.R., and G.A. Gettas, eds. 1999. Records of North 

American Big Game. Missoula, Montana: Boone and 

Crockett Club. (11th Edition) 

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 & Game, 

Division of Subsistence. 

Gibson, D.D., and B. Kessel. 1989. “Geographic variation in the 

marbled godwit and description of an Alaska 

subspecies.” The Condor 91: 436–443. 

Gordon, R.J., and B. Shaine. 1978. “Alaska Natural 

Landscapes.” Commission Study. No. 33. Anchorage, 

Alaska: Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning 

Commission for Alaska. 

Hicks, M.V. 1996. “Brown bear: Annual Performance Report of 

Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July 1995–30 June 1996.” 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report for Grant W24-4, Study 4.0. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish & Game. 

North, M.R., D. Dewhurst, and S.S. Tucker. 1996. “First nest 

discovered for Alaska subspecies of marbled godwit.” 

Northwestern Naturalist 77: 17–18. 

North, M.R., and S.S. Tucker. 1992. “Ugashik marbled godwit 

trip report and wildlife list, 29 May–3 June 1992.” 

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

Service, Ecological Services and Endangered Species. 

U.S. Government. 1996-2003. “Code of Federal Regulations.” 

Accessed October 4, 2004. At 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html on the World Wide 

Web, produced by Office of the Federal Register, 

National Archives and Records Administration. Source 

last updated April 14, 2003. 

USFWS. 1985. “Becharof National Wildlife Refuge.” Final 

comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness review, 

and environmental impact statement. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife 

Service. 

USFWS. 1987. “Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Wilderness Amendment and Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement.” Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 171 pages.