Chapter 2 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-1 

2. Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the management direction for the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges (Refuges) and the draft 

alternatives, including the preferred alternative. We first 

describe the goals and objectives that focus the management 

direction of the Refuges. In Section 2.3, we provide a written 

description of the general management direction that is integral 

to achieving the management objectives. The management 

directions in Section 2.3, Section 2.4, and Section 2.5 do not vary 

by alternative unless specifically identified in the discussion of 

that alternative. 

Because the alternatives vary based on possible combinations of 

different responses to the significant planning issues described 

in Chapter 1, Section 1.9, there are only a few objectives that 

vary by alternative. These new objectives are shown within each 

alternative where they would be applied. Most of the 

management direction provided in Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 

also represents the management direction from a system 

standpoint and would be the same, or similar, for all refuges in 

Alaska unless identified as being specific to the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The primary sources of this 

management direction are the various laws governing the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the regulations, policies, 

and other guidance, both national and regional, developed to 

implement these laws. 

Section 2.4 shows the management direction as it applies to the 

management categories applicable to all refuges in Alaska. 

Categories or elements not currently relevant to the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges are shaded in gray in Table 

2-1. Where refuge-specific regulations have been developed (for 

example, use of off-road vehicles within the Refuges), this 

section will vary from the direction provided to other refuges in 

Alaska. 

The final management plan will consist of this general 

management direction, modified by the language in the 

alternative selected for implementation. 

The process used to develop alternatives is described in Section 

2.6. Section 2.7 describes those elements that are common to all 

alternatives. Alternatives that were considered but eliminated 

from study are described in Section 2.8. Discussion of the three 

alternatives considered for this plan begins in Section 2.9. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

2.2 Refuge Goals and Objectives 

The refuge vision statement and the refuge purposes (see 

Chapter 1) provide the framework for developing goals and 

objectives for managing the Refuges. Regional and national 

policies form the basis for the management direction. 

The objectives listed beneath each goal are often applicable to 

more than one goal. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, 

we have listed each objective only once, under the goal that 

represents the clearest connection. The ordering of the 

objectives is not intended to imply prioritization; in fact, the 

many objectives listed beneath Goal 2 have been clustered into 

rough categories of wildlife, habitat, and fish. Following each 

objective, we list those other goals the objectives are also 

designed to address. 

Many of the objectives that are important for managing 

subsistence activities and public use of the Refuges require 

monitoring or improving our knowledge of the natural resources 

linked to the subsistence or public-use activities. For this 

reason, most of the objectives for subsistence or public use are 

listed beneath Goal 1 or Goal 2, which are focused on improving 

our knowledge of the Refuges’ biological resources and on 

conserving habitat for those resources. 

Goal 1: Ensured 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

The vision statement for the Refuges and the refuge purposes 

emphasize conserving populations and habitats in their natural 

diversity. Although fish and wildlife populations habitats may 

fluctuate for a variety of reasons, if the habitats on which they 

depend are functioning naturally and available in their natural 

abundance and diversity, the opportunity exists for populations 

to thrive. As with many of the other refuges in Alaska, the size, 

remoteness, weather, and complexity of the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges make it challenging to collect data on 

species and habitats. Fulfilling this goal requires information 

about fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their relationship 

to the habitat. Almost all of the objectives stated under Goal 2 

and Goal 4 are objectives that would also provide necessary 

information for achieving Goal 1. 

1. Delineate marbled godwit nesting habitat and range in 

the Ugashik and Cinder drainages and vicinity by 2008 

(also Goal 2). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-3 

2. Cooperate with the State of Alaska in developing an 

interagency study of access prior to the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and 

develop and implement methodology to formally monitor 

existing off-road vehicle impacts on refuge lands. 

Monitoring off-road impacts would be conducted to 

document damage to vegetative cover and soils in areas 

of significant use, including Big Creek, King Salmon 

River (near Egegik), Becharof Lake outlet, Yantarni 

Bay airstrip, and Port Heiden (also Goals 2, 3, and 7). 

3. Monitor development of inholdings and uses of adjacent 

parcels to identify activities that could adversely affect 

refuge users and resources. Work with the refuge realty 

specialists to identify opportunities to acquire lands or 

interests in lands from willing sellers to further the 

goals of the refuge and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Additional assistance may be 

provided by working with state and other Federal 

agencies, Native corporations, and other 

nongovernmental organizations. 

Goal 2: Improved 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, that have restricted 

populations, or that have been identified as species or 

populations of ecological interest 

The Refuges’ objectives for wildlife under Goal 2 are directed 

toward monitoring, in cooperation with ADF&G, a diverse 

group of species, including moose, caribou, wolves, bears, 

waterfowl, bald eagles, seabirds, shorebirds, and songbirds. 

This monitoring will provide valuable information for the 

ongoing management of wildlife populations on the Refuges as 

well as for responding to catastrophic events. These inventory 

and monitoring objectives will be incorporated in the wildlife 

inventory plan and may be revised when the Refuges staff 

completes a formal review of the biological program. Successful 

completion of many objectives will require close cooperation or 

consultation with other agencies, the academic community, 

residents with local knowledge, and/or others. 

4. Complete the Refuges’ wildlife inventory plan—which 

includes goals and objectives, priorities, and methods for 

wildlife monitoring and inventory—by October 2007 

(also Goal 1). 

5. Estimate moose density in the Refuges and vicinity, 

using professionally accepted methods, by 2008 (also 

Goals 1 and 3). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

6. Contribute to international efforts to establish trends in 

migratory bird populations by inventorying and 

monitoring landbird populations (as scheduled in the 

wildlife inventory plan) for measures of abundance, 

reproduction, and habitat using methods such as 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

(MAPS) program, point counts, Christmas bird counts, 

and fall migration monitoring (also Goal 1). 

7. In coordination with Boreal Partners in Flight and the 

Institute for Bird Populations, reevaluate the Mother 

Goose Lake MAPS sites to determine if MAPS 

monitoring should be continued periodically, reinitiated 

in the future, or initiated at a new location. Implement 

schedule as recommended (also Goal 1). 

8. Cooperate with other land managers to inventory and 

monitor shorebirds in the Bristol Bay lowlands. 

9. Cooperate with other land managers to monitor 

population trends of productivity of swans in the Bristol 

Bay lowlands. 

10. Continue monitoring (as scheduled in the wildlife 

inventory plan) of waterfowl staging in upper Bristol 

Bay drainages during spring to document the range and 

annual variation of species composition, abundance, and 

phenology (timing) for use as a baseline for long-term 

impacts from local development and for the transition 

into spring waterfowl hunting (also Goal 3). 

11. Conduct year-round monitoring of waterfowl harvested 

by local villagers (also Goal 3). 

12. Continue cooperation with ADF&G on inventory, 

monitoring, and research studies to maximize 

information available for the management of species 

such as moose, caribou, brown bear, and others (also 

Goals 1 and 3). 

13. In cooperation with ADF&G, by 2010 develop 

methodology and begin gathering information on 

trapping effort, harvest, and areas within the Refuges 

(also Goals 3 and 6). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-5 

14. Survey caribou (as scheduled in the wildlife inventory 

plan) in Pacific drainages of the Chignik Unit to 

determine post-calving count and calf composition (also 

Goal 3). 

15. Monitor Pacific coast murre colonies of Becharof Refuge 

for peak colony count and productivity in three of every 

10 years in order to document recovery from the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill (also Goal 1). 

16. Monitor bald eagle populations and productivity along 

the Pacific coast of the Refuges every five years and 

initiate inventory of eagles in Bristol Bay drainages and 

of other raptors throughout the Refuges by 2008. 

17. Develop methodology and monitor wolf numbers and 

predation on caribou and moose in the Refuges and 

vicinity by 2008 (also Goal 3). 

18. Cooperate with Alaska Maritime Refuge to monitor 

seabird colony numbers along the Pacific coast of the 

Refuges once every 10 years (also Goal 1). 

19. Continue inventory and monitoring of rodent and 

insectivore distributions and trends on the Refuges. 

Understanding wildlife habitat characteristics such as 

distribution, quality, and availability is an important first step in 

understanding changes in wildlife populations. The following 

objectives are established to develop the necessary information 

and tools for a basic understanding of wildlife habitat on the 

Refuges. 

20. Complete development, by 2004, of a refuge-based 

geographic information system (GIS; hardware, 

software, and data layers) that provides managers and 

biologists with a basic capability for mapping available 

data (also Goal 1). 

21. Assist the Service’s Alaska regional botanist in 

completing the vegetation community classification for 

the Refuges (also Goal 1). 

22. Determine range condition for the Northern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou herd by 2010 (also Goal 1). 

23. Complete a habitat inventory plan that includes goals, 

objectives, priorities, and methods for habitat inventory 

and monitoring by December 2007 (also Goal 1). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

24. Develop a map of major vegetation types and mosaics—

incorporating soils, surficial geology, and water—for the 

Refuges and vicinity by 2010 (also Goal 1) 

25. Develop habitat models and maps for caribou and moose 

on the Refuges and vicinity by 2012 (also Goal 1). 

26. Following the completion of habitat maps for caribou 

and moose, develop habitat models and maps for 

additional species using priorities established in the 

wildlife and habitat inventory plans at a rate of one 

habitat map per year (also Goals 1 and 3). 

27. Complete reconnaissance of invasive plant and animal 

species near communities, ports, and other access points 

by 2010 (also Goal 1). 

28. Determine, by 2006, whether caribou summering in 

Pacific drainages of the Ugashik Unit constitute a 

distinct subpopulation of the Northern Alaska Peninsula 

caribou herd (also Goals 1 and 3). 

29. Continue cooperation with ADF&G and the National 

Park Service on wildlife inventory, monitoring, and 

research, including caribou, moose, and brown bear, in 

order to increase information available for management 

(also Goal 3). 

30. Continue working cooperatively with partners to 

complete ongoing studies and projects and initiate other 

high-priority projects identified during the Becharof 

Ecosystem Partnership Workshop (March 1997). Some 

of the highest-priority projects concern learning more 

about the population dynamics of the Northern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou herd, expanding resident and 

anadromous fisheries baseline data, completing 

vegetative cover and habitat mapping, monitoring water 

quality, and quantifying public uses (also Goals 1, 3, 6, 

and 7). 

The following objectives are designed to increase understanding 

of, and the ability to manage, important fish populations on the 

Refuges. The objectives address species and drainages that are 

important not only for subsistence, commercial, and 

recreational uses, but also for their contribution to the 

ecological integrity of the Refuges. 

31. Evaluate Arctic grayling, lake trout, and Dolly Varden 

population structure and abundance in the Ugashik and 

Egegik drainages by 2006. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-7 

32. Evaluate coho salmon population structure and 

abundance in the Pacific coast and Bering Sea drainages 

by 2010 (also Goal 3). 

33. Evaluate chinook salmon population structure and 

abundance in the Bering Sea drainages by 2010 (also 

Goal 3). 

34. Reevaluate rainbow trout population structure and 

abundance in the King Salmon River by 2005 (also 

Goal 3). 

35. Conduct creel surveys of the winter fishery in the lower 

King Salmon River, Egegik drainage, by 2015 (also 

Goal 3). 

36. Conduct creel surveys of the summer open-water 

fishery at the Ugashik Lakes by 2006 (also Goals 6 

and 7). 

37. Continue implementation of the Fisheries Management 

Plan of 1994 and update the plan by 2005 (also Goals 1 

and 3). 

Goal 3: Provision of opportunities for local residents to 

continue their subsistence uses on the Refuges, 

consistent with the subsistence priority and with 

other refuge purposes 

Subsistence uses by local residents are guaranteed in the 

purposes of the Refuges established by ANILCA. Objectives for 

this goal are directed at working with local residents and others 

to understand subsistence uses and potential conflicts and to 

monitor subsistence resources for better management. Most of 

the objectives related to subsistence resources are listed under 

Goal 2. 

38. Continue Refuge Information Technician program to 

enhance information exchange with local communities 

on subsistence issues (also Goal 8). 

39. Continue monitoring of hunter activity in areas of 

potential conflict between local and outside hunters and 

investigate allegations of interference (also Goal 7). 

40. Continue to participate in the fish and game regulation 

process through local Fish and Game Advisory 

Committees, the Boards of Fisheries and Game, the 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, the Alaska 

Migratory Bird Co-management Council, and the 

Federal Subsistence Board to facilitate information 

exchange and rule-making (also Goal 6). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

41. Cooperate with the Federal Subsistence Board in 

making customary and traditional use determinations 

for refuge-area communities, including for finfish and 

beaver. 

42. Expand law-enforcement activities to increase education 

and outreach, field patrols, and investigation of cases 

associated with the implementation of spring waterfowl 

hunting regulations (also Goal 8). 

Goal 4: Improved baseline understanding of water resources 

on the Refuges in order to acquire and maintain the 

water quality and quantity necessary to conserve fish 

and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity. 

Objectives for water quality and quantity are directed at 

completing baseline studies and acquiring the necessary rights 

to protect water quality and quantity, as directed by the 

purposes of the Refuges established in ANILCA. 

43. Work with refuge water resources specialists to 

complete, by 2010, a formal plan of study for a water 

resource investigation of Refuges waters (also Goal 1), 

44. Complete stream gauging project of Egegik River and 

document surface water supply on the Refuges by 

stream gauging or other methods, as needed (also 

Goal 1). 

45. Continue work with refuge water resources specialists 

to analyze and determine water-rights needs on the 

Egegik drainage by 2005 and formally apply for them by 

2007 (also Goal 1). 

46. Work with refuge water resources specialists to analyze, 

determine, and acquire water rights on other Refuges 

waters using the schedule in the plan of study identified 

in the water resources investigation plan (also Goal 1). 

47. Continue limnological studies of Becharof and Ugashik 

lakes in cooperation with King Salmon Fisheries 

Research Office (also Goal 1). 

48. Complete baseline water quality studies of Refuges 

lakes and streams following the schedule identified in 

the water resources investigation plan (also Goal 1). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-9 

Goal 5: Preservation and enhancement, in perpetuity, of 

wilderness values of designated Wilderness, 

consistent with the establishing purposes 

Wilderness is a supplemental purpose of the Refuges, and 

objectives directed at the Becharof Wilderness Area are 

designed to manage and understand the wilderness values. 

49. Distribute information about “Leave-No-Trace” 

principles whenever information is requested about the 

Becharof Wilderness Area and work with commercial 

guides to apply these principles when operating within 

designated Wilderness. 

50. Manage recreational settings within designated 

Wilderness to provide opportunities for solitude, selfreliance, and other characteristics that depend on a 

wilderness environment, by applying the Leave-NoTrace principles while not impairing other uses and 

values associated with Wilderness. 

51. Through interagency coordination in managing public 

use, promote consistency in wilderness management of 

the Becharof Wilderness and the adjacent designated 

Wilderness of Katmai National Park and Preserve. 

52. Ensure appropriate uses (including administrative uses) 

of the Becharof Wilderness on an ongoing basis by 

expanding law enforcement within designated 

Wilderness and conducting the minimum-requirement 

analysis to all management activities. 

Goal 6: Provision of opportunities for high-quality1

 wildlifedependent recreation, emphasizing short-term, lowdensity uses that require minimal facility 

development or habitat alteration 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, states that compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of 

the System and directs the Service to facilitate hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation on refuges, subject to restrictions or 

regulations as needed. Objectives that are designed to address 

the resources necessary to support wildlife-dependent 

recreation are listed under Goal 2. Other objectives that help to 

 

1

 Quality is defined as the degree to which recreation opportunities and related experiences meet the 

objectives for which they are planned and managed. For further definition of “quality” in relation to 

recreation, see the glossary on page xiii. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

provide high-quality experiences are described along with Goals 

7 and 8. General management direction of public use on the 

Refuges, including commercial uses, is described in Sections 2.3 

and 2.4. 

53. By continuing to implement and strengthen the 

Refuges’ special-use permit program— including 

improvement of permittee recording requirements—and 

increasing enforcement of and compliance with permit 

stipulations through increased field inspections, provide 

commercial-visitor service opportunities for the public 

who would not or could not experience a safe, highquality visit to the Refuges on their own (also Goal 8). 

Goal 7: Provision of opportunities for subsistence, 

recreational, and commercial visitor-service 

providers to enjoy and benefit from compatible 

activities on the Refuges in ways that minimize 

conflicts among user groups 

Section 804 of ANILCA states that subsistence will be the 

priority consumptive use of public lands in Alaska, consistent 

with the purposes for each unit. Fish and Wildlife Service policy 

describes quality recreational opportunities, in part, as creating 

minimal conflict with other wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or refuge operations. The Refuges need to be aware of and 

address conflicts among refuge users. Many of the objectives in 

Goal 2 that consider harvest levels or monitor populations of fish 

and wildlife also provide important information for 

accomplishing this goal. 

54. Expand public-use monitoring program for all users of 

the Refuges. A special emphasis will be placed on 

annually monitoring all commercial-use activities and on 

establishing and/or expanding public-use monitoring 

camps on a scheduled basis at locations where potential 

exists for user conflicts, impacts, or declines in quality. A 

full-time, permanent pilot–resource manager position 

with collateral law enforcement duties, along with one or 

more seasonal positions, would be required to 

implement this objective (also Goals 6 and 8). 

55. Work with refuge realty specialists and local Native 

corporations to field-check and update database of 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(b) 

easements, to develop GIS maps of easements, and to 

establish signs onsite as needed (also Goal 6). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-11 

56. Expand profile of refuge law-enforcement activities. 

Law enforcement activities concerning protection of fish 

and wildlife resources will shift from patrols being 

conducted seasonally by collateral-duty refuge officers 

(typically incidental to other missions) to dedicated lawenforcement patrols being conducted year-round by a 

full-time refuge law-enforcement officer (also Goals 3 

and 6). 

Goal 8: Interpretive and environmental education programs 

that increase understanding and support for the 

System; development of a sense of stewardship for 

wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment; 

and enhanced visitors’ experiences 

57. Use the Refuge Information Technician program to 

conduct educational programs for local rural residents 

on resource conservation and protection, subsistence 

harvest developments, and recreational harvest 

management. Conduct at least one program per year in 

each of the 13 communities associated with the Refuges 

(also Goal 3). 

58. Interpret Refuges resources and programs, provide 

educational material, and increase the quality of 

recreation experiences by fully implementing the 1999 

five-year interagency cooperative agreement to operate 

the King Salmon Visitor Center (KSVC), including 

maintaining responsibility for personnel and developing, 

upgrading, and maintaining permanent exhibits 

annually (also Goal 6). 

59. Increase local children’s awareness of the Refuges, 

wildlife, and conservation by utilizing the Refuge 

Information Technician program to visit, at least once a 

semester during the school year, the 10 village schools in 

the Bristol Bay and Lake and the Peninsula boroughs 

that are within or near the Refuges’ boundaries; provide 

the other seven schools in the Lake and Peninsula 

Borough with educational materials and programs at 

least three times a year (during National Wildlife 

Refuge Week, and for the Goose Calendar contest). 

Continue to develop programs for National Fishing 

Week celebration, International Migratory Bird Day, 

and other special events. 

60. Conduct the cooperatively sponsored Spirit of Becharof 

Lake Ecosystem Science Camp for 10–15 refuge-area 

high school students annually, with assistance from 

Refuge Information Technician program personnel. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

61. By developing and publishing at least one new or revised 

refuge-specific brochure annually and by developing a 

refuge Web site by 2004, inform people about natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources and opportunities on 

the Refuges and their responsible use (also Goals 6 

and 7). 

Goal 9: Conservation of the special geological and cultural 

values of the Refuges 

62. Conduct a paleontological inventory with emphasis on 

Jurassic sediments within Becharof Lake drainage, 

Ugashik Lakes drainage, and Black Lake drainage by 

2010. 

63. Continue cultural resources management in partnership 

with Native corporations, universities, museums, and 

others in accordance with the Cultural Resource Guide. 

64. Continue to work with the Alaska Volcano Observatory 

to further our knowledge of the volcanic resources of the 

Refuges. 

65. Administer and protect cultural resources in such a 

manner that the sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

of aesthetic and cultural value are preserved and 

maintained for scientific study and/or public 

appreciation (also Goal 8). 

Goal 10: Provision and maintenance of the facilities and 

equipment necessary to ensure a safe and secure 

environment for the visiting public and for Service 

personnel 

Objectives for facilities management are directed at providing 

necessary buildings and other structures for administration of 

the Refuges in a safe manner. 

66. Continue implementation of the administrative facility 

plan. 

67. Continue an aggressive safety program. 

68. Meet legal requirements for the administrative facilities 

of the Refuges (e.g., hazardous materials handling). 

69. Establish a subheadquarters for the Chignik Unit by 

2010. 

70. Construct an administrative facility at the Yantarni Bay 

airstrip. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-13 

2.3 Regional Management 

Direction 

The management direction provided here explains how the 

Refuges would be managed. The management direction 

described in this chapter is essentially the same for all national 

wildlife refuges in Alaska. When the management direction or 

the details of the direction are specific to the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges, it is so identified. Some activities 

discussed here are not currently being conducted on the 

Refuges. For example, the discussion on threatened and 

endangered species would apply only if and when a listed 

species is known or thought to occur in the Refuges. 

Some of the management direction described in this section 

refers to different management categories. These categories are 

described in detail in Section 2.4. Only the Moderate, Minimal, 

and Wilderness management categories are currently 

applicable to the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

2.3.1 Management Emergencies 

It may be necessary, when management emergencies occur on 

the Refuges, to deviate from management policies and 

guidelines discussed in this plan. Activities not allowed may 

occur during or as a result of emergency situations. For 

example, if naturally occurring or human-caused actions (e.g., 

landslides, floods, fire, drought) adversely affect refuge 

resources, it may be necessary to undertake rehabilitation, 

restoration, habitat improvement, water management, fisheries 

enhancement, or other actions that would not otherwise be 

allowed to the same extent on the Refuges. Threats to human 

health and safety may also result in management emergencies. 

In these cases, the refuge manager is authorized to take 

prudent and reasonable actions to protect human life and to 

address immediate health, safety, or critical resource-protection 

needs. 

2.3.2 Compatibility Determinations 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, as amended, states that “the Secretary [of the Interior] is 

authorized, under such regulations as he [or she] may prescribe, 

to permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose, 

including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation 

and accommodations, and access, whenever he [or she] 

determines that such uses are compatible.” It further notes that 

“the Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge 

or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge unless 

the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety.” The law 

also provides that, in administering the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, “the Secretary is authorized to . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” 

ANILCA established or reestablished the 16 wildlife refuges in 

Alaska. It sets forth the purposes of the Refuges, as described 

in Chapter 1. Section 304 of ANILCA adopted the compatibility 

standard of the Refuge Administration Act for Alaska refuges. 

All actions or uses within the Refuges are subject to a 

compatibility determination. 

On October 18, 2000, final policy and regulations implementing 

the compatibility requirements of the Refuge Administration 

Act were published in the Federal Register (65 FR no. 202, pp. 

62457-26483). The regulations require that compatibility 

determinations for existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

be reevaluated with the preparation or revision of a 

comprehensive conservation plan, or at least every 15 years, 

whichever is earlier. All other uses must be reevaluated every 

10 years or earlier if conditions change or significant new 

information relative to the use and its effects become available. 

National policy on making compatibility determinations 

requires that the public be provided an opportunity to review 

and comment on the proposed refuge uses before a final 

compatibility determination is issued. Final compatibility 

determinations will be made with the Final Conservation Plan. 

As part of the review of the Draft Conservation Plan, you are 

invited to provide relevant information and comment on the 

draft compatibility determinations in Appendix H. The analysis 

in Chapter 4 may provide a starting point on which to base your 

comments. 

A compatible use is a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge 

that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the 

individual national wildlife refuge. Economic uses must 

contribute to achieving refuge purposes and the System 

mission. The refuge manager is responsible for the 

compatibility determination, which is a signed and dated 

determination signifying that a proposed or existing use of a 

national wildlife refuge is or is not a compatible use. The refuge 

manager and regional chief indicate concurrence by signing the 

compatibility determination. (Compatibility determinations are 

not required for refuge management activities except economic 

activities.) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-15 

If activities or uses are found to be incompatible, the Refuges 

would follow normal administrative procedures for stopping the 

action. If the use found to be incompatible was a new use 

requiring a special-use permit, the refuge manager would not 

issue a permit for the use to proceed. If the use found to be 

incompatible was an existing use already under permit, the 

refuge manager would work with the permittee to modify the 

permit to make the use compatible or would terminate the 

permit. 

Activities that do not require a special-use permit or 

authorization, such as public uses, would go through the normal 

rule-making process. This would include publication in the 

Federal Register of the proposed rule and providing 

opportunity for the state and public to comment on the 

proposed rule. 

Draft compatibility determinations for activities and uses on the 

Refuges are found in Appendix H. Public comment on the draft 

determinations will be addressed in the final determinations 

released with the final Conservation Plan. 

2.3.3 Cooperation and Coordination with Others 

Federal, State, and Local Governments

The refuge manager would continue to work closely with those 

Federal, state, and local governments and agencies whose 

programs affect, or are affected by, the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges (as mandated by Director’s Order No. 148, as 

amended). State and local government input would be sought 

during the development of regulatory policies addressing 

management of the Refuge System (Executive Order 13083). 

The Service should recognize the responsibility of, and 

encourage opportunities for, state and local governments to 

achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives through 

cooperative efforts (Executive Order 13083). When possible, the 

Refuges staff would participate in interagency activities (such 

as joint fish and wildlife surveys and cofunded research), 

cooperative agreements, sharing of data, and sharing of 

equipment and aircraft costs in order to meet mutual 

management goals and objectives. 

The refuge manager and the State of Alaska would continue to 

cooperatively manage the fish and wildlife resources of the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The Master 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and 

ADF&G) dated March 13, 1982) defines the cooperative 

management roles of each agency (see Appendix B). Further 

discussion of intergovernmental cooperation regarding the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

preservation, use, and management of fish and wildlife 

resources is found in Title 43 CFR Part 24 (U.S. Government 

1996–2003); Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 

Policy: State and Federal Relationships). The closely related 

responsibilities of preserving habitat and wildlife populations 

and providing for fish and wildlife use require close cooperation 

among ADF&G, the Refuges staff, and all resource users. 

Tribes and Tribal Organizations

The Department of the Interior–Alaska’s Policy on 

Government-to-Government Relations with Alaska Native 

Tribes (January 18, 2001) identifies general principles that 

guide the Service’s government-to-government relationships 

with Native American governments in the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources. The policy states the following, in part: 

Federally recognized Tribes have a special, unique 

legal and political relationship with the Government of 

the United States, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, 

treaties, statutes, court decisions, and executive orders. 

These definitive authorities also serve as the basis for 

the Federal Government’s obligation to acknowledge 

the status of Federally recognized Tribes of Alaska. 

Further, the policy says, 

Consistent with the national policy regarding 

Government-to-Government consultation and 

relationships with Tribes, the Agencies are committed 

to consulting as early in the Agency’s decision-making 

process as practicable as permitted by law, with 

Federally recognized Tribes in Alaska prior to taking 

action or undertaking activities that will have a 

substantial, direct effect on Federally recognized 

Tribes, their assets, rights, services, or programs. 

Agency actions shall favor maximum participation of 

Federally recognized Tribes in Alaska, with a goal of 

informed decision-making through consultation and 

collaboration. 

The Department of the Interior has developed, and continues to 

develop, regulations implementing various sections of the 

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 

1975, as amended, and other related laws, executive orders, etc. 

To the extent that contracts, cooperative agreements, and 

grants entered into with tribal governments are discretionary, 

they must benefit the purposes of the Refuges. 

The 2001 Policy is intended to supplement the requirements 

contained in the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-17 

Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 

Tribal Governments and Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. That 

executive order addresses the need to establish regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal 

governments in the development of regulatory practices on 

Federal matters. 

Owners of Refuge Inholdings and Adjacent Lands

The Refuges would work in a spirit of cooperation with their 

neighbors. The refuge manager would inform inholders and 

adjacent landowners (including the State of Alaska, regional 

and village Native corporations, and private landowners) of 

refuge management policies and activities; would consult 

periodically with them regarding topics of mutual interest; 

would respond promptly to concerns over refuge programs; and 

would, as appropriate, participate with them in cooperative 

projects, such as water-quality monitoring and fish and wildlife 

management. 

As set forth in Section 304(f) of ANILCA, the refuge manager 

would seek cooperative agreements with owners of lands within, 

adjacent to, or near the Refuges whenever necessary to achieve 

refuge goals and objectives. Under these agreements, the 

refuge manager may provide technical and management 

assistance. In exchange for the assistance, the owner must 

agree to manage the land in a manner compatible with refuge 

purposes, to permit the Service reasonable access to the private 

lands, and to provide such other public benefits as may be 

negotiated. 

Other Constituencies 

The refuge manager would inform local communities, special 

interest groups, and other constituents who have expressed an 

interest in or are affected by refuge programs about refuge 

management policies and activities. The refuge manager would 

seek input from these constituents when issues arise that may 

affect how the Refuges are managed. Whenever possible, local 

residents and special interest groups would be asked to 

participate in refuge activities so their expertise and local 

knowledge can be incorporated into refuge management. 

Coastal Zone Consistency

Although Federal lands, including lands in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, are excluded from the coastal zone (16 U.S.C. 

1453[1]), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 

amended (PL 92-583), directs Federal agencies conducting 

activities within the coastal zone or that may affect any land or 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

water use or natural resources of the coastal zone to conduct 

these activities in a manner that is consistent “to the maximum 

extent practicable” with approved state management programs. 

The Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, as amended, 

and the subsequent Alaska Coastal Management Program and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (1979) establish policy 

guidance and standards for the review of projects within or 

potentially affecting Alaska’s coastal zone. In addition, specific 

policies on activities and uses of coastal lands and water 

resources within regional coastal resource districts have 

been developed. Most incorporated cities, municipalities, and 

boroughs as well as unincorporated areas (coastal resource 

service areas) within the coastal zone now have state-approved 

coastal management programs. 

Although state and coastal district program policies are to guide 

consistency determinations, more restrictive Federal agency 

standards may be applied. Federal regulations state that 

“when Federal agency standards are more restrictive than 

standards or requirements contained in the state’s management 

program, the Federal agency may continue to apply its stricter 

standards . . .” (U.S. Government 1996–2003; 15 CFR 930.39[d]). 

Chapter 7 is a consistency determination covering all the 

alternatives for management of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges addressed in this document. In developing the 

consistency determination, the Service examined all relevant 

proposed activities and developments to ensure that they 

comply with the coastal management program(s). All 

management alternatives are consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the appropriate coastal management 

program(s). Specific management actions may require more 

detailed environmental assessment; site-specific coastal zone 

consistency determinations would be prepared at that time. 

Appropriate agencies would be consulted if changes in specific 

activities or uses are proposed in the future and would 

significantly affect coastal resources or represent a major 

change in management of the Refuges. 

2.3.4 Ecosystem and Landscape 

Species do not exist alone; they function together in the 

environment as an ecosystem. The Refuges would manage the 

resources of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges as 

ecosystems. Individual species are viewed as integral to the 

diversity of those ecosystems and as such are indicators of the 

healthy functioning of the entire ecosystem. When the Refuges 

identify species to use as indicators of the health of the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-19 

ecosystem, it will be done through a rigorous scientific process 

involving ADF&G and others. 

Inventory, monitoring, and maintaining a comprehensive 

database of selected ecosystem components are critical for 

making refuge management decisions and for ensuring the 

proper long-term stewardship of refuge ecosystems. This 

includes regular and recurring monitoring of status and trends 

for ecosystem components such as fish, wildlife, plants, climatic 

conditions, soils, and waterbodies. All these activities would 

employ appropriate disciplines, new technologies, and scientific 

capabilities whenever practical. 

Water Resource (Hydrology) Management

Ensuring water quality and necessary water quantity in order 

to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity is one of the purposes identified in ANILCA 

for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuges. 

Water Quantity—To comply with the legislative mandate of 

ANILCA and the Refuge System Improvement Act (Sec 5[4][g] 

of P.L. 105-57), the Service Manual (USFWS, Part 403, Water 

Rights) directs the Service to quantify water-rights needs using 

stream-flow data, lake-level data, and other necessary 

hydrologic data and to file for reservations of water under State 

law, when possible. The Service’s Water Resources Branch, 

Division of Realty, has completed a water-resources threats 

analysis for the purpose of guiding the water resource 

investigations and instream water rights protection (Harle 

1994). Based on the results of this analysis, a strategic plan for 

systematically quantifying the surface water on Alaska refuges 

was written by the Water Resources Branch (Bayha et al. 1997). 

Water Rights—Two types of water rights affect the Service in 

Alaska: Federal Reserved Water Rights (FRWR) and 

appropriative water rights under Alaska Statute 46.15 (the 

Alaska Water Use Act). An FRWR exists when Congress or the 

President withdraws land from the public domain for a specific 

purpose (e.g., wildlife refuges, parks). Unless specified 

otherwise by Congress, normally unquantified minimum 

unappropriated water necessary to accomplish the primary 

purpose(s) of the future Federal land reservation is reserved 

under the FRWR. The priority date for the FRWR is the date 

of the Federal land reservation. The State of Alaska functions 

within the prior-appropriation doctrine, which allows the first 

appropriator of water a priority right to use water over 

subsequent appropriators on a basis of “first in time, first in 

right.” A priority date for an appropriative water right is 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

established on the date a complete application is filed with the 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 

The Refuge Improvement Act and the Service’s water rights 

policy—found in the Service Manual at Part 403 FW 1-3, Water 

Rights—directs the Service to comply with Alaska laws, 

regulations, and procedures to the maximum extent practicable. 

As directed by national and regional policy, the Service in 

Region 7 (Alaska) is applying for appropriative water rights 

with the State of Alaska under state laws, regulations, and 

procedures for both withdrawing and reserving water. Water 

rights would be filed for instream water needs to protect fish 

and wildlife habitat and the natural diversity of rivers, streams, 

lakes, and wetlands and for facility water uses such as 

campgrounds, offices, and staff housing. However, Federal 

Reserved Water Rights would be quantified and asserted 

whenever necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

reservation (Regional Policy RW-27, Planning and Filing 

Instream Water Right Applications, February 18, 1994) or when 

the United States is properly joined in a general stream 

adjudication pursuant to the McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. 

666 [1952]). 

The results of hydrologic investigations, coupled with biological 

data, are used to quantify a water right. Once this information is 

compiled, the Service would complete and file a water right 

application with the State of Alaska. No water rights have been 

quantified or filed for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges. 

Water Quality—All facilities and activities on Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges need to comply with the pollution-control 

standards set by state and Federal laws (e.g., the Clean Water 

Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.] and the Safe Drinking Water Act 

[42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.]) and regulations, policies, and standards 

implementing these laws. However, little data for most waterquality parameters have been collected for Refuges waters. Two 

primary water-quality programs are used on refuges to gather 

water-quality information: one designed to gather baseline data 

on inorganic materials (physical water parameters and nutrient 

content), the other to document organic and metal contaminants 

(pollutants). 

The Service’s Water Resources Branch has proposed a baseline 

water chemistry study of several Alaska refuges, including the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. In this proposal, rivers 

would be sampled three times in one year and analyzed for 

primary anions and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, CO3, HCO3, SO4, 

Cl), nutrients, and a suite of common metals. Samples would be 

taken on the early part of the rising limb of the spring runoff, at 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-21 

the peak of runoff, and at summer low flow. Stream flow would 

be measured at the time of sampling so that chemical 

concentrations can be “normalized” to loading (flow multiplied 

by concentration). 

It is imperative that this sampling be done as early as possible 

to establish true background values while streams are in 

relatively pristine condition. 

Cultural and Historical Resources

Cultural resources on refuge lands are managed under a 

number of laws, executive orders, and regulations, including the 

Antiquities Act; the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Executive Order 

11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment; Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; and 

36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. The Service has longterm responsibilities for cultural resources on refuge lands. The 

1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act 

direct the Service to inventory and evaluate cultural resources 

for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

All significant historic, archaeological, cultural, and 

paleontological resources on the Refuges would be protected 

and managed in accordance with Federal and state law. Because 

of limits of time, funding, and staffing, the Refuges must 

designate priorities in evaluating cultural resources on refuge 

lands. These priorities are described in the Refuges’ Cultural 

Resources Guide, which was published in 1996 and is scheduled 

to be reviewed. 

It is illegal to collect archaeological materials and/or vertebrate 

paleontological remains on the Refuges without a permit issued 

under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act (for archaeological materials) or Antiquities Act of 1906 (for 

vertebrate paleontological remains). Historic aircraft and other 

World War II material would be managed in accordance with a 

policy published December 20, 1985, in the Federal Register 

(FR 50:51952-51953). These materials may be collected on 

refuge lands only as authorized by a permit issued to a qualified 

organization or individual. Cultural resource research permits 

would be issued only to qualified individuals operating under 

appropriate research designs. The Refuges would encourage 

archaeologists, historians, ethnologists, and paleontologists 

from educational institutions and other government agencies to 

pursue their research interests on Refuges lands so long as 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

these research interests are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Research that collects data from threatened sites and minimizes 

disturbance to intact sites would be encouraged. 

The refuge manager would continue to cooperate with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Land Management in 

conveying eligible cemeteries and historic places to regional 

Native corporations Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Koniag, 

Inc., and Aleut Corporation, pursuant to Section 14(h)(1) of the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

When any Federal undertaking, including any action funded or 

authorized by the Federal government with the potential to 

directly or indirectly affect any archaeological or historic site, is 

planned, a consultation must be initiated with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. If sites that may be affected are found in the 

project area, their significance would be evaluated to determine 

their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (36 CFR 60; U.S. Government 1996–2003). For eligible 

sites, consultation would result in a course of action causing the 

least possible impact. Impacts may be minimized in a variety of 

ways, including relocation or redesign of a project, site 

hardening, mitigation through information collection, or 

cancellation of the project if no alternatives are feasible. To 

protect archaeological and historic sites, recreational or 

commercial uses may be precluded. Private interests proposing 

to conduct commercial uses on the Refuges would normally be 

required to fund studies necessary for consultation and for 

avoidance, reduction, or mitigation of impacts. 

The refuge manager would implement Executive Order 13007, 

Indian Sacred Sites, allowing access to identified sacred sites 

and avoiding adversely affecting the physical integrity of these 

sites. Where appropriate, the refuge manager would maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Further information on cultural resources management can be 

found in Part 614 of the Service Manual (USFWS) and the 

Service’s Cultural Resources Management Handbook (USFWS 

1992). 

Visual Resource Management

Recognizing that the quality of the visual environment is 

important to the American public, Congress identified the 

preservation of scenic values in the purpose for establishing the 

conservation system units in Alaska, including units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. “It is the intent of Congress 

in this Act to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values 

associated with natural landscapes; . . .” (Section 101 of 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-23 

ANILCA). Further, Congress directed the Service to “identify 

and describe . . . (B) the special values of the refuge, as well as 

any other . . . scenic or wilderness value of the refuge” (Section 

304[g][2]) of ANILCA]. Scenic resources are important values 

when considering management of lands designated as 

Wilderness and as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Visual resource management has two primary purposes: (1) to 

manage the quality of the visual environment and (2) to reduce 

the visual impact of development activities. To accomplish these 

purposes, the refuge manager would identify and maintain the 

scenic values of the Refuges and minimize the visual impacts of 

development and use of the Refuges within the constraints 

imposed by the selected alternative. Refuge and state (ADF&G) 

activities and/or facilities, commercial activities and associated 

support facilities, public-use facilities, and other activities or 

facilities that are allowed or may be authorized on the Refuges 

would be designed to blend into the landscape to the extent 

practicable. The refuge manager would cooperate with other 

Federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies and 

organizations to prevent significant deterioration of visual 

resources. 

Air Quality

The Service’s air-quality management authorities are included 

in several acts of Congress. The most direct mandates to 

managing air resources are found in the Wilderness Act and the 

Clean Air Act. 

Proper management of air resources is vital to protecting and 

maintaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources. The Service 

is required by the Clean Air Act to preserve, protect, and 

enhance air quality and air quality–related values on refuge 

lands. Air quality–related values include visibility, flora, fauna, 

soil, water quality, cultural and historical resources, and 

virtually all resources that are dependent upon and affected by 

air quality. In addition, the Wilderness Act requires the refuge 

manager to protect and preserve the wilderness character, 

including air quality, of designated areas. The Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges are classified as a Class II air-quality site 

and receive protection through the Clean Air Act and, in the 

case of the Becharof Wilderness area, through the Wilderness 

Act. Moderate deterioration, associated with well-managed 

growth, is allowed in Class II areas. 

If air quality or related resources are at risk, the refuge 

manager would work with the Service’s Air Quality Branch and 

the regional air-quality coordinator to develop an air-quality 

management plan for the Refuges, as outlined in the Service 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Manual Part 563, Chapter 2.8 (USFWS). The Service would 

work with the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation and other state, local, and Federal agencies and 

the public, as appropriate, in developing an air-quality 

management plan. 

Fire Management

The goal of fire management on refuge lands is to protect 

or enhance habitat and ecosystems for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife. Fire-management activities include preparedness, 

wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, education and 

prevention, hazardous fuels reduction and habitat management 

utilizing prescribed fire and/or mechanical treatment, 

monitoring, and research. All activities would be conducted 

in accordance with refuge, Service, and Department of 

Interior policies and approved interagency and refuge-specific 

fire management plans. Additional guidance on fire 

management can be found in the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual (USFWS; 621 FW 1-5). 

The comprehensive conservation plan provides the basis and 

foundation for integrating fire as a critical natural process into 

other plans and activities on refuges on a landscape scale. A 

Refuge Fire Management Plan, which provides specific 

information on the application and management of fire on 

refuges, is required unless waived because of a lack of fire 

occurrence. The Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan 

provides a cooperative framework and operational guidelines 

for the suppression of wildland fires. The suppression of humancaused and unwanted wildland fires and the use of naturecaused wildland fires and prescribed fires as management tools 

are important management prerogatives on refuges. 

In 1986, the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges were 

exempted from further fire-management planning based on the 

very low incidence of fire on the Alaska Peninsula and the 

existence of the Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan for 

the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula Planning Area. 

2.3.5 Management of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management

Conservation of habitat is a key component to maintaining the 

natural diversity of populations on the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges. Management of native fish and wildlife 

populations is a concern because these populations are 

important components of healthy ecosystems. Native species 

would be managed in their natural diversity and abundance 

within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The Service 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-25 

would work with the State of Alaska to conserve these 

populations, recognizing that populations may experience 

fluctuations in abundance that are natural due to environmental 

factors and may require management actions for conservation 

purposes. In addition, the Refuges would work with the State of 

Alaska to maintain the genetic variability of wild native fish 

stocks. 

Biotic Inventories—Biotic inventories include activities to 

understand and monitor the status, trends, harvests, species 

distribution, habitats, and population dynamics of fish, wildlife, 

and plants to meet refuge, flyway, national, and international 

objectives. The collection of data on species of management 

concern is guided by the inventory and monitoring plan for the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. Many of the objectives 

listed under Goal 2 include elements of monitoring and 

inventory for specific species. 

Marking and Banding—These activities include the capture, 

marking, banding, radio-collaring, release, tracking, and other 

information-gathering techniques for biota and contribute 

information on population dynamics and trends, life history, 

survival, and movements necessary for the management of fish 

and wildlife species. Cooperation with appropriate partners, 

including ADF&G, would be stressed, and specific protocols 

would be followed that would take advantage of all appropriate 

disciplines and new technologies wherever possible. The 

Refuges currently work with ADF&G in the capture and radiocollaring of caribou of the Northern Alaska Peninsula herd to 

monitor reproductive success and movements. 

The Refuges similarly worked with ADF&G during the 1980s 

and 1990s in the capture and radio-collaring of brown bears in 

order to investigate reproductive success and denning and to 

estimate density. The Refuges are currently conducting a longterm study of migratory neotropical songbirds to monitor fall 

migration and to study reproductive biology as part of the 

international Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival 

(MAPS) program. This work has involved extensive banding. 

Introductions and Reintroductions—A species may be 

introduced on a refuge only if that species is native to the refuge 

(i.e., a reintroduction). Nonnative species may not be 

introduced. 

A native species is a species, subspecies, or distinct 

population that occurs within its natural range or 

natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic 

area the species occupies naturally or would occupy in 

the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

environmental catastrophe). This definition 

recognizes that ecosystems and natural ranges are not 

static; they can and do evolve over time. Thus a species 

may naturally extend its range onto (or within) a 

refuge and still be considered native. 

A nonnative species is a species, subspecies, or distinct 

population that has been introduced by humans 

(intentionally or unintentionally) outside of its 

natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal. 

Reintroductions can be useful tools for restoring species to 

natural ranges and for reestablishing a refuge’s natural fish, 

wildlife, and habitat diversity. To maintain the natural diversity 

and to protect the biological integrity of the refuge, 

reintroductions should be undertaken only where a species was 

extirpated by human activity (directly or indirectly) or by an 

environmental catastrophe. The cause(s) of the extirpation 

should be evaluated and management actions taken to alleviate 

the cause(s) prior to the reintroduction. 

The environmental requirements of the species, as well as the 

ecological dynamics of the area proposed for the reintroduction, 

would need to be thoroughly reviewed prior to a reintroduction. 

Factors to consider include behavior, diseases, general ecology 

of the species, habitat requirements, interspecific and 

intraspecific competition, life history, genetics, management 

practices, population dynamics, and predators. Consideration 

would also be given to whether there have been significant 

habitat changes since the species’ extirpation (e.g., is the area 

still within the species’ natural range?). Reintroductions may 

require appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) compliance, an ANILCA Section 810 determination, 

and a refuge compatibility determination. Reintroductions 

would also require extensive coordination with adjacent 

landowners and with the State of Alaska. 

Nonnative Species Management—In general, nonnative 

species (including feral domestic animals) are not compatible 

with refuge purposes or National Wildlife Refuge System 

policies. When nonnative species (fish, wildlife, or plants) occur 

on the Refuges, the Service may control or eliminate that 

species. Where a population of a nonnative species has already 

been established and this population does not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the 

Refuges, the species may be managed as part of the refuge’s 

diverse ecosystem. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-27 

Fish and Wildlife Control—These activities involve the 

control, relocation and/or removal of native species to maintain 

natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and habitats. These 

management actions may be taken on species of fish and wildlife 

within their original range to restore other depleted native 

populations. These activities are subject to appropriate NEPA 

compliance and a refuge compatibility determination. 

Predator Management—Predator management includes the 

relocation, removal, sterilization, and other management of 

native predators to favor other wildlife populations or to protect 

reintroduced, threatened, or endangered species. Authority for 

authorizing or conducting predator control on refuges in Alaska 

comes from Title III of ANILCA and from 50 CFR Part 31 and 

36 (U.S. Government 1996–2003). Under the Alaska refugespecific regulations at 50 CFR 36.32(e)(U.S. Government 1996–

2003), “. . . animal control programs shall only be conducted in 

accordance with a special-use permit issued by the refuge 

manager.” 

The Service considers predator management to be a legitimate 

conservation tool when applied in a prudent and ecologically 

sound manner and when other alternatives are not practical. 

The key requirements are that a predator-management 

program must be compatible with refuge purposes, and 

biologically sound and justified. In keeping with our mandate to 

maintain fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity and with our policy to maintain biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge 

scale, a predator population would not intentionally be reduced 

below a level consistent with the low end of natural population 

cycles. 

A demand or desire to increase hunting opportunities would not 

be the sole or dominant justification for a predator-control 

program. Direct predator control could be considered only when 

there is a significant biological problem and sound biological 

justification. 

A predator-management program requires appropriate NEPA 

compliance and an ANILCA Section 810 evaluation and must be 

compatible with refuge purposes. Alternative management 

actions must be evaluated prior to direct predator-control 

activities. Any proposal to allow or implement a predatormanagement program on national wildlife refuges in Alaska 

would be subjected to public review and would be closely 

coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G), local communities, tribal entities, and adjacent 

landowners and managers. Predator-management activities 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

must be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness and resource 

impacts. 

Normal environmental education and population-management 

activities, such as trapper education programs and regulation 

changes that allow for increased harvests of predatory animals 

by licensed trappers and hunters, are not considered to be 

“predator management” under these guidelines. The control or 

extirpation of nonnative predators is not considered to be 

“predator management” (see preceding section on nonnative 

species management). 

Pest Management and Disease Prevention and Control—

Organisms that threaten human health and property or survival 

of native wildlife or plant species (e.g., rabies or parasites) may 

be managed or removed after consideration of all reasonable 

options and after consultation with the State of Alaska and 

other concerned parties. Wherever possible, an integrated 

approach to pest management would be used in accordance with 

30 AM 12 (USFWS). If chemical controls are used, a pesticideuse permit is required per the Department Manual, Part 517 

(DOI 1955-

). 

Fishery Restoration—Fishery restoration is any management 

action that increases fishery resources to allow full utilization of 

available habitat or to a population level based on historical 

biological data. Although the goal of restoration is selfsustaining populations, situations could occur in which the 

impact (e.g., habitat degradation) is such that some form of 

fishery management or mitigation activity could continue 

indefinitely. Any fishery restoration project would be subject to 

the Service’s Biological Integrity Policy, which states, in part, 

that we manage populations for natural densities and levels of 

variation (601 FW3.14C; USFWS). 

Where fishery resources have been severely adversely affected, 

the Refuges would work with the State of Alaska, local tribes, 

and other partners to restore habitats and populations to 

appropriate sustainable conditions. Restoration emphasis would 

focus on strategies that are the least intrusive to the ecosystem 

and that do not compromise the viability or genetic 

characteristics of the depleted population. This may include 

regulatory adjustments and or evaluations of escapement 

goal(s). Temporary restoration facilities may be allowed in 

designated Wilderness or Wild River areas if the stocks have 

been reduced or are threatened, as long as the facilities would 

not significantly detract from the values for which those areas 

were established. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-29 

Fishery Enhancement—Fishery enhancement is any 

management action or set of actions applied to a fishery stock to 

supplement numbers of harvestable fish to a level beyond that 

which could be naturally produced, based on a determination or 

reasonable estimate of historic levels. This could be 

accomplished by stocking barren lakes, providing access (fish 

passages) to barren spawning areas, constructing hatcheries, 

outstocking in productive systems, or fertilizing rearing habitat. 

Fishery management on the Refuges would focus on conserving 

naturally diverse ecosystems. Intervention for the purpose of 

artificially increasing fish populations on the Refuges, although 

authorized, would generally be discouraged. Proposals for 

fishery-enhancement projects would be subject to the provisions 

of NEPA and a compatibility determination. Temporary 

fisheries-enhancement facilities may be allowed in designated 

Wilderness or Wild Rivers if the facilities are the minimum tool 

necessary and would not significantly detract from the values 

for which those areas were established. 

Fish Management Planning—The Refuges Fishery 

Management Plan is scheduled for revision in 2008. This plan 

provides additional guidance on information needs and on 

management actions needed on the Refuges. The Service would 

involve partners, such as the State of Alaska and local tribes, in 

this process. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management

Habitat Management—Habitats are sometimes managed or 

manipulated to maintain or improve conditions for selected fish 

and wildlife populations, to control plant species, or to manage 

fire fuels on refuge lands. Impacts may be beneficial or 

detrimental for certain species. Any habitat management and 

manipulation activities would be carried out in support of the 

purposes, goals, and objectives of the Refuges. The Refuges 

would use the least intrusive management measures needed; 

where practical and economically feasible, habitat management 

practices would maintain a natural appearance on the 

landscape. Habitat management practices, even those carried 

out for the benefit of a single species or small group of species, 

would, to the extent possible, contribute to the diversity of 

native wildlife species and habitat types. 

Habitat management and manipulation may be achieved by 

mechanical, chemical, and manual methods—including the use 

of fire—or with a combination of methods. Mechanical 

treatment could include (but is not restricted to) mechanical 

removal, crushing, cutting, or mowing. When applicable, state 

and Federal guidelines for timber management would be 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

followed. Mechanical treatment could also include the 

construction of fish passages, fish ladders, fish barriers, water 

impoundments, and structures such as fences or artificial nests 

and the raising or lowering of water levels to manage wildlife 

and waterfowl habitat. 

Chemical treatment could involve the use of chemicals to 

restore nutrient levels in a lake system (fertilization) for 

fisheries restoration, to reduce hazardous fuels, or to eliminate 

nonnative plant and animal species, normally by killing them or 

destroying their ability to spread or prosper. Before chemical 

treatment is used, the Service would analyze the need for action, 

the options for treatment, and the potential impacts of those 

options. A pesticide-use permit is required if chemical controls 

are used on refuge lands (DOI 1955-

–, Part 517). 

Manual treatment could include the use of hand tools to remove, 

reduce, or modify hazardous fuels and nonnative plant or animal 

species or to modify habitats (e.g., removal of beaver dams). 

Weed Control (Pest and Nonnative Plant Management)—

Plants that are artificially transported into a new area can cause 

significant impacts to the land and water resources and to the 

species of plants and animals that use these habitats. To 

manage these weed species, the Refuges would include weed 

inventories as part of all habitat inventories. The Refuges would 

review the potential of proposed actions to introduce or spread 

weeds and would take measures to reduce the hazards. The 

refuge manager would use coordination with other landowners 

and integrated pest-management practices to enhance the 

detection, prevention, and management of weed problems. Use 

of chemical control measures would require a pesticide-use 

permit (DOI 1955-

, Part 517). 

2.3.6 Subsistence Use Management 

Providing the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local 

residents is one of the purposes of Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges, as stated in Section 302 of ANILCA. Title 

VIII of ANILCA further provides that rural Alaska residents 

engaged in a subsistence way of life be allowed to continue using 

refuge resources for traditional purposes. These resources 

include fish and wildlife, house logs and firewood, and other 

plant materials (berries, bark, etc.). Section 802(2) of ANILCA 

states that 

nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and 

other renewable resources shall be the priority 

consumptive uses on the public lands of Alaska when 

it is necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-31 

continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or 

the continuation of subsistence use of such 

populations . . . . 

Title VIII of ANILCA authorizes the State of Alaska to 

continue managing subsistence use of fish and wildlife on 

Federal lands under state law as long as that law provides for a 

rural subsistence preference and it ensures local involvement in 

management of subsistence resources. As the result of a legal 

challenge, the state subsistence law was determined not to 

comply with the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and it was 

struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court. 

With the State of Alaska no longer in compliance with Title VIII 

of ANILCA, the Federal Government assumed management of 

the subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on Federal public 

lands in Alaska on July 1, 1990. On October 1, 1999, 

management authority of the Federal Subsistence Board was 

extended to include navigable waters in which the United States 

has an interest by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine 

(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, State of 

Alaska versus Babbitt, 72 F.3d at 703-704). These waters are 

located within the external boundaries of refuges. Federal 

Subsistence Board jurisdiction within refuges includes lands 

selected by, but not yet conveyed to, the State of Alaska and 

Alaska Natives, pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act and the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, respectively. 

State hunting and fishing regulations continue to apply on 

Federal lands unless superceded by Federal Subsistence Board 

regulations. 

To the extent feasible, the Federal Government continues to 

work closely with ADF&G and the Alaska Boards of Fisheries 

and Game. Wherever possible, state regulations are adopted. 

Many aspects of subsistence management are addressed outside 

this plan. The Federal Subsistence Board, through its rulemaking process, addresses seasons, harvest limits, and 

determinations of customary and traditional use. The Federal 

board has established regional advisory councils to provide 

meaningful public input to the rule-making process. In addition, 

Federal subsistence management is the subject of ongoing 

litigation. 

The Refuges would supplement the state’s ongoing harvest- and 

resource-monitoring programs by providing additional 

information on the status of fish and wildlife populations 

harvested for subsistence uses. This monitoring is intended to 

identify potential problems before populations of fish and 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

wildlife become depleted and to ensure that preference is given 

to subsistence users, as required by law. 

The noncommercial gathering, by local rural residents, of fruits, 

berries, mushrooms, and other plant materials for subsistence 

uses and of dead standing or downed timber for firewood is 

allowed without a special-use permit. 

The refuge staff would work with any efforts to monitor 

subsistence harvest that may occur, including those by other 

Federal land management agencies, the State of Alaska, Native 

organizations, or any other party. All information gathered 

through subsistence monitoring would continue to be shared 

with state fish and game advisory committees, tribes, and other 

entities. The Refuges staff would attend various subsistencerelated meetings, including local fish and game advisory 

committee and regional subsistence advisory councils, and 

would provide information on the status of subsistence 

resources and management as it relates to the Refuges. 

Under Section 816 of ANILCA, refuge lands may be closed to 

the taking of fish and wildlife if closure is deemed necessary for 

reasons of public safety and of administration; further, the 

Federal Subsistence Board can close an area to subsistence use 

to ensure the continued viability of a particular fish or wildlife 

population. Emergency closure to subsistence taking generally 

would occur only after other consumptive uses competing for 

the resources are restricted or eliminated. 

Access for Subsistence Purposes

Access to refuge lands by traditional means would continue to 

be allowed for subsistence purposes in accordance with Section 

811 of ANILCA, subject to reasonable regulation (see (U.S. 

Government 1996–2003, 50 CFR 36.12). Traditional means, as 

indicated in Section 811, include snowmachines, motorboats, dog 

teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally 

used by local rural residents engaged in subsistence activities. 

On the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges, subsistence use 

of three- and four-wheeled off-road vehicles with a maximum 

weight of 650 pounds would continue to be allowed throughout 

the Refuges (U.S. Government 1996–2003, 50 CFR 

36.39[c][2][iii]). Use of these traditional means of travel would 

need to be in compliance with state and Federal laws, in a 

manner to prevent waste of harvested resources or damage to 

the Refuges, and in a manner to prevent herding, harassment, 

hazing, or driving of wildlife for hunting or other purposes. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-33 

Section 810 Evaluations

In addition to management of subsistence activities, the 

Refuges would also evaluate the effects of proposed activities on 

subsistence use under all alternatives to ensure compliance with 

Section 810 of ANILCA (see Chapter 4, Section 4.8). When a 

decision is to be made on “whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, 

or otherwise permit the use, occupancy or disposition” of refuge 

lands, the effect of the proposal on subsistence uses and needs, 

the availability of other lands for the proposed activity, and 

other alternatives to the proposal would be evaluated. The 

Refuges would work with the Federal Subsistence Board, 

regional subsistence councils, local fish and game advisory 

committees, Native regional corporations, tribes, the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, and other appropriate local 

sources to determine whether a proposed activity would 

significantly restrict subsistence uses. If it was determined that 

a proposal would probably result in significant adverse effects 

on subsistence use, the Service would follow the formal 

procedures identified in Section 810 of ANILCA before making 

a final decision on the proposal. 

2.3.7 Public Access and Transportation Management 

Snowmachines, Motorboats, Airplanes, and Nonmotorized 

Surface Transportation

Section 1110(a) of ANILCA allows the use of snowmachines 

(during periods of adequate snow cover and frozen river 

conditions), motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface 

transportation methods for traditional activities and for travel 

to and from villages and homesites. Such access shall be subject 

to reasonable regulations developed by the Service to protect 

the natural and other values of the Refuges (43 CFR 36.11; U.S. 

Government 1996–2003). If done in accordance with these 

regulations, specific areas may be closed to such uses. The 

refuge manager is responsible for determining when snow cover 

is adequate to protect the underlying vegetation and soil from 

damage by snowmachine use. 

Helicopters and Off-Road Vehicles

The regulations in 43 CFR 36.11 specify restrictions on the use 

of helicopters and off-road vehicles. The definition found in 50 

CFR 36.2 (U.S. Government 1996–2003) includes air boats and 

air-cushion vehicles in the definition of off-road vehicles. Offroad vehicles may be allowed on designated routes or areas or 

by special-use permit. Helicopter use for commercial or general 

public access is prohibited on the Refuges unless a special-use 

permit or other authorization is issued. Helicopter use by the 

Service or in emergency situations is exempt from the permit 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

requirement. Helicopter landings for volcano monitoring and 

geologic hazards evaluations and for fisheries and wildlife 

management activities may be allowed by the refuge manager 

under special-use permit or other authorization, subject to sitespecific stipulations. Helicopter landings for initial attack fire 

suppression must comply with operational guidance in the 

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan. 

Helicopter landings by commercial operators and for general 

public access are not allowed in designated Wilderness unless 

the use was established prior to designation. 

On the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges, three- and 

four-wheeled off-road vehicles with maximum weight of 650 

pounds are allowed for nonsubsistence purposes only on the 

following trails: Yantarni Bay airstrip, Yantarni Bay airstrip to 

beach trail, and Yantarni Bay airstrip to oil well site trail (50 

CFR 36.39[c][2][ii]; U.S. Government 1996–2003). 

Access to Inholdings

Section 1110(b) of ANILCA ensures adequate and feasible 

access, for economic or other purposes, across a refuge for any 

person or entity who has a valid inholding. An inholding is 

defined as state-owned or privately owned land—including 

subsurface rights underlying public lands, valid mining claims, 

or other valid occupancy that is within or effectively surrounded 

by one or more conservation system units. 

When a right-of-way permit is necessary under this provision 

(i.e., construction of permanent or long-term facilities), the 

refuge manager and the Division of Realty review and process 

the application in accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Part 

36 and 50 CFR Part 29 (U.S. Government 1996–2003). Such 

permits are subject to terms and conditions as specified in the 

regulations at 43 CFR 36.9 and 50 CFR 29.21-4 (U.S. 

Government 1996–2003), as well as in other stipulations, as 

needed to minimize environmental impacts and to protect 

refuge resources. Additional special requirements apply to 

rights-of-way that cross Wild and Scenic River corridors and to 

rights-of-way for pipelines. 

Temporary Access

Temporary access is defined as limited, short-term (i.e., up to 

one year from issuance of the permit) access, which does not 

require permanent facilities, to state or private lands. This 

provision of Section 1111 of ANILCA applies to access for 

survey, geophysical, exploratory, or other temporary uses, 

which are not already provided by the previous Sections of Title 

XI. The refuge manager would evaluate an application for 

temporary access across a refuge and would make a 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-35 

determination whether the requested access would or would not 

result in permanent harm to the Refuges’ resources. Permits 

would be issued (per 43 CFR 26.12; U.S. Government 1996–

2003) with the necessary stipulations and conditions to ensure 

that the access granted is compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established and that it complies with the 

provisions of Section 810 of ANILCA. 

Subsistence Access

See Access for Subsistence Purposes under Subsistence Use 

Management (Section 2.3.6). 

Transportation and Utility Systems

Transportation and utility systems include roads, highways, 

railroads, airports, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, 

communication systems, and the facilities reasonably and 

minimally necessary for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of such systems (Section 1102 of ANILCA). 

Anyone seeking to acquire a right-of-way across refuge lands 

for a transportation or utility system must, consistent with 

regulations at 43 CFR Part 36 (U.S. Government 1996–2003), 

file an application with the Service and all other Federal 

agencies having authority over the transportation or utility 

system. The Service will evaluate applications as required under 

regulations in 43 CFR Parts 36 (U.S. Government 1996–2003), 

which establishes specific procedures and time constraints for 

application review, compliance with NEPA, decision-making, 

and appeals. Applications will also be evaluated under 50 CFR29 for compliance with other applicable law. 

For areas of a refuge outside designated Wilderness, each 

agency has an independent decision whether to approve or 

disapprove the portion of the transportation or utility system 

for which it is responsible. If an agency disapproves any portion 

of a proposed transportation or utility system, the entire 

transportation or utility system is disapproved. For areas 

outside designated Wilderness, the Service would decide 

whether to approve or disapprove that portion of a 

transportation or utility system that would cross Refuges lands. 

When the proposed transportation or utility system would cross 

a designated Wilderness area, the Service tentatively approves 

or disapproves, and the President makes the decision. If the 

President approves, a recommendation is submitted to 

Congress for final approval. 

A right-of-way for a transportation or utility system across 

refuge lands can be granted by the Service only if the system 

meets the compatibility standard and the criteria outlined in 

regulations at 43 CFR 36.7(a)(2) (U.S. Government 1996–2003). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

If approved, permits issued for a transportation or utility 

system will contain terms and conditions, as required under 

regulations in 43 CFR 36.9(b) and 50 CFR 29.21-4 (U.S. 

Government 1996–2003). Additional special requirements apply 

to rights-of-way that cross Wild and Scenic River corridors and 

for certain pipelines, per regulations at 43 CFR 36.9(c) and (d), 

respectively. 

In cases where a transportation or utility system is proposed to 

cross areas with management categories that do not allow those 

systems, the authorization process outlined in 43 CFR Part 36 

(U.S. Government 1996–2003) would include consideration of a 

corresponding plan amendment. 

See Appendix G for a discussion of State of Alaska interests in 

transportation and utility-system corridors in the area of the 

Refuges. 

State Transportation Planning

Public Law 105-178 (the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century or TEA-21) authorized highway, road safety, transit, 

and other surface transportation programs through fiscal year 

2003. TEA-21 retained and enhanced several provisions of 

previous transportation legislation, including flexibility in the 

use of funds, an emphasis on measures to protect the 

environment, and the focus on a strong planning process as a 

basis for sound transportation decisions. 

Federal transportation-planning regulations require each state 

to develop a long-range, statewide transportation plan in 

consultation and coordination with other government agencies 

and the public. In Alaska, transportation projects nominated for 

funding are evaluated and ranked by the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. The highest-ranking 

transportation proposals are included in the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program, the State of Alaska’s 

official spending plan. Expected increases in Federal 

transportation funding in Alaska, (e.g., the TEA-21 formula) 

may result in an increase in proposed transportation projects 

through or near refuge lands. When appropriate, the refuge 

manager could participate in the state transportation-planning 

process and provide input regarding environmental 

considerations of proposed projects affecting refuge lands and 

resources. See Appendix G for a discussion of State of Alaska 

transportation planning in the area of the Refuges. 

RS 2477 Rights-of-Way

The State of Alaska asserts numerous claims to roads, trails, 

and paths across Federal lands under Revised Statute 2477, a 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-37 

section in the Mining Act of 1866 that states, “The right-of-way 

for the construction of highways over public lands not reserved 

for public uses is hereby granted.” Revised Statute (RS) 2477 

was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976, subject to valid existing claims. The rules for 

determining valid claims are still a matter of some dispute. 

The State of Alaska has identified a significant number of routes 

it believes qualify under RS 2477 throughout the state. The 

state statute requires annual reporting to the legislature of any 

additional qualifying routes. 

Seven of the routes identified in that legislation and subsequent 

reports to the legislature are located in whole, or in part, on the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges (see Appendix C, Table 

C-1, and Figure C-1). In addition to claiming specific routes, the 

State of Alaska also claims section line easements under 

RS 2477. 

Identification of potential rights-of-way does not establish the 

validity of these claims nor the public’s right to use them. In the 

absence of specific regulation or law, the validity of all RS 2477 

rights-of-way could be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

either through the courts or by legally binding agreement of all 

landowners. 

Several attempts to resolve the RS 2477 stalemate through 

departmental regulations or Federal legislation have occurred. 

The goal each time has been to provide an administrative 

process for the adjudication of claims. In 1996, Congress 

mandated that no rules governing RS 2477 would be effective 

until specifically authorized by an act of Congress. 

Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) of December 18, 1971, authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to reserve easements on lands conveyed to Native 

corporations to guarantee access to public lands and waters. 

Easements include linear easements (e.g., roads and trails) and 

site easements. Site easements are reserved for use as 

temporary campsites and to change modes of transportation; 

they can be established at periodic points along the course of 

major waterways flowing through Native lands, along coastal 

areas, and at junctions of roads and trails. 

Section 17(b)(1)of ANCSA requires that, to be reserved for the 

public, easements must be determined to be “reasonably 

necessary to guarantee international treaty obligations, a full 

right of public use and access for recreation, hunting, 

transportation, utilities, docks, and other public uses . . . .” A 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

17(b) easement reserves a right to use land owned by another 

for access to public lands and waters. Public activities such as 

recreation and hunting are not authorized on the easement or 

on the private lands surrounding or through which the 

easement reservation was made. 

The Service is responsible for administering those public 

easements inside and outside refuge boundaries that provide 

access to refuge lands. Service authority for administering 17(b) 

easements is restricted to the lands within the easement. The 

size, route, and general location of 17(b) easements are 

identified on maps filed with conveyance documents. 

Conveyance documents also specify the terms and conditions of 

use, including the acceptable periods and methods of public 

access. 

The physical location and/or authorized use of an easement may 

be adjusted. Either the Service or the landowner could 

recommend adjusting the location and/or authorized use of an 

easement. Easements can also be terminated if it is found that 

retention of the easement is no longer needed for public use or 

governmental function. In all cases in which a permanent 

change or termination is proposed, it would be through a 

Bureau of Land Management process. Interested parties, 

including the State of Alaska, would be given adequate public 

notice and opportunity to participate and comment. 

2.3.8 Recreation and Other Public Uses 

All refuge lands on the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges 

are open to general public access unless specifically closed. 

Compatible recreational uses of the Refuges would continue. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended, identifies the priority public use of the System as 

wildlife-dependent recreation, defined as uses of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. These uses are 

generally encouraged and would receive emphasis in 

management of public use of the Refuges. 

A fine line often exists between subsistence and recreational use 

(such as berry-picking). Subsistence uses are addressed under 

Subsistence Management in Section 2.3.6 of this plan. If 

conflicts arise, generally subsistence uses have priority over 

other uses. Priority wildlife-dependent public recreational uses 

then have priority over other public uses. 

Both consumptive (e.g., hunting, fishing, and trapping) and 

nonconsumptive (e.g., photography, wildlife viewing, and hiking) 

recreational uses are appropriate. Some recreational uses are 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-39 

incidental to others. Camping may be related to hunting, 

fishing, wildlife photography, or other recreational uses. 

The Refuges would be managed to provide high-quality 

recreation experiences in generally natural wildland settings. 

The density of recreational use would be related to the 

management area. Moderate Management areas would be 

managed for greater concentrations of visitors than would be 

those classified as Minimal Management and Wilderness 

Management areas. The Refuges would manage all recreational 

use to avoid crowded conditions and to minimize adverse effects 

to cultural resources, fish and wildlife, wilderness, and other 

special values of the Refuges. “Leave-No-Trace” use would be 

the standard. 

The least intrusive means of managing use would be employed. 

Education—through brochures, maps, signs, and personal 

contacts—would be the primary management tool for recreation 

management. However, if voluntary methods fail, other actions 

might be taken. Actions that might be taken to manage 

recreation include limiting commercial guiding and outfitting; 

regulating access, subject to the provisions of Section 1110(a) of 

ANILCA and 43 CFR 36 regulations (U.S. Government 1996–

2003); recommending changes in state and/or Federal fishing, 

hunting, and/or trapping regulations; and limiting the size and 

number of recreational group visits. A few recreation 

opportunities may be seasonally or otherwise restricted to 

minimize user conflicts or to avoid adverse effects to refuge 

resources. 

Recreation Facilities

Different refuges in Alaska may provide facilities to support 

certain recreational uses. These recreation facilities may be 

located on refuge lands and at administrative sites. Visitor 

centers and highly developed environmental education and 

interpretive sites may be located off refuge lands at 

administrative sites or other appropriate locations. Recreation 

facilities may include roads, trails, boat launch sites, 

campgrounds, interpretive sites, environmental education sites, 

visitor centers, public-use cabins, visitor-contact facilities, and 

signs. 

There are no recreation facilities within the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges. The King Salmon Visitors Center 

(KSVC) is located at the King Salmon airport. The Refuges, in 

cooperation with Bristol Bay Borough, built a viewing platform 

on the bluff overlooking the mouth of the Naknek River from 

the north. From this platform, people can watch the commercial 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-40 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

sockeye fishery during July as well as wildlife activity 

throughout the year. 

All new buildings (e.g., visitor centers, restrooms or outhouses, 

and visitor-contact buildings) and additions and alterations to 

existing buildings would comply with current accessibility 

standards. Other recreation facilities are not currently covered 

under these standards, but access for the disabled would be 

considered in the design of new or upgraded facilities. As funds 

are available, existing buildings would be updated to meet these 

standards. 

The level of development and appearance of facilities would be 

appropriate for the management category in which they are 

located. 

Cabins

This section describes policies that apply to all cabins on the 

Refuges (not just those for recreational use). Twenty-nine 

cabins are located on refuge lands, including five subsistence 

cabins, four administrative cabins, and 20 cabins associated with 

special-use permits for commercial uses. These cabins predate 

the establishment of the Refuges. Cabins associated with 

commercial uses are used for guiding. There are no public-use 

cabins or cabins used for other purposes. 

Special-use permits are required for subsistence and 

commercial cabins. Management of existing cabins and review 

of proposals for construction of new cabins for traditional uses 

would be in accordance with the Service’s cabin regulations (50 

CFR 36.33; U.S. Government 1996–2003). This policy states, in 

part, that a special-use permit may only be issued for new 

cabins upon a determination that the proposed construction, 

use, and maintenance of a cabin is compatible with the purposes 

for which the Refuges were established, that the use of a cabin 

is necessary to provide for continuation of an ongoing activity or 

use otherwise allowed within the Refuges, and that the 

applicant has no reasonable alternative site for constructing a 

cabin other than on refuge lands. The activity supported by the 

new cabin must have been historically supported by the 

construction and use of cabins. Special-use permits would not be 

issued for private recreational use cabins. Special-use permits 

are required for all cabins used for commercial purposes. No 

new commercial cabins will be permitted in designated 

Wilderness areas. No objectives for cabins on the Refuges have 

been developed at this time. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-41 

Temporary Facilities

The refuge manager would allow the use of temporary 

campsites, shelters, and other temporary facilities and 

equipment directly and necessarily related to the taking of fish 

and wildlife, provided they are not detrimental to the purposes 

of the Refuges, as per Section 1316 of ANILCA and regulations 

in Title 50 CFR Part 36.39(c) (U.S. Government 1996–2003). 

Special-use permits may be issued for caches, smokehouses, and 

other facilities. Appropriate stipulations would be included in 

the special-use permits to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

The following criteria would be considered in evaluating 

applications for temporary facilities: 

 Where feasible, they would be located in a manner not to 

displace or compete with existing public uses. 

 They would be located away from the vicinity of existing 

cabins. 

 They would be located on sites that are not currently 

popular camp sites. 

 The following conditions may be imposed on temporary 

facility special-use permits: 

 The time of occupancy would coincide with the state and/or 

Federal hunting, fishing and/or trapping seasons for the 

species for which the temporary facility is being used. 

 At the end of the specified occupancy, tents would be 

removed. 

 To the extent feasible, temporary structures would be built 

with materials that blend into and are compatible with the 

surrounding landscape. 

 To the extent feasible, temporary facilities would be 

screened from view from water and located so that they are 

as unobtrusive as possible when viewed from trails and 

areas of high-volume public use. 

2.3.9 Commercial Use Management 

Commercial uses are activities involving use of a refuge or its 

resources for a profit. Subsistence uses are not included in 

commercial uses. Refer to the subsistence section (Section 2.3.6) 

for policies related to subsistence. Chapter 3 describes current 

commercial-use activities that occur on the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges; Section 2.3.9 provides the general 

management direction applied to commercial uses of refuges 

throughout Alaska. 

All commercial uses (except for some pre-1979 commercial 

fishing activities or other activities where specific property 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-42 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

rights are held by entities other than the Federal Government 

or where specifically exempted by law) must meet the Refuges 

compatibility standards and must contribute to the refuge 

purposes or to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (50CFR29.1). In many cases, additional analysis to 

comply with both the National Environmental Policy Act and 

the compatibility requirements of the National Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended, would be required prior to 

determine whether to authorize an economic use. A written 

authorization (such as a special-use permit) is required to 

conduct commercial uses of the refuge or its resources. 

Commercial Recreation Services

To operate on refuge lands, air-taxi operators, wildlife-viewing 

guides, tour operators, wilderness guides, recreational fishing 

guides, recreational big-game hunting guides, and others 

providing recreation services for commercial gain are required 

to obtain special-use permits under 50 CFR 27.97 (U.S. 

Government 1996–2003). Where the number of special-use 

permits is limited, the refuge manager would award permits 

competitively (see U.S. Government 1996–2003; 50 CFR 36.41). 

Most commercial recreation service providers are also 

regulated by other Federal and state agencies. Special-use 

permits require compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations (for example, Coast Guard licensing regulations). 

The refuge manager attaches stipulations to the permits to 

ensure that camps; travel methods; storage of food, fish, and 

game meat; and activities are compatible with refuge purposes 

and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to resources or 

to other refuge users. If problems arise relating to commercial 

recreation activities—such as disturbance of active nests, 

wildlife concentrations, or subsistence use; chronic incidence of 

bears getting into food; or violations of state or Federal 

regulations—the refuge manager may modify or terminate use 

under the special-use permit stipulations. The refuge manager 

monitors the number and types of guides and outfitters 

operating in the Refuges and the number of their clients, and 

would, if necessary, further regulate use. 

Under Section 1307 of ANILCA, local preference is provided 

for all new commercial visitor services except guiding for 

recreational hunting and fishing. Regulations defining local 

preference are in 50 CFR 36.37 (U.S. Government 1996–2003). 

Commercial Trapping

The State of Alaska makes no distinction among recreational, 

subsistence, and commercial trapping. Refer to the recreation 

and subsistence sections for policies about trapping. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-43 

Commercial Fishing and Related Facilities

Under Section 304(d) of ANILCA, individuals with valid 

commercial fishing rights or privileges would be allowed to 

operate on the Refuges. The use of campsites, cabins, motor 

vehicles, and aircraft on the Refuges in support of commercial 

fishing is subject to reasonable regulation. Section 304(d) 

further specifies that commercial fishing rights may not be 

granted if the use is determined to be inconsistent with refuge 

purposes and to be a “significant expansion of commercial 

fishing activities . . . beyond the level of such activities during 

1979.” There are currently no commercial fishing or related 

facilities on the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

Seafood processing on the Refuges may be allowed under 

Intensive Management, subject to provisions of state and 

Federal laws. 

Aquaculture- and mariculture-support facilities may be allowed 

in Intensive Management, subject to provisions of state and 

Federal laws. 

Mineral Exploration and Development

Oil and Gas Exploration—Geological and geophysical studies, 

including subsurface core sampling and seismic activities, would 

require special-use permits with site-specific stipulations that 

ensure compatibility with refuge purposes, where applicable, 

and consistency with the management objectives of this Plan. 

Decisions to allow exploration would be made case by case. 

Exploration could be considered to allow analysis of resources 

lying under adjacent lands or to determine the extent of the 

resource in the Federal estate that would be drawn down 

because of development on adjacent lands. Other than the rights 

reserved to the United States under Section 1010(a) of 

ANILCA, these activities would not be allowed in designated 

Wilderness. 

Oil and Gas Leasing—The current management categories 

applied to the Refuges would not allow oil and gas leasing. The 

Plan would need to be amended to include an Intensive 

Management category for those lands where leasing would 

occur before any oil and gas leasing would be permitted. Oil and 

gas leasing would not be authorized until completion of 1) an 

assessment of potential; 2) a national interest determination; 

and 3) a compatibility determination, where applicable. During 

this process, the refuge manager would seek the views of state 

and local governments and other interested parties, in 

accordance with Section 1008(b)(2) of ANILCA. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-44 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

If leasing were ever authorized, leaseholders would be subject 

to Federal leasing regulations (43 CFR 3100; U.S. Government 

1996–2003) and appropriate state regulations. Leases would be 

subject to stipulations on access, seasonal use, and site 

revegetation; operators would be required to use technology 

that minimizes impacts on fish, wildlife, and habitat. The refuge 

manager would work closely with leaseholders to minimize the 

adverse effects of mineral exploration and extraction on refuge 

resources and recreation opportunities. 

Oil and Gas Development—There is no active oil or gas 

development on the Refuges. All well holes from historical 

development (e.g., Yantarni Bay and Mt. Demian sites) are 

capped and sealed. 

Onshore Support Facilities for Offshore Oil and Gas 

Development—There are no onshore support facilities on the 

Refuges, nor is there currently any offshore oil and gas 

development off the coast of the Refuges. 

Sand, Gravel, and Other Common Variety (Saleable) 

Minerals—Common variety minerals—such as sand, gravel, 

stone, limestone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay—may be 

sold pursuant to the Refuge Administration Act of July 31, 1947, 

(30 U.S.C. 602), as amended, (implementing regulations are 

found at 43 CFR 3600 [U.S. Government 1996–2003]); disposal 

is also authorized under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 

U.S.C. 715s). Extraction may be authorized, where compatible, 

in the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area to support 

construction and maintenance projects on or near Refuges lands 

if no reasonable material sites exist off Refuges lands and the 

activity is determined to be compatible with the purposes of the 

Refuges and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Other Mineral Leasing—In general, hardrock mineral leasing 

is not allowed on refuge land. Geothermal leasing is not allowed 

on the Refuges under Section 1014(c) of the Geothermal Steam 

Act (30 U.S.C. 1001–1021). Coal mining is also prohibited, 

subject to valid existing rights, under Section 16 of the Federal 

Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1975 (30 U.S.C. 201) and the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 

1201 et seq., 43 CFR 3400.2). However, in specific cases of 

national need, mineral exploration, development, or extraction 

may be permitted on any Alaska refuge (except, under 

provisions of Section 1502 of ANILCA, the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge). The President must determine that the 

national need for the mineral activity outweighs the other public 

values of the land. Any recommendation by the President would 

take effect only after enactment of a joint resolution by 

Congress. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-45 

Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Program—Section 

1010 of ANILCA requires that all Federal lands be assessed for 

their oil, gas, and other mineral potential, although Section 

304(c) prohibits new hardrock mining on Alaska refuges. 

Mineral assessment techniques that do not have lasting 

impacts—such as side-scanning radar, trenching, and core 

drilling—may be allowed throughout the Refuges. The refuge 

manager would issue special-use permits to other government 

agencies or their contractors for assessment work, including 

stipulations to ensure that the assessment program is 

compatible with refuge purposes and does not result in lasting 

environmental impacts that appreciably alter the natural 

character or biological or ecological systems of the Refuges. For 

example, stipulations may limit access during nesting, calving, 

spawning, or other times when fish and wildlife may be 

especially vulnerable to disturbance. 

Other Commercial Uses

Generally, other commercial uses would not be allowed. See the 

section “Transportation and Utility Systems” (in Section 2.3.7) 

for transmission lines, pipelines, and other rights-of-way 

mentioned in Title XI of ANILCA. 

2.3.10 Outreach 

Outreach is two-way communication between the public and the 

Refuges to establish mutual understanding, promote public 

involvement, and provide education to affect public attitudes 

and actions. This can be done by broadening public awareness 

and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources and their 

habitats, cultural resources, and resource management 

practices; by informing visitors about fish, wildlife, and habitat, 

natural resource issues, and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System; and by fostering stewardship of fish, wildlife, and 

wildland resources. 

Some outreach activities would focus specifically on the 

Refuges, while others would be broader. The Refuges staff 

would continue to take advantage of partnership opportunities 

in providing these services, including working with the Alaska 

Natural History Association; Alaska Public Lands Information 

Centers; local, state, and other Federal agencies; local schools; 

tribal governments; Alaska Native organizations; and 

individuals. 

Use of outreach as a management tool is key to the success of 

many of the management activities outlined in this plan. Two 

outreach activities, environmental education and interpretation, 

are included in the six priority public uses identified in the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-46 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Refuge System Improvement Act. Many other activities are 

also available for use by the Refuges staff in its outreach 

program and may be developed in more detail as a step-down 

management plan. All outreach activities must be continually 

evaluated to determine whether they meet refuge management 

goals and objectives. The Refuges would make sure that these 

services are available to all segments of the public, including 

those with disabilities and those who speak languages other 

than English. 

Interpretation

Interpretation is an educational activity that aims to reveal 

meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, 

by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than 

simply by communicating factual information. Interpretive tools 

include such media as exhibits (indoors and outdoors), campfire 

programs, publications, and videos. 

Environmental Education

Environmental education includes activities such as curriculum 

development and implementation, teacher workshops, and 

special events. As an outreach activity, the goals of 

environmental education are to facilitate in youth (and others) 

the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and problem-solving skills 

that would lead to educated participation in resourcemanagement issues. 

Other Outreach Activities

Outreach activities include many other methods of 

communicating with refuge audiences. Among these are 

working with the news media, conducting or participating in 

public meetings and workshops, developing Internet pages, 

inviting the public to the Refuges (open houses), and one-on-one 

communication. 

The Refuges environmental education and interpretation 

program includes a visitor center, environmental outreach at 

local schools, an annual science camp for high school students, 

and other activities. KSVC at the King Salmon airport is a 

cooperative venture among the Refuges; Katmai and Aniakchak 

National Park, Monument, and Preserves; the Bristol Bay 

Borough; and the Lake and Peninsula Borough. The KSVC 

provides information to enhance the experience of thousands of 

visitors each year and provides a valued information resource to 

the local community. The KSVC also holds special activities for 

the local community during National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

Refuges information technicians regularly present 

environmental education programs and materials to classes in 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-47 

the schools of the communities local to the Refuges. Each year, 

the Refuges hold a five-day residential science camp at the 

Bible Camp facility on Becharof Lake. High-school students 

from local communities, as well as their biology teacher, join 

Refuges and King Salmon Fishery Resource Office staff and 

other resource experts to study fishery and wildlife biology and 

techniques and Native traditional knowledge and culture. 

2.3.11 Management of Areas with Special Designations 

Management of Designated Wilderness

The Becharof Wilderness would continue to be managed in 

accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, ANILCA, and 

national and regional planning policies. Maintaining wilderness 

values and resources, preserving the wilderness character of the 

biological and physical resources, and providing opportunities 

for research and recreation are the management foci for 

designated Wilderness. The concept of minimum requirement—

the combination of methods, equipment, or administrative 

practices necessary to successfully and safely administer the 

Refuges and accomplish wilderness management objectives—

would be followed. 

Certain activities are legislatively prohibited in designated 

Wilderness, including oil, gas, and other mineral leasing; most 

surface-disturbing activities; and the use of most types of 

motorized and mechanized equipment. Other activities—

including subsistence use, traditional access, and traditional 

commercial recreational activities (e.g., guiding and 

outfitting)—would continue to be allowed where compatible 

with Wilderness Management and refuge and System purposes. 

Generally, motorized and mechanized equipment is prohibited 

by the Wilderness Act. Several exceptions, however, were 

identified in ANILCA; these include access for subsistence 

purposes (Section 811); access for traditional activities and to 

villages and homesites (Section 1110[a]); access to state-owned 

or privately owned lands, including subsurface rights, valid 

mining claims, or other valid occupancy (Section 1110[b]); and 

access for mineral assessment purposes as part of the Alaska 

Mineral Resource Assessment Program (Section 1010). Details 

of these provisions can be found under the appropriate heading 

in this section of this Conservation Plan. 

Under 50 CFR 35.5 (U.S. Government 1996–2003), the director 

of the Service may allow use of motorized or mechanized 

equipment in designated Wilderness where such use was 

established prior to designation. Under this provision, regional 

policy allows local residents engaged in subsistence activities to 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-48 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

use chainsaws. Other motorized and mechanized equipment not 

related to transportation—such as generators and water 

pumps—is not allowed (Section 4[c] of the Wilderness Act of 

1964, PL 88-577). Granting of rights-of-way for transportation 

or utility systems through designated Wilderness requires 

Presidential concurrence and Congressional approval, in 

accordance with Section 1106(b) of ANILCA. 

A step-down management plan will be prepared for the 

Becharof Wilderness by 2010 to address in greater detail the 

resources, uses, and management of the Wilderness Area. 

Specific details will be included on how the broad management 

directions provided in this Plan will be applied in designated 

Wilderness. Creation of the step-down plan will include 

appropriate public involvement. 

Mount Veniaminof National Natural Landmark

Mount Veniaminof was determined to be eligible for natural 

landmark status in 1967. It was so designated by the Secretary 

of Interior in August 1970. This unique active volcano is located 

in the Chignik Unit of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge. Its peak 

lies about 50 miles east-northeast of Port Moller on Bristol Bay 

and 40 miles west-southwest of Chignik Bay on the Pacific. It is 

approximately 450 miles southwest of Anchorage. 

Although the National Natural Landmarks Program is 

administered by the National Park Service, the Mount 

Veniaminof National Natural Landmark is administered by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Designation recognizes the national 

significance of the property and encourages its preservation 

without requiring acquisition. Designation does not dictate use 

of the property. The Minimal Management category currently 

applied to the landmark preserves its values. The objective of 

the program is long-term preservation through voluntary 

commitment of public and private owners to protect the 

outstanding values of the area. 

2.3.12 Navigable Waters 

As a general matter, the lands beneath tidelands and inland 

navigable waters were granted to the State of Alaska by the 

Equal Footing doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and 

the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958. If waterbodies, both inland 

and marine, were reserved or withdrawn by the Federal 

government prior to statehood on January 3, 1959, lands 

beneath these waters may have been retained by the United 

States. Within this framework, if a waterbody is navigable, the 

bed belongs to the State of Alaska. If a waterbody is not 

navigable, the bed belongs to the adjacent landowner(s). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-49 

Determination of what waters are navigable or nonnavigable is 

an ongoing process in Alaska at both the administrative and 

judicial levels. 

The Federal test for determining navigability was established 

more than 100 years ago in the landmark Supreme Court 

decision “The Daniel Ball,” 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1870), a 

portion of which reads as follows: 

Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable 

rivers in law which are navigable in fact and they are 

navigable in fact when they are used, or are 

susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, 

as highways of commerce, over which trade and travel 

are or may be conducted in the customary modes of 

trade and travel on water. . . . 

Although “The Daniel Ball” test is the accepted standard for 

determining navigability, at times there is disagreement 

between the Federal government and the State of Alaska over 

the interpretation and application of this decision to specific 

rivers, streams, and lakes in Alaska. In situations where 

navigability and the ownership of submerged lands are disputed 

for a specific waterbody, the final navigability determination 

authority rests with the Federal courts. This issue is discussed 

again in Chapter 3, Section 3.1. 

In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) amended a 

regulation regarding Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act. The amended regulation allows the 

Secretary of the Interior to disclaim certain Federal property 

interests in lands, including lands beneath navigable waters. 

Following a determination that waters are navigable and 

submerged lands were not part of a prestatehood Federal 

reservation, the BLM can issue a “recordable disclaimer of 

interest” to remove clouds on land title for lands beneath 

navigable waters. In October 2003, the BLM began disclaiming 

Federal interests beneath navigable waters within national 

wildlife refuges in Alaska. 

Where management conflicts arise, the refuge manager would 

work with the State of Alaska on specific waterbodies to resolve 

issues concerning ownership and use of rivers, lakes, and 

streams within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

Cooperative management agreements among the Refuges, the 

State of Alaska, and other landowners may be developed when 

needed for specific waterways within the Refuges. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-50 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

2.3.13 Land Exchanges and Acquisitions 

Under Section 1302 of ANILCA, the Service may acquire by 

purchase, donation, or exchange any lands within the 

boundaries of Alaska refuges. Proposed land exchanges or 

acquisitions must benefit fish and wildlife resources, satisfy 

other purposes for which a refuge was established, or be 

necessary to satisfy other national interests. The Service can 

also purchase conservation easements or enter into cooperative 

management agreements to meet these objectives. 

Department of the Interior and Service policies require a stepdown plan, generally called a Land Conservation Plan, 

addressing priorities for habitat conservation within refuge 

boundaries. The primary goal of this plan is to inform private 

landowners what land within refuge boundaries the Service 

would like to see conserved for fish and wildlife habitat. To meet 

this goal, the plan would do the following: 

 Identify the private lands within the refuge boundary that 

the Service believes should be conserved 

 Display the relative acquisition priority for each parcel (or 

area) 

 Discuss alternative means of land and resource conservation 

 Analyze the impacts of acquisition on local residents 

In Alaska, the Service acquires land only from willing 

landowners. It is Service policy to acquire land only when other 

methods of achieving goals are not appropriate, available, or 

effective. Sometimes resource conservation goals can be met 

through cooperative management agreements with landowners 

or by similar means. The Service would like to work with all 

landowners to ensure that overall fish and wildlife and habitat 

values within the Refuges are conserved. 

A pre-acquisition environmental site assessment is required for 

all real property proposed for acquisition by the Service or for 

public domain lands returning to departmental jurisdiction 

(USFWS, Part 341 FW 3). 

Boundaries of currently proposed Wilderness areas may 

encompass lands that have been selected or conveyed under 

provisions of the various public land laws affecting Alaska. 

Qualified inholdings within a designated Wilderness Area that 

are subsequently acquired by the Service will automatically 

become part of that Wilderness Area. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-51 

2.3.14 Environmental Contaminants Identification and 

Cleanup 

As part of the national Contaminant Assessment Process, an 

assessment of known or suspected contaminants threats within 

Alaska refuges began in 1999. Existing information for each 

refuge will be reviewed, and an assessment of potential 

contaminants threats would be entered into an electronic 

database. This process will take a number of years to complete. 

When distinct sources of contamination are identified on refuge 

lands, the Refuges would initiate discussions with the 

responsible party or parties so that the situation can be 

remedied. If the Refuges caused the suspected contamination, 

funds would be sought to characterize the site and to remediate 

contamination. Relevant regulations and State of Alaska 

regulations (e.g., 18 AAC 75; State of Alaska) would be followed 

during remediation work. 

All spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials must 

be reported to the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (Alaska State regulation, 18 AAC 75 [State of 

Alaska]) and the National Response Center (Comprehensive 

Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act, as 

amended; Oil Pollution Act of 1990). Incidents also need to be 

reported to the Service’s regional spill response coordinator. 

When the Refuges are responsible for spill remediation, the 

Division of Engineering and Safety would take the lead in site 

remediation. 

2.3.15 Refuge Infrastructure and Administration 

The Division of Engineering, Region 7, is developing a 

handbook that provides detailed information on the Service 

standards, policies, and guidelines for engineering and 

construction projects designed, constructed, altered, or leased 

with Federal funds on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. 

Administrative Sites and Visitor Facilities

In August 1995, the Department of the Interior adopted 

guidelines for implementing Section 1306 of ANILCA. Under 

Section 1306, the Secretary of the Interior may establish 

administrative sites and visitor facilities, either within or outside 

the boundaries of a conservation system unit, in accordance with 

the unit’s management plan and for the purposes of ensuring 

the preservation, protection, and proper management of said 

unit. This section further states that “to the extent practicable 

and desirable, the Secretary shall attempt to locate such sites 

and facilities on Native lands in the vicinity of the unit.” 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-52 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

The guidelines require the following: 

 Prior to initiating a search for an administrative site or 

visitor facility, site-selection criteria must be developed with 

public input. 

 The agency must identify, notify, and solicit proposals from 

Native landowners and may review the availability of other 

lands in the area and solicit proposals from non-Native 

landowners. 

 All proposals must be evaluated according to the siteselection criteria. 

 If it is determined that Native lands satisfy the siteselection criteria and are desirable and practicable for the 

intended use, the highest ranked Native lands shall be 

selected as the preferred site, subject to a specific site 

evaluation. 

 If no Native lands satisfy the site-selection criteria, the 

highest-ranked parcel will become the preferred site. 

A draft decision document would be made available to the public 

for review. Any comments would be considered prior to making 

a final decision. More detail can be found in the guidelines. 

Applicability of Refuge Regulations to Off-Refuge 

Administrative and Visitor Facility Sites

Part 50 CFR 36.1 (U.S. Government 1996–2003) authorizes the 

refuge manager to enforce regulations concerning public safety 

and protection of government property, as well as to enforce 

State of Alaska fish and wildlife regulations, on administrative 

and visitor facility sites that may be held in fee or less-than-fee 

title and are either inside or outside the approved boundaries of 

any Alaska national wildlife refuge. Less-than-fee title land 

includes sites administered by a national wildlife refuge under 

the terms of a memorandum of understanding or lease 

agreement. 

Shared Facilities Agreements

When two or more agencies with similar missions and 

responsibilities are located in the same community, it may be 

appropriate for the agencies to jointly lease or, if necessary, 

construct facilities under a shared-facility agreement. The 

refuge manager would be open to such an option when the 

needs of the refuges can be met with a minimum expenditure of 

administrative time and money. Shared-facility agreements may 

be particularly appropriate in rural Alaska, where suitable 

facilities are often in limited supply and/or may be very costly, 

although the use of these agreements need not be limited to 

such areas. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-53 

Section 1308 of ANILCA (Local Hire)

Section 1308 of ANILCA, as amended by Section 16 of Public 

Law 102-415 (October 14, 1992), provides for establishing a 

local-hire program in Alaska. Under this program, any 

individual who, by reason of having lived or worked in or near a 

refuge, has special knowledge or expertise concerning the 

natural or cultural resources of the refuge and the management 

thereof, may be considered for selection for any position within 

the refuge for which the individual is qualified. 

Regional Release 223-23, which appends Service Manual 

(USFWS), Part 223 (Personnel) FW 6 (Merit Staffing 

Program), provides guidance and procedures for the use of the 

local-hire authority. 

2.3.16 Refuge Management Step-Down Plans 

Some management programs are addressed in sufficient detail 

in the Conservation Plan to be integrated directly into the 

budgetary process included in the Refuge Operating Needs 

System or in the Maintenance Management System and, in 

turn, in annual work plans. For other programs, it may be 

necessary (or required) to prepare step-down management 

plans to formulate the detailed management activities necessary 

to support refuge objectives and to implement general 

strategies identified in the Conservation Plan. Additional 

information on the step-down planning process can be found in 

Part 602 FW 3 of the Service Manual (USFWS). 

The following step-down management plans for the Refuges 

would be required: 

 Station Safety Plan Completed 2000; revised annually 

 Wildlife Inventory Plan To be completed by October 2007 

 Habitat Inventory Plan To be completed by December 2007 

 Cultural Resources Guide Completed 1996; next review 2008 

 Land Conservation Plan Completed 2002 

 Fisheries Management 

Plan 

Completed 1994; next review 2008 

 Water Resources Plan To be completed by 2010 

 Environmental Education 

Plan 

Completed 1991; revised annually 

 Facilities Management 

Plan 

Completed 1997; next review 2005 

 Wilderness Stewardship 

Plan 

To be completed by December 2010 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-54 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

2.3.17 Management of Selected Lands 

Within the Refuges, approximately 400,000 acres have been 

selected, but ownership has not yet been conveyed to Natives or 

Native corporations. The majority of the land entitlements of 

Alaska Native village and regional corporations under ANCSA 

have been conveyed. Eventually, most of the remaining land 

selections are expected to be relinquished or rejected, and the 

lands will remain part of the Refuges. The Service retains 

management responsibility for ANCSA-selected lands, although 

the appropriate Native corporation would be contacted, and its 

views considered, prior to implementing a management 

program or issuing a permit involving selected lands. In 

addition, any fees collected for special-use or right-of-way 

permits will be held in escrow until the selected lands are 

conveyed or relinquished. Management directions for these 

lands will be the same as on adjacent refuge lands. 

2.3.18 Cooperative Management 

The Cooperative Management category, part of the current 

management direction, is applicable to those areas within or 

adjacent to the refuge boundaries where non-Federal 

jurisdictions may potentially have a management responsibility. 

The Service shares common interests with the state and would 

cooperate with the state in its management of state land and 

water. Cooperative management could strengthen the 

protection of the valuable fish and wildlife resources on the 

Ugashik Lakes, Becharof Lake and its tributaries, and other 

river systems. The Service would seek a cooperative 

management agreement with ADF&G, the Alaska Department 

of Environmental Conservation, and the Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources for the management of these waters to 

maintain existing natural fish and wildlife populations and water 

quality and quantity. Management efforts would focus primarily 

on research studies and other scientific programs to increase 

biological knowledge concerning fish and wildlife. 

2.4 Management Categories 

This section describes the management categories applied to 

the refuges in Alaska and the activities appropriate for those 

categories. Only the Moderate, Minimal, Cooperative, and 

Wilderness Management categories are currently applicable to 

the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The Cooperative 

Management category is no longer defined as a distinct 

management category throughout the region because the 

Service cooperates with state and private landowners within 

and adjacent to refuges regardless of the applicable 

management category. Figure 2–1 shows the locations of the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-55 

management categories as they are currently applied on the 

Refuges. 

2.4.1 Intensive Management 

This category is designed to allow management actions, public 

facilities, and commercial activities that are compatible with 

refuge purposes and may result in alterations to the natural 

environment. In Intensive Management areas, the presence of 

human intervention may be very apparent. Roads, buildings, 

and other structures are likely to be seen. Intensive 

Management is intended to be applied to the smallest area that 

can reasonably accommodate the intended uses. When Intensive 

Management is proposed for an area, the specific purposes for 

its establishment will be described. 

Natural processes or habitats may be maintained through 

human intervention. Habitats may be highly modified to 

enhance conditions for one or more species. For example, water 

regimes may be artificially controlled to improve habitat for 

waterfowl. 

High levels of public use may be accommodated and encouraged 

through modifications to the natural environment such as 

paving, buildings, developed campgrounds, and other facilities 

that could alter the natural environment in specific areas. Public 

facilities are designed to provide a safe and enjoyable 

experience of the natural environment and an increased 

understanding of refuge resources. Facilities would 

accommodate a large number of visitors while protecting refuge 

resources from damage through overuse. 

Commercial use of refuge resources that results in alterations 

to the natural environment may be authorized in Intensive 

Management, when compatible with the refuge purposes. 

Operations plans required from commercial operators are based 

on the most environmentally sound practices in order to protect 

the natural processes and habitats. 

Facilities in support of commercial activities may be allowed 

only with a special-use permit. 

The Intensive Management category is not currently applied to 

any lands within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

2.4.2 Moderate Management 

Moderate Management would allow management actions, public 

uses, commercial uses, and facilities that may result in 

temporary or permanent changes to the natural environment 

but are small in scale and do not disrupt natural processes. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-56 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Although the signs of human actions may be visible, the natural 

landscape is the dominant feature of Moderate Management 

areas. 

Management actions in Moderate Management would focus on 

maintaining habitats to maintain healthy populations of plants 

and animals. In general, management facilities, both temporary 

and permanent, would be allowed in order to gather data 

needed to understand and manage resources and natural 

systems of the Refuges. Structures would be designed to 

minimize overall visual impact. 

Public facilities provided in Moderate Management would allow 

the public to enjoy and use refuge resources in low numbers 

over a large area or would encourage the short-term enjoyment 

of the Refuges in focused areas, while protecting habitats and 

resources. The emphasis is on small facilities that encourage 

outdoor experiences. Facilities such as public-use cabins, rustic 

campgrounds, kiosks, viewing platforms, trails, and toilets may 

be provided. For example, the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management area has designated trails for the recreational use 

of off-road vehicles (ORVs). Facilities will be designed to blend 

with the surrounding environment. 

Commercial activities may be allowed if they are compatible 

with refuge purposes and in areas in which impacts to natural 

processes and habitats are temporary or facilitate management 

goals. Examples include facilities such as tentframes or cabins 

in support of guiding and outfitting services that support public 

use. All commercial activities and facilities require special-use 

permits. 

Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-59 

2.4.3 Minimal Management 

Minimal Management is designed to maintain the natural 

environment with very little evidence of human-caused change. 

Habitats should be allowed to change and function through 

natural processes. Management actions that change existing 

habitats should be designed and implemented so that a natural 

appearance is maintained. Public uses, commercial activities, 

and facilities should minimize disturbance to habitats and 

resources. Ground-disturbing activities are avoided whenever 

possible. 

Management actions focus on understanding natural systems 

and monitoring the health of refuge resources. Generally, no 

permanent structures are allowed (except cabins). Temporary 

structures may be allowed in areas where removal is planned 

after the period of authorized use and the site can be 

rehabilitated using plant materials native to the immediate area. 

Permanent cabins may be allowed for administrative, public 

use, subsistence, or commercial (e.g., guiding) purposes. Public 

use of the Refuges for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

subsistence purposes is encouraged. 

Public-use facilities are not generally provided. Mechanized and 

motorized equipment may be allowed when the overall impacts 

are temporary or where its use furthers management goals. 

Compatible commercial activities may be allowed where the 

evidence of that activity does not last past the season of use, 

except as noted in the preceding discussion of cabins. The 

primary commercial activities are likely to be guiding and 

outfitting of recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, 

hiking, river floating, and sightseeing. Facilities in support of 

commercial activities may be allowed only with special-use 

permits. 

2.4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Management category applies to 

those rivers and a corridor of adjacent lands that have been 

included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System through 

Congressional designation. This is a national system of selected 

rivers that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values. These rivers shall be preserved in a freeflowing condition and are to be protected for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. All designated 

rivers on refuges in Alaska are classified as Wild River areas. 

Wild Rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-60 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of 

primitive America. 

Within this management category, waterbodies are maintained 

in a natural, free-flowing, and undisturbed condition. Natural 

flow regimes will not be impeded by human intervention. 

Emphasis is placed on maintaining the natural function of the 

river system, and the appearance and sense of wildness are 

preserved. Evidence of human activities is minimal. Each river 

within the system has particular values for which it was 

designated. The management of a Wild River must protect 

those specific values. Management actions focus on 

understanding, monitoring, and maintaining the resources, 

natural ecosystem function, and aesthetics of the river corridor. 

Permanent structures are not generally allowed, with the 

exception of historic and cultural resources and, in certain 

circumstances, subsistence or administrative cabins. Cabins, 

necessary temporary structures, and hardened sites will be 

visually shielded from the river wherever possible. Where 

shielding is not practical, facilities and structures are to be 

rustic or unobtrusive in appearance and promote opportunities 

for primitive recreation experiences. 

Commercial uses of Wild River corridors will be allowed where 

those activities do not detract from the values for which the 

corridor was designated. Primary commercial uses are likely to 

be commercial recreation services such as guided float, 

sightseeing, fishing, and hunting trips. Numbers and size of 

groups and timing or location of trips may be controlled to 

maintain the values of the corridor. 

At this time there are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers 

within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

2.4.5 Management of Designated Wilderness 

This category applies only to areas designated by Congress as 

units of the National Wilderness Preservation System; areas 

proposed for Wilderness designation will be managed under 

Minimal Management, consistent with Section 1317(c) of 

ANILCA and Service policy. Designated Wilderness will be 

managed consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the 

exceptions provided by ANILCA. Because Wilderness units are 

part of a nationwide, multi-agency system, the Service 

recognizes that responsibilities for managing refuge Wilderness 

go beyond the missions of the Service and the other purposes 

for which refuges were established. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-61 

The history and intent behind the Wilderness Act makes 

Wilderness more than just another category of land 

management. Wilderness encourages a broadened perspective 

on the refuge landscape, one that extends beyond managing it 

solely as wildlife habitat. By law, Wilderness is managed as an 

area “retaining its primeval character and influence.” In 

addition, Wilderness provides human visitors with opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreations, which may be 

characterized in terms of experiential dimensions such as 

discovery, self-reliance, and challenge. These experiences may 

be negatively influenced by certain technologies or actions—

even some that have no tangible impact on the landscape. 

Designated Wilderness areas are managed to preserve their 

experience values as well as their aesthetic, scientific, and other 

related values. Research has shown that some values of 

Wilderness extend beyond their boundaries, to people who may 

never visit but who benefit from the protection of natural 

ecological processes and the simple knowledge that such places 

exist. In Wilderness, managers are encouraged to also consider 

these off-site and symbolic values, as well as tangible resource 

values, in making decisions. 

In the wording of the act, Wilderness is “where the Earth and 

its community of life are untrammeled by Man.” Wilderness is a 

place of restraint, for managers as well as for visitors. We limit 

our influence to those actions and mechanisms that are 

necessary to manage these areas as Wilderness. 

Nondegradation of current conditions is the main management 

principle. Natural systems in Wilderness will be allowed to 

function unimpeded, except as necessary to minimize or 

mitigate human-caused change. When considering possible 

activities in designated Wilderness, managers conduct 

additional analyses to make sure that the activity is needed, that 

no alternative location exists, and that the effects on wilderness 

conditions and values will be minimized. Part of this analysis is 

choosing the minimum tool—the combination of methods, 

equipment, or administrative practices necessary to successfully 

and safely administer the Refuges and accomplish Wilderness 

Management objectives. 

ANILCA contained Wilderness Management provisions 

applicable only to “the unique conditions in Alaska.” Wilderness 

units in Alaska are living, working landscape where people are 

still a part of the ecosystem. The ANILCA provisions, 

summarized in the management categories table, include the 

ability to access Wilderness by motorboat, airplane, and 

snowmachine and to construct and maintain a limited number of 

new public-use cabins and shelters if they are necessary for the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-62 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

protection of public health and safety, as long as they blend with 

the wilderness landscape. New cabins may also be built for 

trapping where trapping has been a traditional and customary 

use. Temporary facilities such as tent frames and shelters are 

allowed if they are directly and necessarily related to the taking 

of fish and wildlife, blend with the landscape, and are used in a 

manner consistent with protection of the surrounding area. 

2.5 Summary of Management 

Direction 

Table 2-1 summarizes the management direction for the 

management areas applicable to all national wildlife refuges in 

Alaska. Only three of the five categories—Moderate 

Management, Minimal Management, and management of 

designated Wilderness—are currently applicable to the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. In addition, there are 

activities listed in the table that may be applicable on some 

refuges (e.g., timber management), but that have very little or 

no likelihood of occurring on the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges. Those activities and management categories that are 

not currently relevant to managing under this draft plan are 

shaded in gray in the table. 

We anticipate using the management direction described in the 

following table as the default management direction for all 

refuges in Alaska; this direction would be used unless another 

approach for a particular refuge was identified and justified. We 

welcome comments on the appropriateness of the management 

direction defined in this table. 

Following are definitions for terms used in Table 2-1: 

Allowed—Activity, use, or facility is allowed under existing 

NEPA analysis, compatibility determinations, and applicable 

laws and regulations of the Service, other Federal agencies, and 

the State of Alaska. 

May be allowed—Activity, use, or facility may be allowed 

subject to site-specific NEPA analyses (including categorical 

exclusions [CE], environmental assessments [EA], and 

environmental impact statements [EIS]), a specific 

compatibility determination, and compliance with all applicable 

laws and regulations of the Service, other Federal agencies, and 

the State of Alaska. 

May be authorized—Activity, use, or facility may be allowed; a 

special-use permit or other authorization is required. 

Not allowed—Activity, use, or facility is not allowed. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-63 

The following terms are used: 

NEPA analysis—All activities, uses, and facilities proposed for 

a refuge that have the potential to result in significant effects on 

the environment require an analysis of potential environmental 

impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. This 

analysis may be documented as a CE, EA, or EIS, depending on 

the nature of the proposed project. 

Compatibility—All activities, uses, and facilities allowed on a 

refuge, except management actions undertaken by or for the 

Service, must be compatible with the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

analysis that occurs results in a compatibility determination. 

Regulations—All activities, uses, and facilities allowed on a 

refuge must comply with any applicable Federal regulations, as 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Regulations are developed by the Service through a public 

process to implement the legal authorities under which the 

Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. For 

more information on these regulations, see the appropriate topic 

in Section 2.3. For some activities, other Federal agency and/or 

state regulations may also apply. 

Temporary—Activities, uses, and facilities over a continuous 

period of time not to exceed 12 months, except as specifically 

provided otherwise. Special-use permits or other authorizations 

may prescribe a longer period of time, but the structures or 

other human-made improvements need to be readily and 

completely dismantled and removed from the site when the 

period of authorized use ends. 

The following guidelines apply to all activities, uses, and 

facilities allowed on a refuge: 

Area or time restrictions—All activities and uses allowed on a 

refuge may be restricted in certain areas or at certain times, at 

the discretion of the refuge manager and with the appropriate 

level of public involvement, by emergency (short-term) or 

permanent regulation if necessary to protect refuge resources 

or human health and safety. 

Management emergencies—Activities, uses, and facilities not 

allowed on a refuge or in specific management categories may 

be allowed if naturally occurring or human-caused actions 

adversely affect refuge resources or threaten human health and 

safety. 

Wild Rivers—In Wild River corridors, no activities, uses, or 

facilities may occur that would impede the free-flowing 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-64 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

condition of the river or degrade the outstandingly remarkable 

values for which the river was designated. Facilities would be 

designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 

Wilderness—The concept of minimum tool—the minimum 

action or instrument necessary to successfully, safely, and 

economically accomplish Management of Designated 

Wilderness objectives (6 RM 8.5)—applies to all activities, uses, 

and facilities allowed in designated Wilderness. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 2-1. Activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities by management category 

(The shaded rows and columns describe activities or management categories that currently do not occur on the refuges cove

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Ecosystem, Habitat, and Fish and Wildlife Management Ecosystem and Landscape Management Collecting Information on and Monitoring Ecosystem Components—Data gathering and monitoring and maintaining a comprehensive database of selected ecosystem components (plants, animals, fish, water, air) 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Service—Allowed ADF&G—Coordinate with Refuges manager 

Research and Management—Access and collection of data necessary for management decisions or to further science Other researchers—

May be allowed 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Research and Management Facilities—May be permanent or temporary structures or camps associated with weirs, counting towers, and sonar counters. 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); see 

Wild River special management provisions 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Describing, Locating, and Mapping Habitats—Development of quantitative, written, and graphic descriptions of fish and wildlife habitat, including water, food, and shelter components 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-66 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Habitat Management: Mechanical Treatment—Activities such as cutting, crushing, or mowing of vegetation; water-control structures; fencing; artificial nest structures 

May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed; 

except when identified in an approved stepdown management plan. 

Same as (3) 

Habitat Management: Chemical Treatment—Use of chemicals to remove or control nonnative species

May be allowed; pesticide-use permit required (562 FW 1) 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Habitat Management: Manual Treatment—Use of hand tools to remove, reduce, or modify flammable plant fuels (e.g., dry grasses, other plant material that poses a wildfire threat), exotic plant species, or to modify habitats (e.g., remove beaver dams)

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Habitat Management: Aquatic Habitat Modifications—Activities such as streambank restoration, passage structures, fish barriers, or removal of obstacles that result in physical modification of aquatic habitats to maintain or restore native fish species 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

except only facilities that are intended to restore natural stream profiles are allowed 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Fire Management: Prescribed Fires—Fire ignited by management actions to meet specific management objectives 

May be allowed; subject to provisions of approved refuge firemanagement plan or project (burn) plan 

Same as (1) Same as (1); use 

limited suppression and least intrusive techniques 

Not allowed; except where needed to reduce fuel loads, subject to approved refuge firemanagement plan or project plan 

Fire Management: Wildland Fire Use—The planned use of naturally occurring fires to meet management objectives 

May be allowed; subject to provisions of approved refuge-fire management plan 

Same as (1) Same as (1); use 

limited suppression and least intrusive techniques 

Same as (3) 

Fire Management: Fire Suppression—Management actions intended to protect identified resources from a fire, extinguish a fire, or alter a fire’s direction of spread 

Allowed; subject to provisions of interagency Alaska Fire Management Plan or approved refuge fire-management plan 

Same as (1) Same as (1); use 

limited suppression and least intrusive technique 

Same as (3) 

Weed Control—Monitoring, extirpation, control, removal and/or relocation and other management practices for pest and nonnative plant species 

May be allowed; chemical control requires a pesticideuse permit 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Water Quality and Quantity Management—Monitoring of water quality and quantity to identify baseline data and for management purposes; includes installation of gauging stations 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-68 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Reintroduction of Species—The reintroduction of native species to restore natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and habitats 

May be allowed for reintroduction of native species only 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Predator Management—Relocation, removal, sterilization, and other management of predators to favor other fish or wildlife populations or to protect reintroduced, threatened, or endangered species. 

May be allowed; must maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge scale 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Fish and Wildlife Control—The control, relocation and/or removal of native species to maintain natural diversity of fish, wildlife and habitats or to restore depleted native populations 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Nonnative Species Management—The removal or control of nonnative species (including predators) 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1); use 

least intrusive methods 

Same as (3) 

Pest Management and Disease Prevention and Control—Relocation or removal of organisms that threaten human health or survival of native fish, wildlife, or plant species; management practices directed at controlling pathogens, such as rabies and parasite control, that threaten fish, wildlife, and people 

Allowed; will not occur except where severe resource damage is likely or where public health and safety are jeopardized; chemical control requires a pesticide-use permit 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Fishery Restoration—Actions taken to restore fish access to spawning and rearing habitat or actions taken to restore populations to historic levels; includes harvest management, escapement goals, habitat restoration, stocking, egg incubation boxes, and lake fertilization 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Fishery Restoration Facilities—Fisheries facilities may be permanent or temporary and may include hatcheries, fish ladders, fish passages, fish barriers, and associated structures 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) 

except any new facilities must be temporary 

Same as (1); see Wild River special management provisions 

Fishery Enhancement—Activities applied to a fish stock to supplement numbers of harvestable fish to a level beyond what could be naturally produced, based on a determination or reasonable estimate of historic levels 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Fishery Enhancement—Facilities may be permanent or temporary and may include hatcheries, egg incubation boxes, fish ladders, fish passages, and associated structures 

May be authorized; normally will not occur unless stocks have been reduced or are threatened 

Same as (1) Same as (1) 

except any new facilities must be temporary 

Same as (1);see Wild River special management provisions 

Native Fish Introductions—Movement of native fish species within a drainage on the Refuge to areas where they have not historically existed. 

May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-70 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Nonnative Species Introductions—Introduction of species not naturally occurring within a watershed 

Not allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Subsistence Fishing, Hunting, Trapping, and Berry Picking—The taking of fish and wildlife and other natural resources for personal consumption, or as provided by law 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Collection of House Logs and Firewood—Harvesting live standing timber greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height for personal or extended family use 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Collection of House logs and Firewood—Live trees less than 3 inches diameter at breast height and dead standing or down timber for personal or extended family use 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Collection of House Logs and Firewood—Live trees 3 through 6 inches diameter at breast height for personal or extended family use 

Southern refuges—May be authorized; Northern refuges—allowed if less than 20 trees/year, otherwise may be authorized 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Collection of Other Plant Materials—Harvesting trees less than 6 inches diameter at breast height for trapping and other purposes; harvesting grass, bark, other plant materials used as food, in making handicrafts, or for other subsistence purposes 

Allowed; a special-use permit may be required for the harvest of live standing timber 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Access—Use of snowmachines, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for subsistence purposes 

Allowed; subject to reasonable regulation (50 CFR 36.39 [c][2][iii]) 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Temporary Facilities—Establishment and use of tentframes, shelters, and other temporary facilities and equipment directly related to the taking of fish and wildlife 

Allowed; subject to limitations; a specialuse permit may be required (50 CFR 36.39 [c][2][iii]) 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Subsistence Cabins See CabinsPublic Access (restrictions subject to provisions of Section 1110 of ANILCA; access for subsistence purposes discussed in SuNonmotorized Foot Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Dogs and Dog Teams Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Other Domestic Animals—Includes horses, mules, llamas, and other domestic animals 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Bicycles—Includes all types of bicycles (e.g., road, BMX, mountain) 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Nonmotorized Boats—Includes canoes, kayaks, rafts, etc. 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Motorized Motorboats—Includes inboard and outboard motor-powered boats, including jet boats; does not include jet-driven personal watercraft, air boats, and air-cushion vehicles 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Jet Powered Personal Water Craft—Jet skis 

Note: Direction on use of personal watercraft is on hold pending development of a by the Division of Refuges 

Highway Vehicles Allowed on all-weather 

roads 

May be allowed on designated roads 

Not allowed Same as (3) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-72 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Off-Road and All-Terrain Vehicles—Includes airboats and air-cushion vehicles. 

May be allowed on designated routes or areas or by special-use permit 

Same as (1) Not allowed; 

except as specified in Section 811 of ANILCA. 

Same as (3) 

Airplanes—Fixed-wing aircraft such as float planes and wheeled planes 

Allowed subject to reasonable regulations 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Helicopters—Includes all rotary-wing aircraft *Note: The use of helicopters for recreation access is under consideration in the revision of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges plans. This direction may be changed through this revision process. 

May be authorized. Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Snowmachines (Snowmobiles)—A self-propelled vehicle intended for offroad travel primarily on snow and having a curb weight of not more than 1,000 pounds (450 kg), driven by track or tracks in contact with the snow (50 CFR 36.2; (U.S. Government 1996-2003) 

Allowed during periods of adequate snow cover. 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Public-Use and Recreation and Outreach Activities—Note: also see Access section Hunting*, Fishing*, Trapping, Walking, Hiking, Camping at Undeveloped Sites, Wildlife Observation*, and Dog Sledding Note: *priority public use 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Horseback Riding Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Wildlife Photography* and General Photography—also see Commercial Uses Note: *priority public use 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Boating and Snowmachining—Motorized and nonmotorized boating and snowmachining (excluding air boats and air-cushion vehicles); also see Access

Allowed if a traditional activity or for access to conduct a traditional activity 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Interpretation*, Environmental Education*, and other Outreach Activities Note: *priority public use 

Allowed; developed facilities and materials may be provided on site 

Same as (1) Same as (1); 

facilities and materials generally not provided on site 

Same as (3) 

Public-Use and Recreation Facilities Recreation-Use Facilities—Facilities provided by the Service 

May be allowed; facilities designed for comfort and convenience of user; flush toilets and electrical hook-ups common; synthetic materials often used; formal, sophisticated interpretive facilities available 

May be allowed; facilities designed for resource protection and user comfort; contemporary/ rustic design of facilities; interpretive services often informal but on site 

May be allowed; rustic/ rudimentary improvements necessary for public health and safety or resource protection only 

Same as (3); see Wild River special management provisions 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-74 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

All-Weather Roads—and associated developments, including bridges 

May be allowed Same as (1); 

constructed and maintained to a lesser standard than under (1) 

Not allowed Same as (3) 

Unimproved Roads May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) ORV/ATV Trails/Routes May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (1) Roadside Exhibits/Waysides May be allowed Same as (1) Not applicable Not applicable Constructed and Maintained Airstrips 

May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 

Cleared Landing Strips and Areas—maintenance of existing airstrips and landing areas

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Constructed Hiking Trails—Including bridges, boardwalks, trailheads, and related facilities 

May be allowed; generally designed to be fully accessible and developed and maintained to a high standard. 

May be allowed; designed equally for resource protection and visitor comfort 

May be allowed; lesser development, primarily for resource protection 

Same as (3) 

Designated Hiking Routes—Unimproved and unmaintained trails; may be designated by signs, cairns, and/or on maps. 

Allowed; may be signed 

Same as (1) Allowed; signs 

only where necessary for public health and safety 

Same as (3) 

Boat Launches/Docks—Designated sites for launching and storing watercraft 

May be allowed; may be fully developed and include related facilities such as parking areas, docks, toilets, etc. 

May be allowed; may include parking areas and toilets 

May be allowed; with minimal development (e.g., primitive toilets) 

Same as (2); see Wild River special management provisions 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-76 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Visitor Contact Facilities—A variety of staffed and unstaffed facilities providing information on the refuge and its resources to the public; facilities range from visitor centers to kiosks and signs 

May be allowed; full range of facilities may be developed 

Visitor centers not allowed; other small, typically unstaffed facilities may be allowed 

Allowed; informational signs only 

Same as (3) 

Campgrounds—Developed sites accessible by highway vehicles 

May be allowed; may be highly developed (including toilets, dump stations, picnic tables, pull-through sites, group sites, etc.) 

May be allowed; lesser level of development 

Not allowed Same as (3) 

Hardened Campsites—Areas where people can camp that are accessible by vehicle or on foot but where the only facilities provided are for public health and safety and/or resource protection; may include gravel pads for tents, hardened trails, and/or primitive toilets 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Temporary Facilities—Includes tent frames, caches, and other similar or related facilities; does not include cabins. See also Subsistence, Administrative Facilities, and Commercial Uses

Allowed: subject to criteria listed in Management Policies and Guidelines and in 50 CFR 36.39 [c][2][iii]; a special-use permit may be required 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Cabins (and other related structures such as outdoor toilets, food caches, storage sheds, and fish drying racks) Public-Use Cabin—A cabin administered by the Service and available for use by the public; intended only for short-term public recreational use and occupancy 

Existing cabins allowed to remain; new cabins may be allowed 

Same as (1) Existing cabins 

allowed to remain; new cabins may be allowed if essential for public health and safety and no reasonable alternative site exists 

Same as (3); see Wild River special management provisions. 

Administrative Cabin—Any cabin primarily used by refuge staff or other authorized personnel for the administration of the refuge 

May be allowed Same as (1) May be allowed 

only if essential for the health and safety of employees and no reasonable alternative site exists 

Same as (3); see Wild River special management provisions. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-78 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Subsistence Cabin—Any cabin necessary for health and safety and to provide for the continuation of ongoing subsistence activities; not for recreational use 

Existing cabins allowed to remain, a special-use permit is required; new cabins may be authorized if no reasonable alternative site exists 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Commercial Cabin—Any cabin that is used in association with a commercial operation, including commercial fishing activities and recreational guiding services 

Existing cabins allowed to remain, a special-use permit is required; new cabins may be authorized if no reasonable alternative site exists 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); see 

Wild River special management provisions 

Other Cabins—Cabins associated with authorized uses by other government agencies 

May be allowed Same as (1) May be allowed 

only if essential for the health and safety of employees and no reasonable alternative site exists 

Same as (3); see Wild River special management provisions. 

Administration Facilities (for a detailed discussion of building requirements for administrative facilities, see Chapter 3, Section 

Plan) 

Administrative Field Camps—Temporary facilities used by refuge staff and other authorized personnel to support individual (generally) field projects; may include tentframes and temporary/ portable outhouses, shower facilities, storage/maintenance facilities, and caches 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); only 

if no reasonable alternative sites exist 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Administrative Field Sites—Permanent facilities used by refuge staff or other authorized personnel for the administration of the refuge; includes administrative cabins and related structures (see Cabins) and 

larger multifacility administrative sites necessary to support ongoing field projects, research, and other management activities; temporary facilities, to meet short-term needs, may supplement the permanent facilities at these sites 

Use of existing sites allowed to continue, including replacement of existing facilities as necessary; new sites may be allowed 

Same as (1) Same as (1) 

except new sites allowed only if required to meet management objectives, essential for health/safety of employees, and no reasonable alternative site exist; new facilities minimum required to meet long-term needs 

Same as (3) except new sites only allowed if no reasonable alternative site exists; any new site restricted to administrative cabin and related structures only; see Wild River special management provisions. 

Refuge Administrative Office Complex—Facilities necessary to house refuge operations, outreach, and maintenance activities, and associated infrastructure; includes staff offices, storage, maintenance, and other facilities, parking lots, and so forth 

May be allowed Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) 

Hazardous Materials Storage—Sites including appropriate structures and equipment necessary for the storage and transfer of fuels and other hazardous materials used for administrative purposes; must be in compliance with all Federal and state requirements 

May be allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); 

storage of 55-gallon drums or smaller containers only; see Wild River special management provisions 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-80 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Residences—Residential housing for refuge staff and their families; includes single and multifamily dwellings 

May be allowed Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) 

Bunkhouses—Quarters to house temporary and similar employees, volunteers, visitors, and other agency personnel 

May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 

Boat Launching Sites/Docks See Public Use 

Facilities

Float Plane Bases—Designated sites for docking and storage of floatequipped aircraft 

May be allowed Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 

Aircraft Hangars—Facilities for storage of aircraft 

May be allowed Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) 

Radio Repeater Sites—Sites used to maintain radio communications equipment; may include helispots for access 

May be allowed subject to reasonable regulation 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); see 

Wild River special management provisions. 

Commercial Uses (does not include Subsistence use; see Subsistence section of this table. Except as specifically noted, a wri

the form of a special-use permit or other document, is required for economic use of a refuge.) 

Mineral Exploration and Development Surface Geological Studies—Includes surface rock collecting and geological mapping activities (includes helicopter or fixed-wing access) 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Geophysical Exploration/Seismic Studies—Examination of subsurface rock formations through devices that set off and record vibrations in the earth; usually involves mechanized surface transportation, but may be helicopter-supported; includes studies conducted for the Department of the Interior 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Core Sampling—Using helicoptertransported motorized drill rig to extract subsurface rock samples; does not include exploratory wells; includes sampling conducted for Department of the Interior 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Other Geophysical Studies—Helicopter-supported gravity and magnetic surveys and other minimal impact activities that do not require mechanized surface transportation 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Oil and Gas Leasing—Leasing, drilling, and extraction of oil and gas for commercial purposes; includes all associated above- and below-ground facilities 

May be authorized Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) 

On-Shore Support Facilities for OffShore Oil and Gas Development May be authorized Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-82 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Sale of Sand, Gravel, and Other Common Variety Minerals—Extraction of sand, gravel, and other saleable minerals for commercial purposes; includes noncommercial use by Federal, state, and local agencies 

May be authorized Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 

Other Mineral Leasing—Includes the extraction of coal, geothermal resources, potassium, sodium, phosphate, sulfur, or other leaseable minerals for commercial purposes 

Not allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Mining of Hardrock Minerals

—

Development of valid (pre-ANILCA) mining claims (lode, placer, and mill sites) on refuge lands for the purpose of extracting hard-rock minerals. 

Allowed; only on valid claims 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Commercial Recreation—Includes all forms of guiding, including those operated by nonprofit, educational, and other noncommGuiding and Outfitting May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Transporting May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Fixed-wing Air Taxis May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Helicopter Air Taxis—*Note: The use of helicopters for recreation access is under consideration in this revision of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges Plan. This varies by alternative and may be changed through this revision process. 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Bus/Auto Tours May be authorized Same as (1) Not applicable Not applicable Other Commercial Activities Commercial Filming, Video, and Audio-taping 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Grazing Not allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Agriculture (Commercial) Not allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) Commercial Fishery Support Facilities—At or below 1979 levels 

Allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Commercial Fishery Support Facilities—Above 1979 levels 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); see 

Wild River special management provisions 

Seafood Processing May be authorized Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) Mariculture Support Facilities May be authorized Not allowed Same as (2) Same as (2) Commercial Timber and Firewood Harvest 

May be authorized Same as (1); if 

authorized as part of fire management plan or project burn plan 

Same as (2) Same as (2); see 

Wild River special management provisions. 

Commercial Gathering of Other Refuge Resources 

May be authorized Same as (1) Not allowed Same as (3) 

Transmission Lines/Pipelines—Includes telephone and electrical power lines, oil and gas pipelines, and other necessary related facilities; does not include facilities associated with on-refuge oil and gas development 

May be authorized Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-84 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR D

Activity Intensive Management 

(1) 

Moderate 

Management (2) 

Minimal 

Management (3) 

Management of 

Wild Rivers (4) 

Navigation Aids and Other Facilities—Includes air and water navigation aids and related facilities, communication sites and related facilities, facilities for national defense purposes and related air/water navigation aids, and facilities for weather, climate, and fisheries research and monitoring; includes both private and government facilities 

Existing and new facilities allowed; subject to reasonable regulation 

Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1); see 

Wild River special management provisions. 

Major Hydroelectric Power Development—Hydroelectric dams creating a change in streamflow with an elevation change and reservoir behind the dam 

Not allowed Same as (1) Same as (1) Same as (1) 

Small Hydroelectric Power Development—Hydroelectric generation by low-head or instream structures that do not change the flow of the river 

May be authorized Same as (1) Not Allowed Same as (3) 

Notes: Shaded rows and columns describe activities or management categories that currently do not occur on the Refuges. 

 Management activities undertaken by the Service or by volunteers, cooperators, or contractors working for the Service, with lim

from compatibility review (Part 603, Compatibility, of the Service Manual; USFWS). 

 The term “temporary” refers to any structure or other human-made improvement that can be readily and completely dismantled 

when the period of authorized use terminates. 

 Management of activities occurring on navigable waters will be coordinated with the appropriate state agency. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-85

2.6 Process Employed to Develop 

Alternatives 

Three alternatives were developed—in compliance with NEPA, 

ANILCA, and other pertinent laws—to respond to the 

significant issues and to meet refuges purposes. Alternatives 

take an interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving by 

considering the physical, biological, economic, and social effects 

of the proposed actions on the environment. 

Regulations require that a plan “rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” (40 CFR, 

Section 1502.14a). A reasonable alternative achieves, in large 

part, the agency’s defined purpose and need and addresses 

significant issues. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.73, issues of concern to the 

public were identified from responses to three planning updates 

and three sets of public meetings. Alternatives were developed 

to meet refuge goals and to respond to those issues. Each major 

issue, activity, and management concern was evaluated and 

addressed for each alternative. The comments received span a 

wide range of approaches to the different issues. Our 

development of draft alternatives encompasses the range of 

responses received. 

Each alternative was designed to respond to the issues 

identified during scoping and encompasses a range of options 

for addressing each issue. In addition to responding to public 

comments and interest, each of the alternatives must be 

responsive to numerous laws and regulations and to the mission 

and goals of the Service and of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The purposes of the Refuges and the Refuge System 

mission provide a focus for actions that could be considered. 

Each alternative embraces regional management direction 

presented in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. Section 2.7 discusses 

those elements considered necessary for each alternative. 

2.7 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

 Each of the alternatives would abide by the purposes for 

which the Refuges were established, as set forth in sections 

302 and 303 of ANILCA. 

 Local residents would have access and priority to Refuges 

resources for the purposes of subsistence, as determined by 

law. 

 The Refuges would conform with all other Federal laws and 

regulations. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-86 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

 Fish and wildlife would be protected and maintained in their 

natural diversity. 

 Traditional uses of the Refuges would continue to be 

allowed. 

 Opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence activities, 

scientific research, hunting, fishing, and other wildlifeoriented recreation activities would be maintained. 

 Most of the Refuges would be maintained in a relatively 

undeveloped state. 

 Disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and populations 

would be minimal. 

 Public use of the Refuges would be allowed using existing 

access methods. 

Two alternatives were developed based on the issues identified 

during scoping and on Refuges purposes, Refuges goals, and 

administrative direction. 

Actions that would be incompatible with the purposes of the 

Refuges or the Refuge System were not considered in detail. 

Section 2.8 discusses the alternatives eliminated from detailed 

study. 

Goals and objectives are an integral part of each alternative. 

Whereas goals describe broad, general direction for the 

Refuges, objectives provide specific measurable ways to direct 

projects and to determine how well those projects have attained 

the intent of the alternative. Refuge goals do not vary; they are 

common to all alternatives. Objectives are presented in Section 

2.2 with the pertinent goals. Several objectives vary from those 

depicted earlier; those are discussed where they occur. 

2.8 Alternatives Considered, But 

Eliminated from Detailed 

Study 

Three alternatives for providing management direction to the 

Refuges were considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration. These alternatives and the reasons for not 

considering them in detail are discussed here. 

2.8.1 Access Restrictions 

In response to Issue 1 (How should we address recreational 

access to remote and sensitive areas?) and Issue 2 (How can 

conflicts between refuge user groups be minimized?), some 

members of the public suggested taking action to limit, restrict, 

or prohibit recreational access to the Refuges. In particular, a 
 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-87 

number of people suggested limits to or prohibition of motorized 

methods of access. 

An alternative focusing on such limits was dropped from 

detailed consideration for several reasons. ANILCA specifically 

allows for motorized access to refuges in Alaska, subject to 

reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of 

the refuge. Data on recreational use trends demonstrate that 

use levels are not increasing uniformly; in fact, use in many 

locations has either been steady or declining. There is no 

evidence that the impacts of recreational uses are threatening 

progress toward meeting Refuge purposes. 

At this time, the Refuges do not have necessary data on the 

relationships between use patterns and resulting impacts to 

calculate the level and type of restrictions. Some alternatives 

propose increased monitoring of recreational use at key 

locations. Access to the Refuges via helicopters is being 

addressed as an issue. Finally, recreational use of the Refuges is 

limited, where needed, through other methods. For example, 

state and Federal managers have closed the Refuges to the 

recreational hunting of caribou until caribou populations 

recover sufficiently. 

2.8.2 Activity Restrictions 

In response to Issue 2 (How can conflicts between refuge user 

groups be minimized?), an alternative that would prohibit or 

limit hunting and fishing on the Refuges was suggested by 

several members of the public. This alternative would have 

banned all hunting and fishing, limited hunting and fishing to 

subsistence only, and/or placed limitations on catch-and-release 

fishing. This alternative was eliminated from detailed 

consideration because it would require a change in the law and 

to the purposes of the Refuges. 

Subsistence use is one of the purposes of the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof Refuges. Hunting and fishing are traditional 

activities on the refuge that have been found to be compatible 

with refuge purposes and are regulated by the State of Alaska. 

ANILCA provides for the continuation of traditional activities 

on the Refuges and stipulates that they may be restricted only 

to protect resource or other values of the Refuges. When limits 

on recreational or subsistence hunting or fishing are necessary 

to protect wildlife populations, regulations on subsistence 

hunting on refuges are determined by state and Federal 

managers (as is currently the case for caribou hunting on the 

Refuges). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1 

2-88 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

2.8.3 Special Area Designations 

Alternatives that would have recommended to Congress 

additional areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System or National Wild and Scenic River System 

were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration (see 

Section 1.8 and Figures 3–16, 3–17 and 3–18). The Refuge has a 

recommendation for Wilderness designation from the original 

conservation plans. That recommendation for 890,100 acres will 

remain in effect unless withdrawn by the Director or until such 

time as a recommendation is submitted to Congress. 

Wilderness and river-related values are discussed in Chapter 3, 

but recommendations for additional designations are not 

included as alternatives for management in any of the 

alternatives. The current and proposed management direction 

provides adequate protection for any wilderness or river-related 

values until such time as the plan is revised. 

2.9 Alternative 1— 

Continue Current 

Management 

This is the “No-Action” alternative, as required by NEPA. It 

describes what would happen with a continuation of current 

management activities and serves as a baseline against which to 

compare other alternatives. Figure 2–2 depicts where the 

different management categories are applied on the Refuges 

under Alternative 2. 

The following subsections describe how this alternative would 

affect the major management concerns. 

2.9.1 Management Direction 

Management of the Refuges would continue to follow the 

current course of action, as identified and described in the 

records of decision for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans, as amended by the Public 

Use Management Plan of 1994. The ranges and intensities of 

management activities would be maintained. Private and 

commercial uses of the Refuges would be unchanged. Refuge 

management would continue to reflect existing laws, executive 

orders, regulations, and policies governing Service 

administration and operation of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

This alternative would continue to protect and maintain the 

existing wildlife values and natural diversity on the Refuges. 

Human disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and 

populations would be minimal. Public use of the Refuges 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-89 

employing existing methods of access would continue to be 

allowed. Opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence 

activities, research, and hunting, fishing, and other wildlifedependent activities would be maintained. 

The management directions described subsequently, combined 

with those described earlier in this chapter and in Section 2.7, 

form the elements of this alternative. The following boxed 

information describes how this alternative would address each 

issue. 

How Alternative 1 would address the issues: 

Issue 1: How should we address recreational access to remote and sensitive areas? All rivers and 

lakes would remain accessible to motorboats. Snowmachines would continue to be allowed. 

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use would continue throughout the Refuges. Fixed-wing aircraft 

landings would not be limited. Primitive airstrips would remain open to airplanes, and all 

lakes currently accessible to airplanes would remain open. Helicopter landings for 

recreational purposes could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Sensitive or remote areas of 

the Refuges have not been mapped. 

Issue 2: How can conflicts between refuge user groups be minimized? Studies of public use would be 

conducted as needed to respond to concerns. No objectives for specific sites have been 

established. 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Helicopter landings for recreational purposes may be 

allowed outside of the Wilderness Area on a case-by-case 

basis. 

 3,364,600 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 9,100 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed in the designated 

Wilderness Management category. 

 387,400 acres would be managed in the Cooperative 

Management category (this includes 23,700 acres where 

cooperative management and designated Wilderness 

overlap). 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-90 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Figure 2–2. Alternative 1 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-91 

General Refuge Management

Four management categories would continue to be applied to 

lands within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges: 

Moderate, Minimal, Wilderness, and Cooperative Management. 

The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area, a 9,100-acre 

area that includes the Yantarni Bay airstrip, would continue to 

be managed in the Moderate Management category, as 

designated by the 1994 Public Use Management Plan. The 

Becharof Wilderness Area, a 502,900-acre portion of the 

Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, would be managed as 

designated Wilderness. Cooperative management would be 

applied to 387,400 acres within the Refuges. The remaining 

3,364,600 acres of Federal lands within the Refuges boundary 

would be managed in the Minimal Management category. 

Native corporations have selected 399,600 surface acres of the 

Refuges; these would be managed in the same manner as the 

surrounding lands until their status is finalized. Table 2-2 

displays the acreages of land in each category for this 

alternative. 

Table 2-2. Management category designations in Alternative 1 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuges 

Moderate Management 9,100 0.2 

Minimal Management 3,364,600 79 

Wilderness Management 502,900 12 

Cooperative Management 387,400a 9 

Total Service administered 4,240,300 100 

a Includes 23,700 acres of existing designated Wilderness 

Fish and Wildlife Management

The Refuges’ objectives for wildlife under Goals 1 and 2 (Section 

2.2), are directed toward monitoring a diverse group of species, 

including moose, caribou, wolves, bears, waterfowl, bald eagles, 

seabirds, shorebirds, and songbirds. This monitoring will 

provide baseline information for the ongoing management of 

wildlife populations on the Refuges. Current funding levels 

allow for basic inventory and monitoring. As funding levels and 

resources permit, proactive inventory and monitoring will be 

conducted to expand knowledge of the fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Subsistence Management

Management would continue as described previously in Refuge 

Management Direction (Section 2.3). ANILCA stipulates that 

rural Alaska residents who are engaged in a subsistence 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1

2-92 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

lifestyle are allowed to use refuge resources for traditional 

purposes. The noncommercial gathering by local residents of 

plant materials for subsistence uses is allowed without a specialuse permit. Many aspects of subsistence management are 

beyond the control of this Plan. The Refuges would work with 

the state and other Federal agencies in harvest- and resourcemonitoring programs. The Refuges would continue the Refuge 

Information Technician program, hiring local residents to serve 

as conduits of information to and from the villages. 

Public-Use Management Plan

Management would continue as described previously in Refuge 

Management Direction and in the Refuges’ 1994 Public-Use 

Management Plan. Most visits to the Refuges would be for 

subsistence uses or for hunting, fishing, or other wildlifedependent recreation. Fixed-wing aircraft landings would not 

be limited. Airplanes would continue to be allowed to land on 

sand blows, gravel bars, waterbodies, and the few primitive 

airstrips that exist. All rivers and lakes would remain open to 

motorboats. Helicopter landings for recreational use would be 

prohibited within the Becharof Wilderness and could be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis elsewhere on the Refuges. 

Snowmachines and powerboats would be allowed throughout 

the Refuges. Off-road vehicles would be allowed throughout the 

Refuges for subsistence purposes and would be limited only to 

protect resources. Off-road vehicles for recreational and 

commercial purposes would be limited to established trails in 

the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area. No public-use 

cabins or other facilities or hardened trails would be developed 

for recreational use. Public-use monitoring and management 

would continue to be mainly reactive, focused on investigating 

reports of conflicts and impacts. 

The opportunity for continued subsistence use is one of the 

Refuges’ purposes and would continue to be a management 

priority. As specified in the Refuge Improvement Act, wildlifedependent recreation would be a priority general public use; 

these recreation activities are defined as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. These uses would be allowed and facilitated as 

long as they remained compatible with refuge purposes and the 

Refuge System mission. Recreation would be managed to 

provide opportunities for high-quality experiences, as defined 

by Service policy. Unless superceded by the Federal 

Subsistence Board, the state would continue to have the 

authority for setting regulations for recreational harvest of fish 

and wildlife. 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-93 

The next sections summarize the Refuges’ Public-Use 

Management Plan (PUMP) as it is currently being 

implemented. This level of detail is required because the revised 

Conservation Plan will incorporate any new direction in 

managing public use no matter which alternative is adopted. No 

separate PUMP will be developed later. 

Access

Sensitive Wildlife Area 

Bears—All areas would remain open for people to view bears. 

Detailed public information, including recommendations and 

precautions for visitors (such as how to behave around bears), 

would continue to be provided. Areas providing opportunities 

for viewing bears and other wildlife would be identified. Impacts 

of use on sensitive bear areas would be monitored. 

Seabirds—Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Eskimos and 

Indians may take, at any season, auks, auklets, guillemots, 

murres, and puffins; their eggs for food; and their skins for 

clothing. The birds and eggs cannot be sold or offered for sale. 

Alaska Natives may take scoters at any time for food but not for 

sale. 

Other migratory birds—The 1916 Convention for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States, 

as implemented by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, prohibited 

spring and summer hunting for migratory birds. The treaty 

called for a closed season in both countries between March 10 

and September 1; hunting was allowed under Federal and state 

regulations at other times of the year. In 1997, the treaty was 

amended to allow subsistence harvest of migratory birds for 

certain indigenous inhabitants of Alaska. In the Bristol Bay 

region, hunting is allowed for selected waterfowl, seabirds, 

shorebirds, loons, and owls. 

Eagles—Eagles are managed under the Bald Eagle Protection 

Act and related regulations. 

Caribou—Hunting is allowed, subject to state and Federal 

regulations. As described in Chapter 3, caribou in game 

management units 9C and 9E are currently under state Tier II 

hunting restrictions, reflecting the decline of the caribou herd. 

Pack Animals 

The private use of pack animals—such as horses, llamas, or 

dogs—would be allowed by the general public. As of January 

2004, only dogs (both pack dogs and dog teams) are used on the 

Refuges, although this use is minimal. Commercial use of pack 

animals on the Refuges would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. If approved, measures to protect resources and avoid 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1

2-94 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

conflict with other users would be included in the special-use 

permit. 

Motorboats 

Motorboat access (including jet boats) would be allowed in the 

Refuges, as specified by ANILCA. Use would be monitored to 

determine if additional management action is needed. 

Aircraft 

Aeronautical charts recommend avoiding flight below 2,000 feet 

above ground level, except during take-off and landing 

approach. There would be no limits on fixed-wing aircraft 

landings within the Refuges. Conflicts between hunters using 

aircraft and subsistence hunters using boats have been reported 

in the Becharof Lake area, near King Salmon, and near Port 

Heiden. Helicopter access for recreational uses would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis and allowed by special-use 

permit outside of the Becharof Wilderness. 

Off-Road Vehicles 

A winter route over the frozen surface of Big Creek was 

approved in the Becharof Conservation Plan, but regulations 

were not developed because the ORV route was apparently on 

waters that could be determined navigable and would, 

therefore, potentially be under state jurisdiction. Under current 

state and Federal hunting regulations, the Naknek River 

drainage upstream from and including the King Salmon Creek 

drainage is closed, from August 1 through November 30, to the 

use of any motorized vehicle except an aircraft, boat, or 

snowmachine for hunting; this closure includes transportation of 

hunters, their hunting gear, and/or parts of game. However, this 

does not apply to motorized vehicles on the Naknek, King 

Salmon, Lake Camp, and Rapids Camp roads; on the Pike 

Ridge and King Salmon Creek trails; and on the frozen surfaces 

of the Naknek River and Big Creek. 

Off-road vehicle use for subsistence (by three- and four-wheel 

vehicles with a vehicle weight of 650 pounds or less) would 

continue to be allowed and monitored to ensure there are no 

adverse effects on Refuges resources. Should adverse effects be 

detected or appear to be likely in the near future, procedures 

outlined in 50 CFR 36.12 (U.S. Government 1996–2003) would 

be followed to take appropriate action. 

At the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area, the airstrip, a 

trail to the beach, and a trail to the “oil well site” would be 

designated (on the old gravel roadbeds) for year-round ORV use 

(Figure 2–5). 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-95 

As authorized by ANILCA, snowmachine access would be 

allowed when there is adequate snow cover. 

Airboats are included in the Fish and Wildlife Service definition 

of off-road vehicles. They would not be allowed on Refuges 

lands and waters, but would be allowed on navigable waters 

within the boundaries of the Refuges. 

2.9.2 Guided and Unguided Public Use 

Special-use permits would be required for all commercial uses 

of the Refuges, including all types of guiding and air-taxi 

services. Separate permits would be required for big-game 

guiding/outfitting and guiding for recreational angling. There 

would be no limits on the number of air-taxi permits or where 

air taxis may operate unless a need for such limits was 

documented through monitoring; additional public involvement 

would be conducted as part of that process. 

Recreation visitors would be encouraged to use areas of the 

Refuges where subsistence use does not regularly occur. Public 

use at Becharof Lake outlet, and other locations as appropriate, 

would be monitored seasonally. 

Practice of “Leave-No-Trace” outdoor ethics would be 

encouraged. Leave No Trace consists of seven key practices: 

plan ahead and prepare; travel and camp on durable surfaces; 

dispose of waste properly; leave what you find; minimize 

campfire impacts; respect wildlife; and be considerate of other 

visitors. 

Enforceable regulations that address littering, especially 

littering that attracts bears, would be prepared as needed with 

input from the state and others. Barrier-free access would be 

provided at facilities (for example, the visitor center). The 

Refuges would encourage the guiding industry to provide 

opportunities for physically challenged visitors. 

Other than reserved sites authorized by special-use permits 

during the fall hunting season (August 1 through November 15), 

camping would be limited to seven nights per site at the 

following locations, as specified in 50 CFR Part 36.39(c) (U.S. 

Government 1996–2003): 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline of Becharof Lake 

in the Severson Peninsula area (Island Arm) 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline at Becharof Lake 

outlet 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline at Ugashik 

Narrows 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1

2-96 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

 Within one-quarter mile of Big Creek 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline of Gertrude Lake 

 Within one-quarter mile of Gertrude Creek between 

Gertrude Lake and the King Salmon River 

After seven nights, camps would be required to be moved a 

minimum of one mile. Impacts of camping elsewhere on the 

Refuges would be monitored to determine if additional 

management is necessary. Currently, there are no limits on 

party size. These camping limits would not apply to subsistence 

users except at one of the areas: Big Creek. These camping 

limits also would not apply to state-owned shorelands or 

tidelands. 

Voluntary registration or other special management would be 

considered for some areas of the Refuges, including the 

sensitive wildlife areas previously identified, the Ukinrek Maars 

area, archaeological sites, Gertrude Lake, Ruth Lake, old oil 

wells, and World War II aircraft crash sites. Additional sites 

could be identified in the future. The purpose of special 

management would be to ensure that, prior to visiting, people 

using these areas have appropriate information about the 

resources and safety precautions. 

Big-Game Guiding/Outfitting

In 1992, the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted an Alaska-wide 

policy for big-game guides/outfitters. The policy established 

new guide areas and a process for competitively selecting 

guides to operate within these areas. Implementation began 

with the 1993 guiding season. As of January 1, 2004, 26 biggame guide permittees are authorized to operate within the 

Refuges. The Refuges have the same permit requirements as 

other Alaska refuges (e.g., requiring guides to report the area 

and intensity of use). Permits are actively managed; the 

Refuges staff conducts compliance checks and other oversight 

actions. 

Hunting

As expressed in the Master Memorandum of Understanding 

(Appendix B), the Service recognizes that the state has primary 

responsibility to manage resident wildlife within the State of 

Alaska, and the Service will use the state regulatory process to 

the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. A separate rulemaking process would be required to exert Federal jurisdiction. 

Recreational Fishing and Guided Recreational Fishing 

Guided recreational fishing would be authorized within the 

Refuges. A five-year monitoring program would be developed as 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-97 

staffing and funding levels permit, and its findings would be 

used to determine any needed additional management actions. 

New recreational fishing base camps would not be authorized on 

Refuges lands until the monitoring program has been 

completed, which is scheduled for 2006. 

Limits on the amount of recreational fishing at critical areas 

(such as the Becharof Lake outlet) could be proposed on an 

interim basis during the monitoring program if serious 

problems are detected. Limits would be proposed through 

regulation of fishing by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The 

Service recognizes that the state has primary responsibility to 

manage fish, and it will use the state regulatory process to the 

maximum extent allowed by Federal law. A separate-rule 

making process would be required to establish special refuge 

regulations. 

Currently, there are no limits on the number of recreational 

fishing guides authorized. A competitive process would be used 

to allocate permits in the future if there is a need to limit the 

number of guides and/or facilities within areas of the Refuges. 

Improved public information on appropriate fishing 

techniques—such as catch and release—would be provided. 

2.9.3 Facility Development and Use 

Trails and Campsites

Trails would not be constructed. Hikers would be encouraged to 

use certain designated routes with differing levels of challenge, 

as described in brochures. Hiking in areas where there are no 

conflicts with wildlife and/or subsistence use would be 

encouraged. No campsites would be developed within sensitive 

wildlife areas. Campsites could be hardened and designated if 

the need is demonstrated. 

Easements

The Refuges would work with Service Realty personnel and 

local Native corporations to field-check and update the database 

of ANCSA 17(b) easements, develop GIS maps of easements, 

and establish signs onsite as needed. Additional direction for 

easements was described previously in Section 2.3.7. 

Cabins

There would be no public-use cabins. If private cabin permits 

terminate and if the Federal Government assumes ownership, 

cabins would be removed or converted to subsistence use, safety 

cabins, or administrative cabins. Permits for construction of new 

cabins would be considered only for subsistence use and would 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1

2-98 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

be subject to case-by-case compatibility determinations and 

environmental analysis. 

Administrative cabins would be constructed at the Ugashik 

Narrows area and the Yantarni Bay airstrip as funding permits. 

The Refuge has obtained an annual cooperative agreement for 

administrative use of the Bible Camp facility to run the 

Becharof Science Camp. 

Temporary Facilities

Use of temporary facilities would be allowed only for the period 

of activity authorized. Permit holders would be required to 

report the beginning and end of seasonal occupancy and any 

period of non-use. Reclamation bonds would be required. 

Temporary facilities would be required to be screened, to the 

extent practicable, from general public view and access points. 

Facilities (including the tent frames) would be colored to blend 

into the surrounding landscape as much as possible, but white 

wall tents would be allowed. 

Appropriate food storage methods would be required when the 

facility is occupied; no food caches would be authorized while the 

facility is not occupied. Fuel caches would be allowed in 

compliance with Fish and Wildlife Service policy. New 

temporary facilities, other than for subsistence purposes, would 

be prohibited within one-quarter mile of the Becharof Lake 

shoreline. 

New temporary facilities would be prohibited in some areas 

because they would constitute a significant expansion of existing 

facilities detrimental to the purposes for which the refuges were 

established, especially subsistence activities and hunting and 

fishing (50 CFR 36.39([c][4][ii]; U.S. Government 1996–2003). 

These areas receive heavy public use and are located close to 

communities and/or contain a substantial number of existing 

facilities: 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline of Big Creek 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shorelines of Gertrude Lake 

and Long Lake 

 Within one-quarter mile of the airstrip at the confluence of 

Gertrude Creek and the King Salmon River 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline of Upper and 

Lower Ugashik lakes 

 Within one-quarter mile of the shoreline of Becharof Lake 

outlet 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-99 

2.9.4 Information and Education 

Because of the lack of developed visitor facilities on the 

Refuges, interpretive and educational efforts would occur 

primarily in King Salmon or in surrounding villages rather than 

onsite. The Refuges’ public-use staff would manage and operate 

the King Salmon Visitor Center, located in a leased building at 

the airport in King Salmon, in cooperation with the National 

Park Service, Bristol Bay Borough, and Lake and Peninsula 

Borough. The visitor center would be expanded to provide 

outreach environmental education programs at nonrefuge 

facilities. Land-status information would be available at the 

visitor center. 

The Refuges would have an active education and outreach 

program. The Refuges would provide a visiting interpreter 

program for off-refuge facilities such as lodges. Environmental 

education programs would focus on the national Refuge System, 

the purposes for which Refuges were established, and 

significant resource management issues. The Refuges would 

also promote conservation of geese and waterfowl through the 

Western Alaska Goose Calendar Contest and the Alaska Junior 

Federal Duck Stamp Contest. The Refuges would conduct 

additional programs and activities for special events and 

occasions such as National Wildlife Refuge week, National 

Wildlife Week, International Migratory Bird Day, and National 

Fishing Week. 

The environmental education plan would be modified, if 

necessary, to comply with the public-use plan and would be 

implemented subject to availability of funds. The Refuge 

Information Technician program would continue. 

Commercial Services

Commercial transporters and guides would continue to be 

administered through special-use permits. Big-game hunting 

guides are limited in number. Twenty-six big-game guide 

permittees are authorized to operate within the Refuges as of 

January 1, 2004. There are 21 guide areas on the Refuges (six in 

Becharof Refuge, seven in Ugashik Unit, and eight in Chignik 

Unit). Guides may be permitted to hunt in more than one area. 

Several areas are “joint-use areas” and are used by more than 

one guide. Guides compete for permits through formal 

proposals that are evaluated by the Service. Permits for guiding 

recreational anglers and for commercial transporters are not 

limited. Proposals for helicopter operations have not been 

approved in the past, but would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 1

2-100 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Refuge Infrastructure and Administration

Several of the buildings in use at the King Salmon office 

compound date to 1939, when the Bureau of Commercial 

Fisheries established the site. Although some buildings have 

been constructed and others have been updated throughout the 

years, the facility is dated and not adequate for today’s needs. 

Several buildings do not meet current state building codes. 

Facilities associated with the Refuges and plans for construction 

would not vary by alternative. An administrative building at the 

King Salmon office compound was constructed during 2002 to 

replace the existing space. Other off-refuge projects planned 

for, but not yet scheduled include the following: 

 Construction of new bunkhouse 

 Construction of a duplex residence 

 Construction of a maintenance shop at the office compound 

 Construction or lease of administrative facilities and hangar 

space in the Chignik Unit 

 Coordination with partners to ensure that a permanent 

visitor center facility is provided in King Salmon 

Projects planned on the Refuges, but not yet scheduled, include 

construction/replacement of administrative cabins at Ugashik 

Narrows or Island Arm and at the Yantarni Bay airstrip. A 

complete facility inventory and description of needed facilities is 

presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.6. 

In addition to refuge-owned administrative facilities, two 

permitted administrative cabins, owned by the State of Alaska 

(ADF&G) are within the Refuges: one at Orzinsky Bay and 

another on the Egegik River near the outlet of Becharof Lake. 

2.9.5 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

In fiscal year 2003, Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges had 

a staff of 13 permanent, three permanent part-time seasonal, 

two seasonal employees, and four volunteers, with a base 

budget of $1,794,000. To maintain the current situation in the 

short term (less than 3 years) a continuation of this present 

level of funding adjusted for inflation would be required. Longterm budget and staffing goals (3–15 years) provide for 

implementation of projects identified in the Centennial Legacy 

Plan and in the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) to 

accomplish refuge objectives as well as to accommodate 

anticipated increases in subsistence and recreational demands. 

These needs will not vary by alternative. 
Alternative 1 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-101 

Currently identified essential staffing, mission-critical projects, 

and an increase in recurring base funds to implement this 

alternative over the life of this Plan include the following: 

 10 new permanent full-time positions 

 33 projects 

 An increase of $2,439,000 in recurring base funds 

In addition to continuing current management, short-term 

projects would develop plans and infrastructure to implement 

long-term goals. 

Seasonal employees and volunteers play an important role in 

the refuge personnel program. Numbers of seasonal employees 

and volunteers could vary considerably from year to year 

depending upon projects but would likely increase with 

increases in budgets. Budget and staffing requirements to 

implement this alternative are presented in Table 2-3. Budget 

and staffing levels required to implement all the alternatives are 

compared in Table 2-10. 

Table 2-3. Budget and staffing needs for Alternative 1 

Item Short-Term Implementation 

(<3 years) 

Long-Term Implementation 

(3–15 years) 

Annual Budgeta $1,794,000 $4,233,000 

Permanent Employees 13 23 

Permanent Part-Time Employees 3 4 

Seasonal Employeesb 2 7 

Seasonal Volunteersb 4 8 

a Based on FY 2003 dollars 

b Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers would probably increase but would vary from year to 

year. 

2.10 Elements Common to Action 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (the “action alternatives”) share some 

common elements. This section describes those common 

elements that would apply regardless of the alternative 

selected. If Alternative 2 or 3 is selected by the regional director 

after evaluating the draft and final Environmental Impact 

Statements, the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges would 

include management direction described in this section as well 

as specific direction described in the selected alternative. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-102 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

With implementation of any action alternative the following 

would occur: 

 Levels of public-use monitoring would increase above 

current levels. 

 Levels of wildlife inventories and monitoring would increase 

above current levels. 

 Cooperative Management would no longer be defined as a 

distinct management category. It is regional policy to 

cooperate with the state and with private landowners within 

and adjacent to the Refuges regardless of the applicable 

management category. Essentially, this broadens the 

concept so that all management categories include elements 

of Cooperative Management. 

2.10.1 Wildlife 

The Refuge’s objectives for wildlife under Goals 1 and 2 (Section 

2.2) are directed toward inventorying and monitoring a diverse 

group of species, including moose, caribou, wolves, bears, 

waterfowl, bald eagles, seabirds, shorebirds, and songbirds. 

This monitoring will provide valuable information for the 

ongoing management of wildlife populations on the Refuges as 

well as for responding to catastrophic events. Law-enforcement 

activities would be expanded to include dedicated patrols, 

investigations, and education and outreach. 

Wildlife Habitat

Understanding wildlife habitat characteristics such as 

distribution, quality, and availability is instrumental to 

understanding changes in wildlife populations. The objectives 

for wildlife habitat were established to develop the necessary 

information and tools for a basic understanding of wildlife 

habitat on the Refuges. 

Fish

The objectives for fish management described in Section 2.2 

were designed to increase understanding of, and ability to 

manage, important fish populations on the Refuges. The 

objectives address species and drainages that are important not 

only for subsistence, commercial, and recreational uses, but also 

for their contribution to the ecological integrity of the Refuges. 

Public Use and Access 

New public-use objectives were designed to increase the level of 

monitoring of public use at identified locations on the Refuges 

and to increase the Refuges’ ability to enforce existing 

regulations. Initially, monitoring would focus on several 
Alternative 2 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-103 

locations where recreational angling is either increasing or has 

the potential to affect resources and opportunities (including the 

quality of the angling experience). The goal would be to allow 

managers to detect conflicts, crowding, or other declines in 

quality or impacts to resources while the problems are still 

fairly minor and could be corrected. This new information would 

allow site-specific recreational use objectives to be developed so 

that managers could measure progress toward desirable social 

and resource conditions, or lack thereof. 

As specified in the Refuge Improvement Act, wildlife-dependent 

recreation would be a priority general public use; these 

activities are hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. These uses 

would be allowed and facilitated as long as they remained 

compatible with refuge purposes and the Refuge System 

mission. The Refuges would be managed to provide 

opportunities for high-quality recreation experiences in 

generally natural wildland settings. 

More emphasis would be placed on ensuring that opportunities 

for quality recreation were being provided on the Refuges. The 

attributes of a quality experience for recreational fishing, 

hunting, and other wildlife-dependent activities can be found in 

emerging Fish and Wildlife Service policy. They include 

providing activities that are safe; contribute to refuge 

objectives; minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife 

populations or habitats; encourage high standards of ethical 

behavior; are available to a broad spectrum of the public, 

including those with disabilities; are uncrowded; minimize 

conflicts with other users; provide reasonable challenge; and 

increase understanding and appreciation for the resources. 

2.11 Alternative 2 

The management directions described subsequently, combined 

with those described in Sections 2.5 (Summary of Management 

Direction), 2.7 (Elements Common to All Alternatives), and 2.10 

(Elements Common to All Action Alternatives) form the 

elements of this alternative. Figure 2–3 depicts this alternative. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-104 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Figure 2–3. Alternative 2 
Alternative 2 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-105 

2.11.1 Management Direction 

With Alternative 2, there would be changes in the way lands are 

managed, how the public can access the Refuges, and in the 

emphasis of public-use monitoring and wildlife inventories and 

studies. The following graphic (grayed box) describes how this 

alternative would address the issues. If this alternative is 

implemented, the following would take place: 

 Helicopter landings for recreational purposes would be 

prohibited in sensitive resource areas, at sensitive times, or 

where remoteness was a primary quality of the area. 

Landings could be considered in other areas. 

 Mapping of sensitive and remote areas would be done within 

five years of enactment of this Plan (see Section 1.9.1 for 

information about sensitive and remote areas). 

 3,728,300 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 9,100 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed in the Wilderness 

Management category. 

How Alternative 2 would address the issues: 

Issue 1: How should we address recreational access to remote and sensitive areas? All rivers and 

lakes would remain accessible to motorboats. Snowmachines would continue to be allowed. 

ORVs would continue to be allowed for subsistence purposes throughout the Refuges. 

Fixed-wing aircraft landings would not be limited. Primitive airstrips would remain open to 

airplanes, and all lakes currently accessible to airplanes would remain open. Sensitive and 

remote areas of the Refuges would be mapped prior to allowing helicopter landings. 

Helicopter landings for recreational purposes could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

Issue 2: How can conflicts between refuge user groups be minimized? Public-use monitoring would 

be at higher levels than with current management. Studies of public use would be 

conducted to allow development of site-specific objectives. 

General Refuge Management

Management would continue as with Alternative 1. The 

Cooperative Management category would not be used. Table 2-4 

displays the acreages in the various management categories. 

Table 2-4. Management category designations in Alternative 2 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuges 

Moderate Management 9,100 0.2 

Minimal Management 3,728,300 87.9 

Wilderness Management 502,900 11.9 

Cooperative Management 0 0 

Total Service Administered 4,240,300 100 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 2 

2-106 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Fish and Wildlife Management 

Monitoring and research would be increased above current 

levels. 

Subsistence Management 

Unchanged from Alternative 1. 

Public Use Management Plan

Management would continue, with few changes, as described in 

Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 and the Public Use Management Plan 

portion of Alternative 1. Public-use monitoring and law 

enforcement activities would be at higher levels than under 

current management to ensure that recreational use remains 

compatible and that quality of the experience does not decline. 

The results would be used to identify objectives for specific 

sites, something that is not currently done. 

Alternative 2 would continue to allow for the possibility of 

recreational access by helicopter on the Refuges. Refuge staff, 

in cooperation with the state, would develop criteria and identify 

sensitive habitats, time periods, and areas in which helicopter 

landings for recreational purposes would be prohibited to 

minimize impacts to resources. Those criteria would be 

designed to ensure that helicopter access for recreational 

purposes would not be allowed in sensitive resource areas or in 

areas where remoteness is a value to be managed for. These 

criteria would be applied, in addition to compatibility and other 

determinations, to all new forms of motorized access that may 

be developed during the life of this Plan. The objective that 

would be added to those in Section 2.2 is as follows: 

In order to provide opportunities for the recreational access by 

the use of helicopters on the Refuges, develop criteria to identify 

and designate nonsensitive areas by 2007. 

Commercial Services

Levels of law-enforcement activities, education, and monitoring 

would be increased; otherwise commercial services would 

remain unchanged from Alternative 1. 

Refuge Infrastructure/Administration

No change from Alternative 1. 

2.11.2 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

To implement Alternative 2 in the short term (less than three 

years), an increase in funding and staffing above the FY 2003 

level would be implemented by FY 2005 to allow for increased 

levels of inventory and monitoring. Additional funding of 
Alternative 2 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-107 

$223,000 and staffing of two permanent full-time (one lawenforcement officer and public-use specialist and one biologist), 

one permanent part-time (biologist and public-use specialist), 

and two seasonal (biologist) employees would be needed. This 

would require a budget of $2,017,00 and total staffing of 15 

permanent; four permanent part-time and four seasonal 

employees; and six volunteers. 

Long-term budget and staffing goals (3–15 years) provide for 

implementation of projects identified in the Centennial Legacy 

Plan and the RONS to accomplish refuge objectives as well as to 

accommodate anticipated increases in subsistence and 

recreational use demands. These needs will not vary by 

alternative. Currently identified essential staffing, missioncritical projects, and an increase in recurring base funds to 

implement this alternative over the life of this Plan include the 

following: 

 10 new permanent full-time positions 

 33 projects 

 An increase of $2,439,000 in recurring base funds 

In addition to continuing current management, this alternative 

would provide for short-term projects to develop plans and 

infrastructure to implement long-term goals. Seasonal 

employees and volunteers play an important role in the 

Refuges’ personnel program. Numbers of seasonal employees 

and volunteers could vary considerably from year to year 

depending on projects but would likely increase with increases 

in budgets. 

Budget and staffing requirements to implement this alternative 

are presented in Table 2-5. Budget and staffing levels required 

to implement all the alternatives are compared in Table 2-10. 

Table 2-5. Budget and staffing needs for Alternative 2 

Item Short-Term Implementation 

(<3 years) 

Long-Term Implementation 

(3–15 years) 

Annual Budgeta $2,017,000 $4,456,000 

Permanent Employees 15 25 

Permanent Part-Time 

Employees 

4 4 

Seasonal Employeesb 4 10 

Seasonal Volunteersb 6 12 

 The short-term implementation level of staffing and funding would be implemented in FY 2004. 

a Based on FY 2003 dollars 

b Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers would probably increase but would vary from year to year. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives Alternative 3 

2-108 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

2.12 Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

This alternative incorporates the management directions 

described subsequently, combined with those described in 

Sections 2.5 (Summary of Management Direction), 2.7 

(Elements Common to All Alternatives), and 2.10 (Elements 

Common to All Action Alternatives) to form the elements of this 

alternative. Figure 2–4 depicts this alternative. 

2.12.1 Management Direction 

Alternative 3 would continue management generally as with 

Alternative 1 except that the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management area (Figure 2–5) would be reduced in size, and 

helicopter landings would not be allowed. 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Helicopter landings for recreational purposes would not be 

allowed. 

 The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area would be 

reduced from 9,100 acres to 4,000 acres. 

 3,733,400 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 4,000 acres would be managed in the Moderate 

Management category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed as designated Wilderness. 

How Alternative 3 would address the issues: 

Issue 1: How should we address recreational access to remote and sensitive areas? All rivers and lakes 

would remain accessible to motorboats. Snowmachines would continue to be allowed. ORVs 

would continue to be allowed for subsistence purposes throughout the Refuges. Fixed-wing 

aircraft landings would not be limited. Primitive airstrips would remain open to airplanes, and 

all lakes currently accessible to airplanes would remain open. Helicopter landings for 

recreational purposes would not be allowed. 

Issue 2: How can conflicts between refuge user groups be minimized? Public-use monitoring would be 

at higher levels than with current management. Studies of public use would be conducted to 

allow development of site-specific objectives. 
Alternative 3 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Dire

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Figure 2–4. Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-110 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Figure 2–5. Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area 
Alternative 3 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 2-111 

General Refuge Management 

Management would continue as with Alternative 1, except that 

the boundaries of the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area 

would be revised to use geographic boundaries and to recognize 

that the unique character of some of the area would be better 

protected as Minimal Management (Figure 2–5). This would 

reduce the size of the Moderate Management area to 4,000 from 

9,100 acres. All trails where ORV use is currently authorized 

are within the 4,000-acre area and would be unaffected by this 

change. Table 2-6 presents the acreages for Alternative 3. 

Table 2-6. Management category designations in Alternative 3 

Management Category Acreage Percentage of Refuges 

Moderate Management 4,000 0.1 

Minimal Management 3,733,400 88.1 

Wilderness Management 502,900 11.9 

Cooperative Management 0 0 

Total Service Administered 4,240,300 100 

Fish and Wildlife Management

Monitoring and research would be increased above current 

levels 

Subsistence Management

Unchanged from Alternative 1. 

Public Use and Access Management

Management would continue, with few changes, as described in 

Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 and the Public Use Management Plan 

portion of Alternative 1. Public-use monitoring and lawenforcement activities would be at higher levels than under 

current management to ensure that recreational use remains 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuges and that the 

quality of the experience does not decline. The results of 

monitoring would be used to identify objectives for specific 

sites, which is not currently done. Use of helicopters for 

recreational access would not be allowed on the Refuges. 

Commercial Services

Levels of law-enforcement activities, education, and monitoring 

would be increased; otherwise commercial services would 

remain unchanged from Alternative 1, except that use of 

helicopters for access for recreational activities would not be 

allowed. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternative Alternative 3

2-112 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Refuge Infrastructure and Administration

No change from Alternative 1. 

2.12.2 Funding and Personnel Requirements 

To implement Alternative 3 in the short term (less than three 

years), an increase in funding and staffing above the FY 2003 

level would be implemented to allow for increased levels of 

inventory and monitoring. Additional funding of $177,000 and 

staffing of two permanent full-time (one law-enforcement officer 

and public-use specialist and one biologist), one permanent parttime (biologist and public-use specialist), and two seasonal 

(biologist) employees would be needed. This would require a 

budget of $1,884,000 and total staffing of 15 permanent, three 

permanent part-time and four seasonal employees; and six 

volunteers. 

Long-term budget and staffing goals (3–15 years) provide for 

implementation of projects identified in the Centennial Legacy 

Plan and the RONS to accomplish refuge objectives as well as to 

accommodate anticipated increases in subsistence and 

recreational demands. These needs will not vary by alternative. 

Currently identified essential staffing, mission-critical projects, 

and an increase in recurring base funds to implement this 

alternative over the life of this Plan include the following: 

 10 new permanent full-time positions 

 33 projects 

 An increase of $2,439,000 in recurring base funds 

In addition to continuing current management, short-term 

projects would include developing plans and infrastructure to 

implement long-term goals. Seasonal employees and volunteers 

play an important role in the Refuges’ personnel program. 

Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers could vary 

considerably year to year, depending on projects, but would 

likely increase with increases in budgets. Budget and staffing 

requirements to implement this alternative are presented in 

Table 2-7. Budget and staffing levels required to implement all 

the alternatives are compared in Table 2-10. 
 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Draft Conservation Plan 2-113 

Table 2-7. Budget and staffing needs for Alternative 3 

Item Short-Term Implementation 

(<3 years) 

Long-Term Implementation 

(3–15 years) 

Annual Budget $1,971,000 $4,310,000 

Permanent Employees 15 25 

Permanent Part-Time 

Employees 

4 4 

Seasonal Employeesb 4 8 

Seasonal Volunteersb 6 12 

a Based on FY 2003 dollars 

b Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers would probably increase but would vary from year to year. 

2.13 Summary Comparison of 

Alternatives 

Funding for Alternative 1 would require a continuation of the 

current level of funding (adjusted for inflation) to support the 

current staffing level. Funding for Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

require increases above the current level to support an increase 

in staffing. Table 2-10 presents the budget and staffing levels 

(FY 2001 dollars) required to implement each of the 

alternatives. Additional personnel and funding needs are 

identified in the RONS. These needs are updated annually and 

are not detailed in this plan. 

The following tables compare the alternatives by major topic. 

Table 2-8. Comparison of acreages in the various management categories by alternative 

Category (acres) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred 

Intensive Management 0 0 0 

Moderate Management 9,100 9,100 4,000 

Minimal Management 3,364,600b 3,728,300b 3,733,400b

Wilderness 502,900 502,900 502,900 

Cooperative Managementd 387,400a,c 0 0 

Total lands administered by Service 4,240,300 4,240,300 4,240,300 

 Acreages were developed by Arc/Info analysis of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land status maps. 

These areas have not been surveyed. Acreage figures may change over time as data sources 

improve. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land status maps were derived from Bureau of Land 

Management Master title plats. 

a Includes Becharof Lake and Upper and Lower Ugashik lakes. 

b Includes only Federal lands. 

c Includes 23,700 acres of designated Wilderness. 

d Cooperative Management merges with Minimal Management for Alternatives 2 and 3. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

2-114 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 2-9. Comparison of alternatives 

Comparison 

Item 

Alternative 1 

Current Condition 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Preferred 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Management 

Existing plan does not 

provide focused 

direction for fish and 

wildlife management. 

Provides goals and 

objectives for increasing 

our knowledge of wildlife 

and habitat needs and 

relationships through 

increases in monitoring and 

research 

Same as Alternative 2 

Conflicts 

Between User 

Groups 

Administration of 

public use is reactive; 

goals and objectives 

are needed for 

facilitation of wildlifedependent recreation, 

subsistence, and other 

uses. 

Conflict areas would be 

actively monitored with 

results used to facilitate 

wildlife-dependent 

recreation, subsistence, and 

other traditional uses in a 

manner that minimizes 

conflicts between user 

groups. 

Provides clearer goals and 

objectives for facilitating 

wildlife-dependent 

recreation, subsistence, 

and other traditional uses 

in a manner that 

minimized conflicts 

between user groups. 

Helicopter 

Landings for 

Recreational 

Access 

Helicopter landings for 

recreational access may 

be allowed, outside of 

designated Wilderness, 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Helicopter landings for 

recreational access not 

allowed in sensitive or 

remote areas; may be 

considered in other areas. 

Helicopter landings for 

recreational access not 

allowed. 

Yantarni Bay 

Moderate 

Management 

Area 

9,100 acres in size. 

Existing access and 

uses continued. 

Same as Alternative 1 4,000 in size. Existing 

access and uses continued. 

Boundary adjustment 

reflects relocation to 

geographically identifiable 

features while including 

all off-road vehicle trails 

and areas of moderate 

use. 

Table 2-10. Summary of budget staffing needs 

Item Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Preferred 

Implementation Period ShortTerm 

LongTerm ShortTerm LongTerm ShortTerm LongTerm 

Annual Budget (millions)a $1.794 $4.233 $2.017 $4.456 $1.971 $4.41 

Permanent Employees 12 22 14 24 14 24 

Permanent Part-Time Employees 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Seasonal Employeesb 2 7 4 10 4 8 

Seasonal Volunteersb 4 8 6 12 6 10 

 Short-term = less than five years 

 Long-term = 5–15 years 

a Based on FY 2003 dollars 

b Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers would probably increase, but would vary from year to year. 
 Chapter 2: Refuge Management Direction and Alternatives 

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Draft Conservation Plan 2-115 

2.14 References Cited 

Bayha, K., S. Lyons, and M.L. Harle. 1997. “Strategic Plan for 

Water Resources Branch.” WRB-97-1. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Realty. 25 pp. 

DOI. 1955–. “Departmental Manual.” Accessed June 5, 2003. At 

http://elips.doi.gov on the World Wide Web, 

produced by U.S. Department of the Interior. 

(Loose-leaf report kept up to date by numbered 

releases.) 

Harle, M.L. 1994. “Water resources threats analysis.” 

Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Water Resources Branch. 30 pp. plus 

appendices. 

State of Alaska. “Alaska Administrative Code.” Accessed June 

4, 2003, 2003. At 

http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/aac.htm on the 

World Wide Web, produced by Alaska Legal 

Resource Center. Source last updated January 6, 

2003. 

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

Accessed June 4, 2003. At 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/crf/cfr-tablesearch.html#page1 on the World Wide Web, 

produced by Office of the Federal Register, 

National Archives and Records Administration. 

Source last updated April 14, 2003. 

USFWS. “Service Manual.” Accessed June 4, 2003. At 

http://policy.fws.gov/manual.html on the World Wide 

Web, produced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

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

4, 2003, 2003. At http://www.policy.fws.gov/614fw1.html

on the World Wide Web, produced by U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1994. “Native American Policy.” National Policy 

Issuance #94-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 11 pp. (Policy signed on 

June 28, 1994; issued as national policy on 

August 24, 1994.)